brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

It is where they are attempting to escape to that is relevant.
If they have escaped from Syria and made it to Turkey (which is a safe Country), they are refugees. If they then try to get into Greece, they are illegal immigrants and should be repelled. You can only be considered a refugee at the 1st safe Country you arrive at. If you try to get into another Country, you are an economic chancer. Hopefully, this is simple enough for you to understand.
45 immigrants were arrested by the Greek authorities trying to penetrate part of the border. None were Syrian and all were from safe Countries. They were beaten up, had all their possessions taken and sent back. A wasted opportunity as they should have been shot.

Brexit (the topic of this thread) is so obviously about far more issues of infinitely greater complexity than immigration, yet immigration / freedom of movement seems to be the only or main subject to which you refer.

There is a litany of economic, trading, cultural, security and defence, crime prevention, aviation and other transportation issues and many more that will all have to be discussed during these expensive, long drawn out and doubtless acrimonious negotiations and the outcome of none of them is at all clear.

As it is (and as I mentioned), NAO estimates that UK has already spent some £4.4bn on preparations for Brexit and, with at least 100 people on the UK side set to continue negotiations for at least the next 297 days (and possibly very much longer, subject to how they pan out and how they might be impacted upon by virus developments), that cost is set to increase considerably.

I note, incidentally, that, although you are critical of the amounts that UK has sent to EU while a full member state, you have so far omitted to comment on this incredibly high burden on the UK taxpayer.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://www.facebook.com/Memes4EU/photos/a.1029684940504353/1625911840881657/?type=3&theater

There may be arguments and counter-arguments about the veracity of this but, in the meantime, there is likely not a great deal of smoke without fire...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We shall see. Looks like Remaoner lies and they come thick and fast.
Immigration is the most important issue facing the EU at the moment. Merkle is notable by her absence and her stupidity of 2015 will not be repeated.
Before the politicians made the decision, this time it is the people. The Greeks have said a resounding no and for once the rights of the extant population appears to be greater than that of the invaders.
No country wants more illegals and no Country wants more Muslims. They do not integrate and despise us and our way of life.
Close all borders and blow their dingies out of the water.

[ahinton]

We shall see. Looks like Remaoner lies and they come thick and fast.

That's your opinion; were it fact, where might be your supporting evidence?

You imply that Remain supporters speak and write only lies and Brexit ones only the truth; this is a profoundly misplaced generalisation. You rightly note, "we shall see" - though when "we shall see" what remains questionable and looks set to remain so indefinitely.

Immigration is the most important issue facing the EU at the moment.

It is of course important, partly due to the refugee issue which nevertheless faces many more countries than EU's member states.

Sadly, the fake news about immigration into UK and its possible outcomes influenced some to vote for UK to leave EU.

Merkle

Merkel; not to be confused with Markle.

is notable by her absence and her stupidity of 2015 will not be repeated.

The only stupidity here was the failure to secure prior agreement from other EU nations to do the same in proportion; German citizens of extreme right-wing persuasion felt alienated by their government by its disproportionate invitation of such people.

Before the politicians made the decision, this time it is the people.

No. The politicians always make the decisions - right and wrong; in democratic countries, the people elect them and, if they don't like what they do when elected, they can vote them out.

The Greeks have said a resounding no and for once the rights of the extant population appears to be greater than that of the invaders.

Which Greeks? Who ordered Greek police and border control officers to act as they did? They're hardly taking the law into their own hands (with the possible odd exception which, if brought to court, will expose their lawbreaking).

"The rights of the extant population" means those of citizens not only of Greece itself but also of EU, which you deplore, Greece being an EU member state.

The numbers game will ultimately count here; the Greek authorities won't have the power to stem a mass influx. When they recognise that fact (if such influx occurs), they'll doubtless follow Turks' example by turning blind eyes to them crossing their borders with Albania, North Macedonia and Bulgaria (of which the last is an EU member state), knowing that most are not aiming to remain in Greece anyway.

Some 3-4m displaced people in Syria might try to escape that country; that's around one-third of the entire population of Greece!

No country wants more illegals and no Country wants more Muslims. They do not integrate and despise us and our way of life.

Your first statement is correct; the question, however, is what legal status any country might confer upon immigrants. That's something for each country to decide.

Where's your evidence that "no country wants more Muslims"? Have all governments of non-Muslim countries officially declared such? Bear in mind tht there are more than 2bn Muslims in a world whose total  population is around 7.8bn; that means that almost one in four people on the planet are Muslims.

One country that really doesn't want "more Muslims" is its most populous, China; would you condone Chinese "re-eduction programmes" to which it subjects hundreds of thousands of Muslims in order that they "integrate" into a society of which you disapprove?

