Some insight in the link below on what the DUP may want from the Tories for it's support, plus why one of it's key requirements - Brexit while maintaining a 'frictionless' border with the south - is contradictory and effectively unachievable:
You've said this previously and it just isn't true, there are a number of models that would allow us to leave the EU without imposing a hard border - the Norway model is the most obvious.
I think you miss the point which as I said is the contradictory and effectively unachievable Brexit aims of the DUP - on whom the Tories now depend.
If you read the article I linked it pointed out that the DUP wants “proper border controls and a tougher immigration policy”, whilst at the same time:
"The DUP, like every other Northern Irish party, wants to keep the current free-flowing border with the Republic of Ireland. But the peril in that stance is that – in order to secure the UK’s borders and to regulate the flow of goods – passport and customs control would be implemented at ports between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Last year I asked Arlene Foster about that prospect of citizens having to use a passport to travel within their own country and she ruled it out categorically as “a red line for us”.
At the launch of the party’s manifesto a fortnight ago, Nigel Dodds, the DUP’s Westminster leader, repeated that assurance, telling me: “We’re not leaving the European Union to get rid of some of its shackles to impose more restrictions between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom – we’re certainly not doing that.”
At Prime Minister’s Questions last November, Mr Dodds asked Mrs May if she could guarantee that Brexit “will not result in any change, alteration or impeding of the way regions, countries and people within the UK connect with one another”. The Prime Minister responded: “I’m very happy to give the Right Honourable Gentleman that assurance in relation to movement around the United Kingdom. There is no change that is going to take place.”
Marrying that assurance with the DUP’s desire not to see the Irish border at the Irish border will not be easy"
However, if it's the Norway- Sweden border arrangements that you're referring to, according to the following article:
"Despite flattering remarks from Belfast, officials in Sweden and Norway are wary about being dragged into the Brexit debate.
Nordic historical tensions lie further back than the Troubles, they point out, while Norway – like Sweden – is a member of Europe’s Schengen passport-free travel area, meaning there are no immigration controls between the two countries.
Simplifying matters further, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), an associate member status which Brexit campaigners have flagged as an option for the UK and Northern Ireland. But that is not a certainty.
“Without Norway in the EEA things would be more complicated for customs checks,” said Mr Magnusson of Swedish customs. “Without Norway in the EEA, ours would be a normal third-country border.”
It is the difficulty in squaring these contradictory circles and satisfying both wings of the Tories and the DUP (and the electorate) that I was highlighting.
Absolutely spot on, IMHO.
Before the referendum, much was made of the Norway and Switzerland models, but both actually require Schengen membership (so have less border controls than it is fondly imagined is unacceptable to the UK population).
Remaining within the Single Market/Customs Union would require continuing to accept the fiat of the ECJ, which also is claimed to be unacceptable.
Just like the DUP, Theresa May stated she did not want a hard border in Ireland and wished to retain frictionless trade - but neither are compatible with being outside the EU/EEA/Single Market/Customs Union. The best case scenario, as far as the Irish Government is concerned, would see several hundred vehicles subject to checks every day (at the moment, it will take c15 minutes to clear any goods vehicle when everything is in order, though they hope to get it down to less than 10).
In truth, the only way to retain the same cross border access (including, I fear, with regard to the Common Travel Area) is for the UK and Ireland to have the same membership status vis a vis the EU. No matter what Nigel Farage or several DUP politicians may say (the collected writings of Nelson McCausland, for the Belfast Telegraph, are a thing of rare beauty), the chances of the Republic triggering Article 50 are not good.
I fear that, the rapid passage of time (and the lack of overlap between the UK and EU negotiating positions) will ensure that no trade deal will be agreed (including transitional arrangements), and the EU will be forced to treat the border here like any other external border.
More convinced then ever we'll end up at a minimum in the EEA, and it's still reasonable to think we may just stay with an emergency break on immigration within the EU
Unless there is a dramatic change in the UK position, the EEA is out of contention; and, unless a treaty change happens in the meantime, an emergency brake within the EU is not possible.
