New BBC soap

In article , Indy Jess John
wrote:
On 25/07/2019 20:27, Pamela wrote:
On 17:53 25 Jul 2019, Indy Jess
wrote:

The existing electronic facilities at Lowestoft are well proven and
will work for the Irish border. That is why the EU insisted it
wouldn't work, so that it couldn't be mentioned in the "agreement".

Lowestoft isn't an external border of the EU. Nowhere in the world nor
in Boris's wildest dreams is anything like the required ultra-high tech
border in operation. It's pure unicorns in sunny uplands. A fantasy.

Of course Lowestoft is an external border of the EU. Britain is
currently part of the EU and container ships from both EU countries and
the rest of the world arrive in Lowestoft. It has a high tech border in
operation, and has done for many years.

You can hunt unicorns if you like; I deal in facts.

However, The border between the North & South of Ireland is rather
different - hundreds of crossing points - both official & unofficial, for a
start, and very few goods will be in shipping containers. Are there
passenger ferries at Lowestoft?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 25/07/2019 21:51, charles wrote:

However, The border between the North& South of Ireland is rather
different - hundreds of crossing points - both official& unofficial, for a
start

So we ignore the unofficial crossing points on the grounds that there
are many hundreds of beaches and landing points around the UK where
those who want to avoid controls on imports and exports can do so; and
the EU isn't concerned about them so why (other than to be bloody
awkward) would they worry about any similar on the Irish border.

As for the official crossing points, the same arrangements as are in use
at Lowestoft can be used on the Irish border; it just needs more cameras
and some extra infrastructure to connect to them.

Jim

On 25/07/2019 20:23, Pamela wrote:
On 17:30 25 Jul 2019, John Williamson wrote:-
The total number will remain much the same.

I would rather have Portuguese or Polish workers in this country than
Nigerians or Indians.

I couldn't care less where they come from as long as they speak and
understand English. The vote in 2016 was partly and incorrectly promoted
as being able to stop *all* immigration.

--

Tciao for Now!

John.

On 25/07/2019 22:05, Indy Jess John wrote:
So we ignore the unofficial crossing points on the grounds that there
are many hundreds of beaches and landing points around the UK where
those who want to avoid controls on imports and exports can do so; and
the EU isn't concerned about them so why (other than to be bloody
awkward) would they worry about any similar on the Irish border.

As for the official crossing points, the same arrangements as are in use
at Lowestoft can be used on the Irish border; it just needs more cameras
and some extra infrastructure to connect to them.

None of which will help when a farmer mows a field in the UK and stores
the result in a barn in Eire or vice versa.

There is one bus company I know of who operate school buses in the UK
and Eire, who have built a private road from their garage and workshop
in Eire, so they can claim the buses are based and licenced in the UK,
where they join the public highway and where mail is sent to their UK
address.

The border in Ireland is messy and will be impossible to police effectively.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , John Williamson
writes
None of which will help when a farmer mows a field in the UK and stores
the result in a barn in Eire or vice versa.

There is one bus company I know of who operate school buses in the UK
and Eire, who have built a private road from their garage and workshop
in Eire, so they can claim the buses are based and licenced in the UK,
where they join the public highway and where mail is sent to their UK
address.

The border in Ireland is messy and will be impossible to police effectively.

Is this all that much different from the USA where different states have
different taxes?
--
Bill

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Pamela
writes
On 12:10 25 Jul 2019, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , Pamela
writes:
On 11:12 25 Jul 2019, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
[]
Where would you put the clarification, though? Certainly not the
ballot paper, which would become quite a sizeable booklet. Some would
argue that the consequences _were_ discussed, at length; I might not
agree, but I'm not sure where such detail _would_ be put. You could
argue that things like the infamous bus _not_ be allowed, but then you
get the "free speech" argument.

The summary doesn't have to be all that long but it needs to be on the
ballot paper so a voter can instantly see what they're voting for.

Voters can cope with some info as countries which have a lot of detail
on their ballot papers have shown.

I think getting the information right - such that it wasn't open to
challenge by the opposing parties - would be near impossible. (I don't
know how other countries manage.) In the case of Brexit, there'd be
argument both over what to include (Irish border? Fishing? Technical
standards [if so which]?), and what to actually say under each such
heading.

Almost anything is better than the highly ambiguous options in the last
referendum:

"Remain a member of the European Union" "Leave the European Union"

I don't think those - as just a two-choice list - are ambiguous at all!