Some Muslims certainly don't integrate into non-Muslim countries; they should make sufficient effort to do so if they're to live and work permanently in them; on this I suspect we agree. When you write that (all?) Muslims (everywhere?) "despise us and our way of life", whom do you mean by "us" and "our"? The "way of life" in Greece and its neighbouring nations is already quite different, for example, to that in Denmark, the Netherlands and UK.

What of people from, say, France, Canada, UK, Germany, &c.'s duty to integrate when they go to live in Muslim countries such as Malaysia, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia? (and I'm not referring solely to religious issues in those theocracies nations but to the "way of life" in general).

Close all borders and blow their dingies out of the water.

Closure of all the world's national borders would be as impossible as it would be unnecessary.

Would you advocate the erection of some kind of Trumpesque wall between every pair of adjoining nations? That would keep the world's builders in work for centuries!

Those trying to cross a stretch of water with the intent of immigrating illegally into another country have not committed a crime under international or national law until they've landed and made the attempt to immigrate. "Blowing" such craft "out of the water" would accordingly be illegal, whoever does it.

But Brexit is about a whole host of issues other than immigration; immigrations is a matter of concern in almost every country, whereas Brexit is an issue largely confined to UK and the other 27 EU member states.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Sorry, I am not reading all of that. Gave up when you started to spout your far right nonsense.

[ahinton]

Sorry, I am not reading all of that. Gave up when you started to spout your far right nonsense.

Read what you want and don't read what you don't want. Simples.

I do not spout far right nonsense; I am neither of the left nor of the far right.

What I wrote was in response to what you had written. I may disagree with your stances on some things but at least you write intelligently enough to warrant being taken seriously (most of the time!), otherwise I wouldn't bother...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Please don't bother. I release you from all obligations.

[ahinton]

Please don't bother. I release you from all obligations.

Thal, old chap, thanks all the same for the thought but you cannot release me from obligations that you have never imposed upon me in the first place!

I endeavour to engage with you because you raise important issues; when disagreeing with you, I always try to do so in a civil manner and I hope that I have never let either of us down by failing to do so.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Your problem is not civility, it is length.

[ahinton]

Your problem is not civility, it is length.

No, it's neither; it's taking seriously what you write (which merits proper response), whether or not I happen to agree with it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

A proper response doesn't have to be the equivalent of War & Peace.

[ahinton]

A proper response doesn't have to be the equivalent of War & Peace.

Indeed it doesn't but, had I so much as 1% of the literary talent of its author I would be exercising it other than on internet fora!

That said, I try to do my best to address the issues that you raise without skimping over them or pushing any under the carpet; your observations deserve no less.

Anyway, since the number of words appears to bother you, let's see how the post concerned might be subjected to some degree of précis; I've had another go at it for your benefit by revising it down as best I am able. Try it for size if you will.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Much better.
It seems Italy is pissed off with the EU for their complete non assistance.

[ahinton]

Much better.

Thank you.

It seems Italy is pissed off with the EU for their complete non assistance.

There seem to be many shortfalls and discrepancies in this. One cannot help but wonder why Italy has had it so much worse than any other western European country so far. Likewise, though, the same puzzlement could well be directed towards a central/south eastern one - Iran - for the same reason; why so much worse there than in any of its neighbouring states?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

A good reason to keep Iranians out of Europe.
Incidentally, 256 illegals were stopped at a certain point on the Greek border last week. 8 were  from Syria, all were young men under 30.
So much for the helpless refugees..

.

[ahinton]

A good reason to keep Iranians out of Europe.
Incidentally, 256 illegals were stopped at a certain point on the Greek border last week. 8 were  from Syria, all were young men under 30.
So much for the helpless refugees...

Keeping Iranians out of Europe? I presume you to mean people living in Iran, as distinct from Iranians per se who could be living in any country on the planet including UK.

Iran is already in Europe as far as I am concerned.

Would you use your argument re the virus to seek to justify keeping Italians - or rather those living in Italy - out of Europe when they, too, are already in Europe?

That said, 256 is, frankly, peanuts when as many as 3-4m dispossessed people are reckoned to be in Syria from where any of them might try to escape.

I do not deny that people from outside Syria might seek to cross the border from Turkey into Greece but, if they do so, they will almost certainly have had first to cross the border from Syria into Turkey and, before that, across a border from another country - Lebanon (unlikely), Israel (even more unlikely), Jordan (fairly unlikely) or Iraq (perfectly possible but very chancy) - into Syria. Not the easiest or risk-free of journeys, especially given the state of Iraq and Syria.

