Westminstenders: Stuck in the twilightzone

[RedToothBrush]

Just want to remind everyone if what really matters and what the priority if Theresa May is.

May isn't interested in a new referendum. There is barely time to hold one, and anyone remotely interested in one, isn't named Theresa May. Forget it. Its not happening.

Nor are Brexit talks the most important thing. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn seems finally to be playing with some sort if EEA type solution he's not the one named Theresa May. If she doesn't want one, then it won't happen.

May does seem to favour something along these lines but she has to sell it to her party. If she ends up relying on the support of Labour to push it through against what her party want, then that doesn't end well for her or her party. So Corbyn seeming to squeeze her here isn't necessarily a good thing. It could push her to no deal.

Why?

Cos petty party politics.

THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING, and don't forget this, is the EU withdrawal Bill. As it stands, May has to concentrate her efforts on this. If it doesn't pass by the art 50 deadline then we have legal chaos. May isn't big on the courts, but I'm not sure she would want that situation either. It would be even more unthinkable than queues at Dover coupled with food shortages.

If it doesn't pass, and the Lords will do all they can to delay and obstruct as long as they can, May's only option is to beg for an art 50 extension. Which the EU might not be inclined to give. Which might leave us in a situation where our only option is to revoke a50.

The only predictable thing, is this will be last minute brinkmanship.

All the talk of a second ref is a distraction. Talk of Labour's position at this point, is all about positioning for the next election and not about Brexit at all.

So try to keep your eyes on what really matters and what battles are May's big ones and which are merely side shows.

I wonder who Side Show Bob will turn out to be.

Late to the thread, just popping in to say thanks for the new thread RTB!

May’s Brexit pledges have turned to ashes. Was she deluded or dishonest?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/17/theresa-may-brexit-pledges-deluded-dishonest-article-50

May’s basic problem was that she had a wishlist, not a deliverable plan.

She then went ahead and triggered article 50, throwing away one of the few cards she had in the Brexit talks without securing any concession from the EU.
Our former EU ambassador warned the government this would lead to us getting “screwed” – and it has.

The prime minister still isn’t facing the facts.

For instance, she says she wants a two-year transition deal, despite the fact that this won’t be nearly long enough to conclude a spanking new trade agreement with the EU.
As a result, May is merely shifting the cliff-edge to 2021.

This is just vile behaviour towards fellow human beings

US border patrol routinely sabotages water left for migrants, report says

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/us-border-patrol-sabotage-aid-migrants-mexico-arizona

I've not come across this fellow before. Things sound a little strained in Herr Hands' household:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/international-trade-minister-greg-hands-reveals-his-nine-year-old-son-wept-cried-over-brexit-vote_uk_5a5f8485e4b0ccf9f120ca36

I've not come across this fellow before. Things sound a little strained in Herr Hands' household:

Some of the comments are awful! Such as one person saying a child shouldn't use the word "papa" because, well, we're in the UK here. There's another non-UK word for people like that, it's Arschloch.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pfi-projects-200bn-private-contractors-national-audit-office-spending-watchdog-a8165106.html

Going back to clause 7 powers

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (DPRRC) has described them as “excessively wide” and “unique in peace-time”.[1] The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution has said that the EUW Bill “weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency”.[2]

Can anyone explain why we are going to pay 44-45 million to keep the border at Calais , surely taking back control of our borders would mean moving it to our side of the Channel ?

Not Calais , the border

I presume it is because of the fact that the juxtaposed controls make it so much easier and quicker. I find it odd that nobody ever mentions the fact that it would also mean moving the French border controls from the UK at Cheriton, Dover and London (Eurostar).
Nor indeed that at Ouistreham, Dieppe, Le Havre etc the French border has always remained in France and the UK border in Portsmouth, Newhaven and so on.
It makes me laugh when people post on here about how there would be nothing to stop people crossing if the controls were removed.
You still can't travel without a valid ticket and passport and in the ports I use regularly (without juxtaposed controls) there is heavy security on the French side. The ferry companies face huge fines if they allow people to travel without documentation.