The choice may have been a simple binary one but exactly what does each
option entail? Some voters thought "Leave the European Union" included a
life on sunny uplands and unicorns at every corner.


Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one.

(Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?)

The choice was perfectly clear. Those who voted to remain knew exactly
what they were voting for, and how it could be achieved (ie it would
require no work at all).

But had no way of knowing what the EU would morph into in the future.

Those who voted to leave also knew exactly what they were voting for - but
most had no idea whatsoever about how it would be achieved,

That's a lie with the majority who wanted a no deal brexit.

or what it's impact in the UK would be.

Just as true of staying in the EU.

[And despite three years of ramifications and malarkey, many still don't.]

But they will come 29-Oct.

"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 16:50 25 Jul 2019, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

In message , Pamela
writes:
On 11:12 25 Jul 2019, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
[]
Where would you put the clarification, though? Certainly not the
ballot paper, which would become quite a sizeable booklet. Some would
argue that the consequences _were_ discussed, at length; I might not
agree, but I'm not sure where such detail _would_ be put. You could
argue that things like the infamous bus _not_ be allowed, but then
you get the "free speech" argument.

The summary doesn't have to be all that long but it needs to be on the
ballot paper so a voter can instantly see what they're voting for.

Voters can cope with some info as countries which have a lot of detail
on their ballot papers have shown.

I think getting the information right - such that it wasn't open to
challenge by the opposing parties - would be near impossible. (I don't
know how other countries manage.) In the case of Brexit, there'd be
argument both over what to include (Irish border? Fishing? Technical
standards [if so which]?), and what to actually say under each such
heading.

Almost anything is better than the highly ambiguous options in the last
referendum:

"Remain a member of the European Union" "Leave the European Union"

I don't think those - as just a two-choice list - are ambiguous at all!

They aren't. What pamela *really* wants is to have all 400 (500? 600?
700?) pages of the WA included with every ballot paper.

If Brexit meant more immigrants, which is what Boris is saying today,

That’s a lie.

then
voters should have been told what they were voting for at the time.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:41:40 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the senile Ozzie pest's latest troll****

....and much better air in here!

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 25/07/2019 17:15, Pamela wrote:

If Brexit meant more immigrants, which is what Boris is saying today,
then
voters should have been told what they were voting for at the time.

What it will mean is fewer EU immigrants, but more from the rest of the
world. The leave campaign mentioned the former, but not the latter, but
the work still has to be done, and many of the jobs filled by immigrants
are ones that the British refuse to do for the wages offered.

The total number will remain much the same.

There will obviously be fewer of those who don’t work
and who are provided with houses for the wife and kids.

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
On 25/07/2019 17:15, Pamela wrote:
On 16:50 25 Jul 2019, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

In message , Pamela
writes:
On 11:12 25 Jul 2019, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
[]
Where would you put the clarification, though? Certainly not the
ballot paper, which would become quite a sizeable booklet. Some would
argue that the consequences _were_ discussed, at length; I might not
agree, but I'm not sure where such detail _would_ be put. You could
argue that things like the infamous bus _not_ be allowed, but then
you get the "free speech" argument.

The summary doesn't have to be all that long but it needs to be on the
ballot paper so a voter can instantly see what they're voting for.

Voters can cope with some info as countries which have a lot of detail
on their ballot papers have shown.

I think getting the information right - such that it wasn't open to
challenge by the opposing parties - would be near impossible. (I don't
know how other countries manage.) In the case of Brexit, there'd be
argument both over what to include (Irish border? Fishing? Technical
standards [if so which]?), and what to actually say under each such
heading.

Almost anything is better than the highly ambiguous options in the
last
referendum:

"Remain a member of the European Union" "Leave the European Union"

I don't think those - as just a two-choice list - are ambiguous at all!

They aren't. What pamela *really* wants is to have all 400 (500? 600?
700?) pages of the WA included with every ballot paper.

If Brexit meant more immigrants, which is what Boris is saying today,
then
voters should have been told what they were voting for at the time.




Boris has always supported immigration.
It shows how much out of touch brexiteers are if they thought he would
reduce it.

Of course most of the EU migrants are exactly that migrants and not
immigrants while the RoW are generally immigrants and not migrants.

Expect the number of "foreigners" staying to go up a lot.

How odd that so many chose to leave after the referendum result.