The untrustworthy Breitbart claims that many trying to enter Greece from Syria via Turkey have travelled from Afghanistan; whilst a few might have done, such a journey would entail crossing Iran, Iraq and Syria to get to the Turkish border and then on to Greece, which seems pretty unlikely; it would be far safer to cross northern Iran into Turkey before trying to enter Greece.

Iran may not be the safest of through routes for foreigners but would be a vastly less risky way to get into Turkey than via Iraq and Syria.

As to young men under 30 being stopped, do you believe that such people cannot by definition be refugees? Have you looked at the parlous state of Syria in recent times?

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

What I find ironically striking about this issue is that in general the right is always up in arms about these migrations.

The right is the side which believes in capitalism. Capitalism requires inequality. The European and US right is far more trigger-happy when it comes to wars.

These people are on the move because of wars and inequality, the very same preconditions which result in migration. I'm not even going to bother putting a moral stance on this, just draw your own conclusions on an entirely pragmatic basis.

[ahinton]

What I find ironically striking about this issue is that in general the right is always up in arms about these migrations.

Well, yes, but that's part of the narrow-minded nationalistic (as distinct from patriotic) stance that represents their resistance to other nations and their cultures and their desire to keep their country "pure" and largely free from the influence of any other.

The right is the side which believes in capitalism. Capitalism requires inequality.

It's not quite so simple as that. The kind of capitalism that is of necessity and by definition predicated upon inequality is a corrupt form thereof and, as such, is not its only possible manifestation. Only the extreme left adopts an anti-capitalist stance yet they never seem to put forward their desired and recommended alternative; "communist" nations have always depended upon capitalism, not only because they trade with capitalist countries but because they maintain their own form of capitalism with the only difference between them and what most would regard as "capitalist" countries rests ith who owns most of the capital.

The European and US right is far more trigger-happy when it comes to wars.

This is sadly true, although trigger-happiness is a disease that is no more confined to Europe and US than Covid19 is confined to anywhere!

These people are on the move because of wars and inequality, the very same preconditions which result in migration. I'm not even going to bother putting a moral stance on this, just draw your own conclusions on an entirely pragmatic basis.

Yes, that is indeed the reason for most of those people's movement although certain people of right-wing persuasion also tend to oppose other manifestations of freedom of movement such as that which exists within the 28 nations of EU wherein no wars are raging even though EU as a whole is by no means free of inequalities.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

These people are on the move because of wars and inequality, the very same preconditions which result in migration. I'm not even going to bother putting a moral stance on this, just draw your own conclusions on an entirely pragmatic basis.

If this was the norm, I would concur, but increasingly, the migrants are not just from Syria but from safe Countries.
Turkey is also a safe Country so migrants who intend to smuggle themselves into The EU, become illegal by default. The vast majority appear to be young men, not helpless women and children.
Hinty struggles with this.

[gep]

Just a random thought here. I always do wonder why people pay something like $10,000 to smugglers to get them into Europe when a fraction of that sum would pay them a passport plus visum and trip to live and work in Europe and start the process of settlement. If there are no reasons to refuse entry, anyone can immigrate to any of the EU countries, and the UK.
 
I am appaled at how the EU 1) does refuse to do anything about the illegal traficking of people from Africa and elsewhere, which earns the smugglers hunderds of millions and costs thousands of people their lives, yet 2) leaves the problems rising from that influx fully on the burden of the countries receiving the migrants, such as Italy and Greece. Now that Erdogan has proven yet again what a utterly untrustworthy piece of trash he is and forces people to try and cross the EU bordes just so he can get some political gain, I saw Von der Leyen hold a speech stating that despite that 'Europe will remain united'. Much greater lies than that, considering the EU's unwillingness to solve the problem and lets some of its members deal with the resulting problems, cannot be told in this matter.

The EU should make illegal imigration impossible as far it can (fight the traffickers, not help them) and turn anyone illegally present in the EU out. It should also guard and control its outer borders, and it should be the obligation of all member states to aid those countries having an outer border. In short, no problem with legal entry, no illegal entry or presence. If those in power remain blind for reality, things will turn ugly, as the the populace at large in the EU is very clearly getting very fed up with its leaders lack of action. It could be the end of the EU, and I must confess that, if the EU leadership maintains it current course of getting less open and less democratic each year, that end might become unavoidable. Where that road may lead was shown some 80 years ago now. 

In haste!

[ahinton]

If this was the norm, I would concur, but increasingly, the migrants are not just from Syria but from safe Countries.

The source that I mentioned earlier https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/03/10/greek-government-only-four-per-cent-of-refugees-breaching-border-are-syrian/?fbclid=IwAR20G9Woa6WHAct9KKj91nBJ4yzF65ql-47G76LANIRe_pEaZgLiutwuIJs - :states

"The vast majority of the migrants detained in Greece, the government claims, are actually Afghans, comprising 64 per cent of the total.