I think a lot of attention is rightly being given to the DUP and what concession May will have to make to them to ensure their support. But less attention to Ruth Davidson's Tories. From what I remember they are much more in favour of a Norwegian model of Brexit and immigration doesn't seem to be the priority it is elsewhere for them. How is the government going to square continued support from them with May's desire to crash out of the single market, etc?
Not to mention the DUP's approach to gay marriage, abortion, etc being rather at odds with Davidson's own situation.
Some insight in the link below on what the DUP may want from the Tories for it's support, plus why one of it's key requirements - Brexit while maintaining a 'frictionless' border with the south - is contradictory and effectively unachievable:
You've said this previously and it just isn't true, there are a number of models that would allow us to leave the EU without imposing a hard border - the Norway model is the most obvious.
I think you miss the point which as I said is the contradictory and effectively unachievable Brexit aims of the DUP - on whom the Tories now depend.
If you read the article I linked it pointed out that the DUP wants “proper border controls and a tougher immigration policy”, whilst at the same time:
"The DUP, like every other Northern Irish party, wants to keep the current free-flowing border with the Republic of Ireland. But the peril in that stance is that – in order to secure the UK’s borders and to regulate the flow of goods – passport and customs control would be implemented at ports between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Last year I asked Arlene Foster about that prospect of citizens having to use a passport to travel within their own country and she ruled it out categorically as “a red line for us”.
At the launch of the party’s manifesto a fortnight ago, Nigel Dodds, the DUP’s Westminster leader, repeated that assurance, telling me: “We’re not leaving the European Union to get rid of some of its shackles to impose more restrictions between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom – we’re certainly not doing that.”
At Prime Minister’s Questions last November, Mr Dodds asked Mrs May if she could guarantee that Brexit “will not result in any change, alteration or impeding of the way regions, countries and people within the UK connect with one another”. The Prime Minister responded: “I’m very happy to give the Right Honourable Gentleman that assurance in relation to movement around the United Kingdom. There is no change that is going to take place.”
Marrying that assurance with the DUP’s desire not to see the Irish border at the Irish border will not be easy"
However, if it's the Norway- Sweden border arrangements that you're referring to, according to the following article:
"Despite flattering remarks from Belfast, officials in Sweden and Norway are wary about being dragged into the Brexit debate.
Nordic historical tensions lie further back than the Troubles, they point out, while Norway – like Sweden – is a member of Europe’s Schengen passport-free travel area, meaning there are no immigration controls between the two countries.
Simplifying matters further, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), an associate member status which Brexit campaigners have flagged as an option for the UK and Northern Ireland. But that is not a certainty.
“Without Norway in the EEA things would be more complicated for customs checks,” said Mr Magnusson of Swedish customs. “Without Norway in the EEA, ours would be a normal third-country border.”
It is the difficulty in squaring these contradictory circles and satisfying both wings of the Tories and the DUP (and the electorate) that I was highlighting.
Absolutely spot on, IMHO.
Before the referendum, much was made of the Norway and Switzerland models, but both actually require Schengen membership (so have less border controls than it is fondly imagined is unacceptable to the UK population).
Remaining within the Single Market/Customs Union would require continuing to accept the fiat of the ECJ, which also is claimed to be unacceptable.
Just like the DUP, Theresa May stated she did not want a hard border in Ireland and wished to retain frictionless trade - but neither are compatible with being outside the EU/EEA/Single Market/Customs Union. The best case scenario, as far as the Irish Government is concerned, would see several hundred vehicles subject to checks every day (at the moment, it will take c15 minutes to clear any goods vehicle when everything is in order, though they hope to get it down to less than 10).
In truth, the only way to retain the same cross border access (including, I fear, with regard to the Common Travel Area) is for the UK and Ireland to have the same membership status vis a vis the EU. No matter what Nigel Farage or several DUP politicians may say (the collected writings of Nelson McCausland, for the Belfast Telegraph, are a thing of rare beauty), the chances of the Republic triggering Article 50 are not good.