So in fact it isn't a border in the land sense , more of a collaboration of border controls between countries ? All sounds a bit too sensible for my liking

And now we are getting shirty about paying for it ?

PFI 40% more expensive than conventional financing, apparently.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office

Not quite as bad as buying a house on a credit card, but in mortgage terms I estimate the markup to be roughly equivalent to doubling interest rates.

Exactly that. At Calais you arrive at the port, go through the French border, then UK where both lots check passports now, quite often both lots of border security have a look in your car, swab the wheel, look underneath etc, then you go to the ticket control and then to the boat. It used to be much quicker, but security is very tight now.
As a foot passenger from a port without juxtaposed controls, my bags get x-rayed, my passport gets checked three times on the French side and once on the UK side.
I think the juxtaposed controls suit both sides, but people seem to confuse it with the issues around migrants.
The port security of walls, fences etc is the bit that costs the money.

The main gain from juxtaposed controls is a practical one. Ferry companies rely on quick turnaround - they want passengers off the ferry and out of the port ASAP because it enables them to increase capacity and make more money. As things stand, waiting to clear passport control occurs outside the controlled areas of the ferry ports rather than inside them (the reverse would be the case if passport controls took place on arrival.

Juxtaposed controls also put the burden of outbound border control primarily on the tax payer rather than (as is the case of airport departures in the UK for e.g.) on the private sector.

If the border were on the UK side, then I think it is fair to say that French border control would be less vigorous, and the burden of immigration control would fall more heavily in the ferry companies.

Sorry, probably too much boring detail. 😡 But there has been a recent thread on Mumsnet that suggests that when the “border” goes there would be nothing to stop people crossing unchecked. That is clearly nonsense and unfair on the French authorities and the ferry / train companies.

Crossed posts Misti, but I agree with you. In our experience, the wait at Portsmouth to clear the UK border on the way in has got longer in the past year or so, probably because of cuts to the border force,

It's obviously not the case, but I think that there would be a clear incentive for the French to reduce spending on border control, and that would increase the likelihood that unauthorised people were able to board ferries.

The burden would fall more heavily on ferry operators and ports, which in turn means that the price would be paid by travellers (in longer waits and higher prices).

More delights from Ben Bradley

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f2625082-fbde-11e7-a987-7fcf5e9983dc
Tory youth tsar Ben Bradley backed police brutality

A vice-chairman of the Conservative Party said that “police brutality should be encouraged” after the London riots, The Times can reveal.

Ben Bradley, 28, who was appointed by Theresa May as Tory vice-chairman for youth last week, wrote in a blog during the unrest in 2011: “We need to come down hard on these morons before somebody gets killed! If we have any sense as a nation we’ll stay home tonight and make it easy for the police to find the ones hanging around town centres with their faces covered. For once I think police brutality should be encouraged!”

From the right wing times too!

I suspect Mistigri that the biggest cost is not the actual border control, but the huge number of CRS in place around Calais. We haven't crossed there for a while but last time the number of vans at the budget hotel just outside was extraordinary. I think it will have diminished since the camp was cleared, but still lots needed I think.

I think one of the biggest issues at the tunnel is apparently that the actual concrete is in the wrong place to put border controls in place on the way out. 😮

Is this normal?

Woman I would assume it is just the start of the new CCHQ team appointed last week at work.

And the narrative that an opposition party which votes in opposition damages the interests of a country. JWIM

I suspect Mistigri that the biggest cost is not the actual border control, but the huge number of CRS in place around Calais. We haven't crossed there for a while but last time the number of vans at the budget hotel just outside was extraordinary. I think it will have diminished since the camp was cleared, but still lots needed I think.

This is possibly true. It raises the reasonable question of what would happen if the French were to reduce or withdraw border policing. I think the answer is that the border would become a lot more porous and that this is why the UK will be very motivated to continue the current arrangements even if there is a significant cost.