Migrants from Pakistan account for almost a fifth of detainees, at 19 per cent, with migrants from Turkey itself in third place, at 5 per cent.

Syrians are said to be in a distant fourth place, at just four per cent, followed by Somali migrants at 2.6 per cent, with migrants from countries across Asia and Africa including Iraq, Iran, Ethiopia, Morocco, Bangladesh, and Egypt accounting collectively for 5.4 per cent.

The Turkish government disputes the Greek government’s numbers, however, suggesting that well over a hundred thousand migrants have reached Europe, and not only a few hundred as the Greeks suggest."

I can well understand the Turkish government's dispute of these statistics and, if indeed a number well in excess of 100,000 have reached Europe (by which it means western Europe), the handful detained by the Greek authorities are really neither here nor there.

Other than Syria, none of the other countries mentioned by the Turkish authorities has a border with Turkey and some are several borders away, not least Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh; the prospect that most of these people have crossed several borders to get into Turkey and then on to Greece seems not to stand up to logical scrutiny.

Turkey is also a safe Country so migrants who intend to smuggle themselves into The EU, become illegal by default. The vast majority appear to be young men, not helpless women and children.

Hinty struggles with this.

I don't "struggle" with any of this. Whilst Turkey is a good deal safer than some of the countries mentioned, it is far from safe enough for EU to invite it to become a member. As to, for example, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, how "safe" do you really believe them to be and based upon what evidence?

Again, your mention of "young men" as distinct from "helpless women and children" wilfully avoids taking due account of the fact that dispossessed and displaced men, women and children of all ages in a country ravaged by a Civil War that's exacerbaed by foreign intervention are all pretty "helpless" and, when they escape and enter other countries, they are almost all genuine refugees.

Thal struggles with this, although I'm quite sure that he needn't do so...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

When they escape to the first safe Country, they are genuine refugees.
When they smuggle themselves into the EU, they are not.

[thalbergmad]

The EU should make illegal imigration impossible as far it can (fight the traffickers, not help them) and turn anyone illegally present in the EU out. It should also guard and control its outer borders, and it should be the obligation of all member states to aid those countries having an outer border. In short, no problem with legal entry, no illegal entry or presence. If those in power remain blind for reality, things will turn ugly, as the the populace at large in the EU is very clearly getting very fed up with its leaders lack of action. It could be the end of the EU, and I must confess that, if the EU leadership maintains it current course of getting less open and less democratic each year, that end might become unavoidable. Where that road may lead was shown some 80 years ago now. 

In haste!

Never thought i would say this, but 100% agree. Hinty needs to read this as secure in his Country retreat, this is meaningless to him.
The politicians now know for certain that it would be suicide to repeat the stupidity of 2015, and Merkel is now rightly finished.
The rights of the extant population are now as important as the rights of the immigrant.
These illegals should be thrown back into the sea.

[ahinton]

When they escape to the first safe Country, they are genuine refugees.
When they smuggle themselves into the EU, they are not.

So had Turkey been allowed to join EU, you'd have regarded those entering it from Syria as refugees?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Never thought i would say this, but 100% agree. Hinty needs to read this as secure in his Country retreat, this is meaningless to him.

I do not have a "secure country retreat" - and the subject is anything but meaningless to me; had it been so, I would not have written about it.

I agree broadly with gep on this, but the issue where you and I appear to disagree is that of a nation's discretion as to whom it might grant refugee/residential status; anyone without papers entitling entrance to a country is technically an illegal immigrant the moment that he/she steps onto its soil.

Each country is nevertheless entitled to grant residential/citizenship status to anyone who would otherwise be an illegal immigrant; I suspect that you disagree with this principle (although please correct me if I'm wrong about that).

The politicians now know for certain that it would be suicide to repeat the stupidity of 2015, and Merkel is now rightly finished.

As I wrote, the stupidity here was in Germany proceeding unilaterally instead of first securing agreement from other EU nations to follow suit proportionately.

Angela Merkel is still Chancellor of Germany, by the way, amost five years after it did this...

The rights of the extant population are now as important as the rights of the immigrant.

These illegals should be thrown back into the sea.

At whose expense? Some will simply swim back anyway. In so saying, I take you to mean that all those trying to enter a country of which they haven't citizenship or residential entitlement should be refused the right to enter regardless of circumstance; that's where the problem lies.

The very existence of that problem, however, is principally down to wars and their associated infrastructural devastation that render life in certain countries impossible; would you therefore advocate that people in such countries accept that they must wait to be killed there rather than try to escape?

Again, though, the numbers game has it every time. A country like Greece might be able to stop a few hundred or even a few thousand but not many hundreds of thousands, especially as it is not in any case their final intended destination.