I fear that, the rapid passage of time (and the lack of overlap between the UK and EU negotiating positions) will ensure that no trade deal will be agreed (including transitional arrangements), and the EU will be forced to treat the border here like any other external border.
That's a new one on me. That the Republic has the same post brexit status as the UK. brexit means brexit and eirexit too! Can't see how that would work unless the UK pay the Republic absolutely silly money to hold its hand and jump together.
An example of a pre election conversation with a friend. I can't vote Labour. - Why's that? I hate Corbin - Why do you hate him? - I just can't stand him.-doesn't the Labour party manifesto have any appeal to you? I don't bother myself with that political nonsense.
It is interesting that she couldn't provide a reason why she hated him - although we are constantly told we should do. This sort of conversation gives me hope because I know a lot of people are being conditioned here and they can be unconditioned. I think the numbers here are really significant and there is less ignorant objection to the Tories from the left. When I say that, I mean rightly or wrongly, the left know why they dislike the Tories.
Criticism of the social care plan was also unleashed after the election, with the former pensions minister Ros Altmann describing it as an “own goal”. Tories have also warned that the idea of including someone’s home in an assessment of their ability to pay for home care would make the NHS crisis even worse.
Older patients will want to stay in hospital and use up beds, rather than go home and rack up a bill, they said.
The idea of not paying for care at home (but paying in a care home) was to keep people out of the far more expensive care homes. But if there is no incentive lots of people will chose care homes over home care. Older patients overstaying in hospital is enough of a problem already and I am not sure it could get much worse.
Having said all that I expect this whole policy to be ditched pretty sharpish.
But it is totally wrong for people in care homes, especially as those people pay 40% more than than government funded residents. It is an additional tax on demetia which is quite frankly immoral. It was a good thing the row happened - not for party political reasons, but to highlight that we have to tackle this unfairness across parties as Dilnot recomended to agreement of Tories and Labour alike at the time.
It is understood that the chancellor Philip Hammond asked for more say over Brexit on his reappointment. On being returned to his job, he tweeted he wanted a deal that “supports British jobs, business and prosperity”.
Which is pretty much what Labour have been saying they would ensure from Brexit. Perhaps more cross party consensus than has been let on.
Incidentally I couldn't work out why May had ostracised Hammond as he came across as one of the more likable and sensible Tories. Anybody know why she did?
I think the Hard brexit May was heading for is now impossible. I know politically you are damned if you do and damnedif you don't here so Labour wont mind the Tories facing this dilema. Especially as they seem to have found the right position now.
Her war on privacy continues, she seems determined to do this stuff regardless of what happened.
Good.
Because you don't value your own privacy highly? Each to their own I guess.
Yes, I value the lives of people getting murdered by terrorists far more than I do my internet privacy.
Security services can monitor my usage 24/7 if they want, let's face it Tony Keohane already is
All well and good and on the face of it that are what the intentions of it's uses are for. In reality though do you really believe these laws will/are being used just to hunt potential terrorists? The government and local councils have already been caught abusing anti terror laws by using them on the innocent public.
Also are you certain that whatever data they have is completely secure? Not sure I trust the government not to fuck up and lose data or allow access to unauthorised people.
As is mentioned in that article these plans could have the opposite effect and make force those wishing to do us harm into other harder to monitor parts of the Internet.
Let's be honest, as has been shown by Wikileaks, Snowden etc. Governments are already spying on us, this just legitimises it and is a very slippery slope. It all started with the snoopers charter May was desperate to bring in (another nonsense law and helpfully one that doesn't apply to current MPs, how fair). She has shown time and time again she has no regard for civil liberties and absolute disdain for the internet.
But then again some will just shrug their shoulders and say "I've got nothing to hide", presumably these same people would be happy allowing cameras in their own homes?