Vast swathes of displaced dispossessed people under threat of death have to go somewhere or risk being killed where they are. The only way to stop this is to stop those wars that are principally responsible for giving rise to it.

The Chinese situation is perhaps the principal exception here; it has no Civil War as such yet, should millions of its disaffected and demoralised citizens finally snap and decide that enough is enough, where will they go? - and who would/could stop them?...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

As I wrote, the stupidity here was in Germany proceeding unilaterally instead of first securing agreement from other EU nations to follow suit proportionately.

I fear that the past years have made quite clear what the chances of such agreement are..

those trying to enter a country of which they haven't citizenship or residential entitlement

Anybody with the correct papers can enter a country of their choice, at least if such a country is somewhere near basically civilised (a citizen of Israel wanting to try enter any of the countries on the Saudi-Arabia peninsula, assuming such a person would want to go the to start with, would be refused). For people not having the correct paperwork, the first question is why they do not have it. Someone having to run for his/her life may likely not have had the time to search where he/she put his ID. Someone deliberately throwing such away so his/her identity cannot be checked and hence, under current legislation cannot be sent back once given entry is trying to sabotage the system. It should be made clear which of the two it is. In the latter case, no entry.

If for someone is decided he/she might be granted entry, the next question to be answered then is, in each individual case, why do they wish to enter. Reasons may be legitimate for one but not for another. Not that long ago, a Christian woman from Pakistan had to flee the raving mobs for allegedly ‘insulting the Prophet’. She would easily be classified as victim of near-fatal religious intolerance. An IS-henchmen fleeing for Jezidi’s wrath would not classify as such. A homosexual fleeing pretty much any country in Africa would be a valid victim of murderous intolerance, a homosexual fleeing, say, France would not be.

Next, if someone is granted entry on humanitarian basis, I do think it should not stop there. There should be a trial period. For ex, if a family is granted entry on humanitarian grounds, but it turns out the father is keeping his wife indoors and refuses her to go to, say, lessons in Dutch language and society because he feels a women should not be granted such ‘western’ freedoms, he should lose his right of residence (you cannot claim to be the victim of suppression if you are supressing someone yourself). Asylum seekers guilty of committing crimes should be turned out immediately. There are courses about the Dutch language, laws and culture designed to help people settle here and to become part of society; it turns out quite a large number simply don’t go to these courses because they do not want to. Such should lose their residence immediately.

Currently, such procedures to turn people do exist, but there is a whole industry of lawyers doing nothing but get – chanceless – appeals taking years (they do not care they lose every appeal, they simply get payed for “assisting” such chanceless asylum seekers). Such should be stopped as well; no is ‘out’. The country is only so big. And even if the end result is ‘leave’, most don’t leave for they have either no known country of origin, or such country does not want them back, or they simply disappear into the underground after getting the eviction note.

In short, for everyone wanting to enter the country it should be established if they are genuine; either by way of ‘official’ paperwork, or a legitimate refugee. Anyone wanting to stay should prove worthy of such, ie wanting to adapt to the country and become an asset as to his or her abilities. Anyone not so (criminal, freeloader, parasite) should be evicted. And I would want that anyone from this country wanting to move to another be treated by the ‘receiving’ country the exact same way.

anyone without papers entitling entrance to a country is technically an illegal immigrant the moment that he/she steps onto its soil.

Not nessecarily; I do not know the UK laws on this, but anyone wanting to enter onto Dutch soil has to prove he/she is entitled to do so. Such may be by way of valid paperwork, but someone can ask for asylum the moment he/she steps onto Dutch territory. In the latter case, someone can immediately be granted entry as asylum seeker. He/she at that moment has not been granted to right to stay in the country wherever he/she chooses; he/she is then granted entry, not residency.

The very existence of that problem, however, is principally down to wars and their associated infrastructural devastation that render life in certain countries impossible

This is a complex issue. What war, to start with. The eternal civil/feudal/tribal/religious/whatever wars wrecking Africa are one of the reasons behind that failure of much of that continent. And the idea that ‘the West’ can stop them has been proven nonsensical for some decades now, without ‘the West’ taking note of that. The local faction of IS in Mali was a fringe problem before ‘the West’ (inclusive of my own country) deemed it necessary to step in and ‘help’ Mali (did Mali ask for that, or was it consulted in it?). After several years now ‘the West’ is retreating, leaving  a devastated Mali where various factions of IS now run wild. I still need to hear the first minister of foreign affairs in ‘the West’ admit this failure was due to Western hubris.

The war in Syria is more a war happening in Syria. When several groups started revolting against Assad’s reign, ‘the West’ immediately supported the revolting groups, without asking, or wanting to know, just how revolting some of these groups were. And it turned out that some (IS, for ex) were extremely revolting indeed, making Abbas a saint in comparison. But as it happens, Putin is a friend of Abbas, so started helping him and his troops. Of course, ‘the West’ is against Putin and his dictator friends (of course, had Assad been sitting on oil and willing to sell such to ‘the West’, he’d be a big friend of ‘the West’), so ‘the West’ needed to prevent Putin getting an upper hand (-puppet) in Syria. So the revolt in Syria has become a pissing contest between Putin, the US and the EU, with the Syrian population sitting at the bottom of the toilet Syria became. Many fled to Turkey, only to find there a dictator who happily used all the incoming refugees as pressure tool to blackmail the EU into sending him many billions with which he could then keep up the failing Turkey economy and buy his support among the Turkish population. The war on Syria is turning blacker still, Erdogan apparently isn’t getting enough money to plug all the holes, so he now is using the Syrian refugees into cannon fodder to further blackmail the EU, knowing full well said EU is utterly incapable of formulating (let alone act upon) a decent and united strategy to stop it.

Vast swathes of displaced dispossessed people under threat of death have to go somewhere or risk being killed where they are. The only way to stop this is to stop those wars that are principally responsible for giving rise to it.

To do that, merely three things need to happen. One. Make war always unprofitable for anyone and everyone. Two. Silence ideological and/or religious demagogues with an ‘kill all who do not adhere to’ message and stop people listening to such people but think for themselves. Three. Stop the population explosion. In short, make sure all people act intelligently and responsibly. Start civilisation, for shorter.

In reality, ‘war’ began when 4 billion years ago the first prebiotic molecule vied with a neighbouring prebiotic molecule for resources, and will end only when the last extremophile bacterium will die under the increasingly glaring sun some 2 billion years hence. The one main difference is that humanity, thanks to that hypertrophic glob called brains, is so excessively inventive in and effective at it.

No doubt the above could be put in much better wording, but I grow bugs for a living and tired of the world I live in, so cannot be bothered here but will rather bugger off to listen to something worthwhile recorded by one Abel Sanchez-Aguilera.

gep

[ahinton]

gep - thank you very much for all of this immense and well considered good sense.

The problems are immense and I do of course accept that people displaced and disposssessed by wars of one kind or another are not only problems for them but also for countries to which they might seek to relocate; in other words, there is no possibility to sweep all of this kind of thing under the carpet, so to speak.

I applaud your final sentiments especially, namely that you would "rather bugger off to listen to something worthwhile recorded by one Abel Sánchez-Aguilera". Another person who attended his Oxford performance of Sorabji's Toccata seconda and who recently acquired his recording of it wrote to me "I couldn't resist putting the first CD on earlier - what wonderful, uplifting music!". So, gep - be uplifted!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Sorabji infestation detected.

[ahinton]

Sorabji infestation detected.

I detect nothing of the kind; only a reference, which is not the same thing.

As a matter of fact (and I believe that I might have mentioned this upthread) and FWIW - Sorabji would almost certainly have supported Brexit had he lived until today, given that he was against UK joining EU's forerunner in the 1970s.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Good old Sorabji the Brexiteer.

[ahinton]

Good old Sorabji the Brexiteer.

Not in my view.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Strange that it takes a flu virus for the EU to close its borders.
The immigrants are a virus.

[ahinton]

Strange that it takes a flu virus for the EU to close its borders.
The immigrants are a virus.

Virus emergencies can cause many borders to be closed and this one is indeed doing so way beyond EU as well as within it; they can also scupper "negotiations" between UK and EU for obvious reasons and it might well be that 31 December comes and goes with many months' if not years' worth of work still to be done, if indeed it ever is done. Curious, perhaps, that curtailment of freedom of movement as advocated by some Brexiteers might preclude Brexit becoming a reality if brought about by an international medical emergency. If there's one good thing to be said about this virus it is that it neither recognises nor respects national borders; perhaps an enforced lesson might have to be learned from this fact...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The good thing about the virus is that it makes it a lot harder for illegals to get to Britain.
Looks like we may be heading for a no deal. Great, as no deal equals no money.
EU get stuffed.

[ahinton]

The good thing about the virus is that it makes it a lot harder for illegals to get to Britain.

It will make no difference to that. What it will make harder is for people already living in UK to return there from abroad using conventional transport links which illegals (or rather would be / potential illegals) would never use; it will also make it harder for UK residents to travel elsewhere.

Looks like we may be heading for a no deal. Great, as no deal equals no money.

EU get stuffed.

How do you work that out?

Whilst the virus will impact upon the conduct of UK/EU negotiations, I do not see how it will give rise to a no-deal Brexit because I see no connection between the virus (which of course affects people in UK and the rest of EU) and the negotiations.