It is understood that the chancellor Philip Hammond asked for more say over Brexit on his reappointment. On being returned to his job, he tweeted he wanted a deal that “supports British jobs, business and prosperity”.
Which is pretty much what Labour have been saying they would ensure from Brexit. Perhaps more cross party consensus than has been let on.
Incidentally I couldn't work out why May had ostracised Hammond as he came across as one of the more likable and sensible Tories. Anybody know why she did?
Because of his budget blooper about the self employed and tax.
Her war on privacy continues, she seems determined to do this stuff regardless of what happened.
Good.
Because you don't value your own privacy highly? Each to their own I guess.
Yes, I value the lives of people getting murdered by terrorists far more than I do my internet privacy.
Security services can monitor my usage 24/7 if they want, let's face it Tony Keohane already is
All well and good and on the face of it that are what the intentions of it's uses are for. In reality though do you really believe these laws will/are being used just to hunt potential terrorists? The government and local councils have already been caught abusing anti terror laws by using them on the innocent public.
Also are you certain that whatever data they have is completely secure? Not sure I trust the government not to fuck up and lose data or allow access to unauthorised people.
As is mentioned in that article these plans could have the opposite effect and make force those wishing to do us harm into other harder to monitor parts of the Internet.
Let's be honest, as has been shown by Wikileaks, Snowden etc. Governments are already spying on us, this just legitimises it and is a very slippery slope. It all started with the snoopers charter May was desperate to bring in (another nonsense law and helpfully one that doesn't apply to current MPs, how fair). She has shown time and time again she has no regard for civil liberties and absolute disdain for the internet.
But then again some will just shrug their shoulders and say "I've got nothing to hide", presumably these same people would be happy allowing cameras in their own homes?
Like you say I've got nothing to hide and if it saves innocents from being murdered it has my backing.
Which party is supposed to be the nasty party ?
What is it that you do on the internet that you don't want the government to know ?
I think the unholy alliance with DUP is untenable. May says she is going to forge ahead with Brexit because that is the democratic wish of the people but this election shows that the will of the people is not for the Tories to be propped up by a party that is slightly right of Genghis Khan.
Her war on privacy continues, she seems determined to do this stuff regardless of what happened.
Good.
Because you don't value your own privacy highly? Each to their own I guess.
Yes, I value the lives of people getting murdered by terrorists far more than I do my internet privacy.
Security services can monitor my usage 24/7 if they want, let's face it Tony Keohane already is
All well and good and on the face of it that are what the intentions of it's uses are for. In reality though do you really believe these laws will/are being used just to hunt potential terrorists? The government and local councils have already been caught abusing anti terror laws by using them on the innocent public.
Also are you certain that whatever data they have is completely secure? Not sure I trust the government not to fuck up and lose data or allow access to unauthorised people.
As is mentioned in that article these plans could have the opposite effect and make force those wishing to do us harm into other harder to monitor parts of the Internet.
Let's be honest, as has been shown by Wikileaks, Snowden etc. Governments are already spying on us, this just legitimises it and is a very slippery slope. It all started with the snoopers charter May was desperate to bring in (another nonsense law and helpfully one that doesn't apply to current MPs, how fair). She has shown time and time again she has no regard for civil liberties and absolute disdain for the internet.
But then again some will just shrug their shoulders and say "I've got nothing to hide", presumably these same people would be happy allowing cameras in their own homes?
Like you say I've got nothing to hide and if it saves innocents from being murdered it has my backing.
Which party is supposed to be the nasty party ?
What is it that you do on the internet that you don't want the government to know ?
Show me some proof it actually works?
And I don't have anything to hide but at the same time I don't want my data stored on a hard drive somewhere that could potentially fall into the wrong hands.
Comments
Before the referendum, much was made of the Norway and Switzerland models, but both actually require Schengen membership (so have less border controls than it is fondly imagined is unacceptable to the UK population).
Remaining within the Single Market/Customs Union would require continuing to accept the fiat of the ECJ, which also is claimed to be unacceptable.