Perhaps you can perceive such a direct connection and, if so, perhaps you might care to explain it to those like me who can't.

That said, no one in UK voted for a no-deal Brexit in any case so, were one to be mooted, there would need to be another referendum to ascertain "the will of the people" in that respect before it were to be imposed.

Also, a no-deal Brexit will ramp up animosities of all kinds between UK and the remainder of EU which will do neither "side" any favours.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I voted for a no deal Brexit and I doubt if I am alone.
With no likelihood of an extension  to the negotiations, that will be the default position.
No need for another referendum or any silly court cases.

[ahinton]

I voted for a no deal Brexit and I doubt if I am alone.

Really? How did you do that? The ballot paper that I used simply had yes or no on it; did you have something different?

With no likelihood of an extension  to the negotiations, that will be the default position.

There's every likelihood of it, not only because the negotiations will be arduous, acrimonious and long drawn out but also because they're likely to be delayed by the virus.

No need for another referendum or any silly court cases.

I mentioned another referendum only in the possible circumstance that UK's government might seek to put a no-deal Brexit before the electorate; it almost certainly won't but, were it to try to do so, it would need to launch such a referendum because no one actually voted for a no-deal Brexit, nor, could they have done so (as it was not an option), whatever you say you did!

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

I do wonder, if a 'no-deal' Brexit should become reality, if such would mean things like
- All UK passports become invalid, and all UK citizens in the EU become stateless? People traffic between EU en UK impossible?
- All current 'EU-validated' UK-laws become invalid?
- No UK produce being allowed on EU soil?
- No EU produce being allowed onto UK soil?

I'm not following much about the proceedings of the UK untoward Brexit, if only because or the mayhem Corona is causing here, but I do get the feeling Boris Johnson thinks he is the one that will dicate how the EU is to proceed towards and after a 'no deal' Brexit. I think he may be mistaken..

[ahinton]

For the sake of clarity and for the record, I should perhaps reiterate that I do not regard - and indeed have never regarded - EU as currently constituted and operated as any kind of route to European political salvation; I do, however, take the view that its absence would be simply too horrifying to contemplate. An Europe comprising a bloc of 28 and possibly rising along with another 50 or so states is potentially unstable enough but one comprising almost 80 independent states hardly bears thinking about.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I do wonder, if a 'no-deal' Brexit should become reality, if such would mean things like
- All UK passports become invalid, and all UK citizens in the EU become stateless? People traffic between EU en UK impossible?
- All current 'EU-validated' UK-laws become invalid?
- No UK produce being allowed on EU soil?
- No EU produce being allowed onto UK soil?

I'm not following much about the proceedings of the UK untoward Brexit, if only because or the mayhem Corona is causing here, but I do get the feeling Boris Johnson thinks he is the one that will dicate how the EU is to proceed towards and after a 'no deal' Brexit. I think he may be mistaken..

Who can say? - apart from the likelihood that BJ is mistaken! The consequences for UK and EU of a "no-deal" Brexit would be anyone's guess but the most important aspect of one is that no one actually voted for it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The majority voted out and i doubt if many who did, care how that is achieved.
The negotiations when no political party had a majority are vastly different to the negotiations now and the EU know that the remainer pond life that kept blocking things have no power.

[ahinton]

The majority voted out and i doubt if many who did, care how that is achieved.

The issue here is that neither you nor I nor anyone else knows that or indeed can know it, since no question about a no-deal Brexit was asked in the referendum; I may be wrong, but I suspect that such a question was excluded not only because those who devised the referendum and its voting documentation didn't think to ask it but also because the government that launched it was so cock-sure that the result would be a majority vote for UK to remain an EU member state.

The negotiations when no political party had a majority are vastly different to the negotiations now

I don't believe that this is so; it might be up to a point on the UK side (although even the UK government presents a far from unanimous position on every aspect of the matters to be negotiated), but UK is just one nation of 28 and it doesn't matter whether any of those other 27 have large or small majority governments.

and the EU know that the remainer pond life that kept blocking things have no power

You mean supporters of UK remaining within EU - but whether or not EU knows or thinks that it knows about that, rightly or wrongly, is of very limited relevance, especially since none of the other 27 EU member states wanted UK to leave in any case.

It is therefore far less cut and dried than you appear to assume it to be.

It is important to remember at least two things.

Firstly, whilst there are two "sides" in these negotiations, one comprises a single nation (only two of whose constituent parts voted for Brexit in any case) whereas the other comprises 27 EU member states.

Secondly, the Covid-19 situation has already resulted in extensive lockdowns in and across several EU member states and UK, having dragged its heels, is now following suit.