Just like the DUP, Theresa May stated she did not want a hard border in Ireland and wished to retain frictionless trade - but neither are compatible with being outside the EU/EEA/Single Market/Customs Union. The best case scenario, as far as the Irish Government is concerned, would see several hundred vehicles subject to checks every day (at the moment, it will take c15 minutes to clear any goods vehicle when everything is in order, though they hope to get it down to less than 10).
In truth, the only way to retain the same cross border access (including, I fear, with regard to the Common Travel Area) is for the UK and Ireland to have the same membership status vis a vis the EU. No matter what Nigel Farage or several DUP politicians may say (the collected writings of Nelson McCausland, for the Belfast Telegraph, are a thing of rare beauty), the chances of the Republic triggering Article 50 are not good.
I fear that, the rapid passage of time (and the lack of overlap between the UK and EU negotiating positions) will ensure that no trade deal will be agreed (including transitional arrangements), and the EU will be forced to treat the border here like any other external border.
Not to mention the DUP's approach to gay marriage, abortion, etc being rather at odds with Davidson's own situation.
brexit means brexit and eirexit too!
Can't see how that would work unless the UK pay the Republic absolutely silly money to hold its hand and jump together.
Security services can monitor my usage 24/7 if they want, let's face it Tony Keohane already is
It is interesting that she couldn't provide a reason why she hated him - although we are constantly told we should do. This sort of conversation gives me hope because I know a lot of people are being conditioned here and they can be unconditioned. I think the numbers here are really significant and there is less ignorant objection to the Tories from the left. When I say that, I mean rightly or wrongly, the left know why they dislike the Tories.
He's holding the document in this denial.
Criticism of the social care plan was also unleashed after the election, with the former pensions minister Ros Altmann describing it as an “own goal”. Tories have also warned that the idea of including someone’s home in an assessment of their ability to pay for home care would make the NHS crisis even worse.
Older patients will want to stay in hospital and use up beds, rather than go home and rack up a bill, they said.
The idea of not paying for care at home (but paying in a care home) was to keep people out of the far more expensive care homes. But if there is no incentive lots of people will chose care homes over home care. Older patients overstaying in hospital is enough of a problem already and I am not sure it could get much worse.
Having said all that I expect this whole policy to be ditched pretty sharpish.
It is understood that the chancellor Philip Hammond asked for more say over Brexit on his reappointment. On being returned to his job, he tweeted he wanted a deal that “supports British jobs, business and prosperity”.
Which is pretty much what Labour have been saying they would ensure from Brexit. Perhaps more cross party consensus than has been let on.
Incidentally I couldn't work out why May had ostracised Hammond as he came across as one of the more likable and sensible Tories. Anybody know why she did?
https://socialistcampaignforalabourvictory.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/clarification/
He didn't sign the list of demands (including the MI5 thing) but their general statement of principles, which you can see here:
https://socialistcampaignforalabourvictory.wordpress.com/sign-the-statement/
Also are you certain that whatever data they have is completely secure? Not sure I trust the government not to fuck up and lose data or allow access to unauthorised people.
As is mentioned in that article these plans could have the opposite effect and make force those wishing to do us harm into other harder to monitor parts of the Internet.
Let's be honest, as has been shown by Wikileaks, Snowden etc. Governments are already spying on us, this just legitimises it and is a very slippery slope. It all started with the snoopers charter May was desperate to bring in (another nonsense law and helpfully one that doesn't apply to current MPs, how fair). She has shown time and time again she has no regard for civil liberties and absolute disdain for the internet.
But then again some will just shrug their shoulders and say "I've got nothing to hide", presumably these same people would be happy allowing cameras in their own homes?
It's only the socialistcampaignforlabourvictory, that wants to get rid of MI5 and armed police.
Which party is supposed to be the nasty party ?
What is it that you do on the internet that you don't want the government to know ?
And I don't have anything to hide but at the same time I don't want my data stored on a hard drive somewhere that could potentially fall into the wrong hands.