Whilst there is not only both wise advice and fake news in terms of how to approach and deal with that situation, not enough is yet known about it, its effects, its capacity to spread and the rest for all news to be the correct news and, in the interim, it is almost certain that no one is likely to be able to escape the impacts of either the disease itself or the consequent lockdown measures until and unless a vaccine is developed to deal with it.

Not only is that currently reckoned to require 18 months to 2 years, it will probably take a lot longer again to manufacture, distribute and administer some 8bn doses of it, so it does look as though we're in for the long haul. I mention 8bn because Covid-19 now affects 162 countries (see https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ); that's around 83% of the world's nations.

What price Brexit negotiations, let alone subsequent implementations, in the light of that?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The UK was not dragging its heals. Unlike other Countries, we do not sh*t ourselves and stop everything because of the flu.
The government has been closely following learned medical advice and not peddling scare stories.
Boris has acted on the best advice available.

[ahinton]

The UK was not dragging its heals. Unlike other Countries, we do not sh*t ourselves and stop everything because of the flu.
The government has been closely following learned medical advice and not peddling scare stories.
Boris has acted on the best advice available.

Whatever the value / validity of advice upon which UK's government has acted, the measures that it's now slowly implementing come well after similar ones already taken by several other countries, including EU ones; that's why I referred to its having dragged its heels.

It still drags them over school/college/university closures and the like and is being berated for merely recommending avoidance of pubs / clubs / restaurants / cimemas / leisure centres (such as CenterParcs) and other venues rather than ordering their official closure so as to entitle their owner/operators to some recourse to their insurances for assistance.

Likewise, sports organisations, the two main London Opera Houses (ROH & ENO), concert venues and others attracting large gatherings - including Muslim Council of Britain and Church of England (not sure about the Roman Catholic Church) - have felt obliged to take their own initiative in implementing event cancellations, including all horse racing, many football and rugby fixtures and religious services rather than being ordered by government to call an immediate halt to them.

Moreover, this isn't "the 'flu", for which vaccines are available; it's a virus about which considerably less is so far known by those who will become qualified to advise and for which no vaccine is yet available.

UK's government is now, howeverm beginning to fall into line with many other countries on this and will doubtless continue to do so.

But in responding to this I realise that I digress, my virus reference being intended merely as an example of one major factor that's almost certain to interfere with any progress in the UK/EU negotiations and lead to an extension to the transition period that could be months or years.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No need for an extension as negotiations do not have to happen in person.
If there is no deal in place by the end of the year, we leave anyway. That is the default position and there are no little Gina Miller's around to stop it.

[ahinton]

No need for an extension as negotiations do not have to happen in person.

Indeed many of them probably don't but many of them won't happen online either because there are far too many other and greater priorities for both sides; have you not noticed how the very word "Brexit" has been so absent from news bulletins everywhere of late?...

If there is no deal in place by the end of the year, we leave anyway. That is the default position and there are no little Gina Miller's around to stop it.

Not true. If both sides (i.e. UK and the other 27 EU nations) cannot complete negotiations it will all still be up for grabs and any perceived "default position" will have no credibility or  valid status; if no one can do anything, the situation will have to remain unchaged and there won't even be a mechanism guaranteed to implement a "no-deal" Brexit or indeed any other kind of Brexit because no one on either side will be able to do anything about it as they will all be far too preoccupied with Covid-19.

I must confess that I did not anticipate an international virus acquiring the status of ultimate spanner in the works but there can be no doubt that it respects no borders anywhere, open or closed.

Bye by, Brexit (possibly - or at least for the foreseeable future); it won't need Gina Miller or anyone else to engineer that...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

In case anyone doubted that Brexit negotiations might risk being affected by the virus, EU's Chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has tested positive for Covid-19

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-51955509

OK, he's only one of many such negotiators on both sides, but...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I haven't heard Brexit mentioned in news bulletins now for almost a week. Who'd have thought this possible? OK, the reason for is both sad and disturbing but just goes to show that it can be placed on the back burner given certain circumstances...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Everything is on the back burner. Worst of all, the gyms are closed.

[ahinton]

Everything is on the back burner. Worst of all, the gyms are closed.

I'm reminded of having mentioned previously in another thread the distinguished multiple-Michelin-starred chef Michel Roux Jr.'s comment "there is a place for a microwave - in the corner, out of sight"; this particular back burner probably deserves to be located in a similar position and I suspect that it is no longer powered in any case so one couldn't even cook the books on it!

In the absence of the gym, you can do some of the exercise at home, which is more than can be done with Brexit negotiations; some gyms are setting up videolinks for their clients who can no longer attend in person.

Do keep well in these uncertain and disturbing times.

Best,

Alistair