Brexit matters

[najaB]

You know when you're told to add your passport information when checking in online? That info is, in theory, passed to the Government so they know you are leaving.

I am not sure it always is passed on though.

AFAIK, that information is collected for the government of the country you are travelling to, rather than the UK government. Largely because the airline doesn't want to be stuck with the hassle/cost of returning you if you're denied entry.

 

[adrock1976]

There may well be 'plenty' but these plenty are still a small percentage of the population, most of which are unlikely to use FoM. Please read the thread to get the context of which this is being said - to explain why the FoM was not a priority for Brexit voters.


Attacking the person about the particular language that they use is a smoke screen for not actually addressing the issue that they raise. A large quantity of people from continental Europe (i.e. Europeans) coming to certain parts of this country seriously diluting the existing population and straining services to breaking point is 'overrun' in my book. If you want to play down the issue you can use other softer language if you choose, but a spade is a spade.

It may well sound provocative and, perhaps to some xenophobic, but we are talking about why UK people voted for Brexit, not what is 'acceptable' language to those who support FoM. British people may have the reciprocal right to go abroad, but the majority have no desire, and/or no practical application, of being able to use it. (The 30yr old plumber out of work because of a the large number of plumbers from continental Europe that have come to settle in his/her town, will perfectly accept the situation because they know they have the right to retire to Spain or Latvia [got to learn another language too] - it is just nonsense) Therefore they will have seen no need to try and preserve this right when considering voting in the Brexit referendum.

Quite.

Could you clarify as to how exactly the population has been diluted?

You will find that us humans are descended from primates if follow the DNA profile back far enough.

Also, you have referred to UK people voting for Brexit. I would like to mention that Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar all voted to remain.

 

[najaB]

Could you clarify as to how exactly the population has been diluted?

Surely it can't be a reference to diluting the ethnic purity of the British race?

 

[zero]

AFAIK, that information is collected for the government of the country you are travelling to, rather than the UK government. Largely because the airline doesn't want to be stuck with the hassle/cost of returning you if you're denied entry.

API is for both the UK and your destination ± transit countries.

Not all countries require API, and for most countries API is not used by airlines to determine if you may enter. Airlines would follow the rules in TIMATIC which mainly involve looking at physical documentation, except for Australia, Canada and the US (at least by air), where the airline sends the information during check in and receives a response that the passenger may board the flight.

For other countries, the API may not even be sent to the authorities until the flight has departed. The main purpose is to run the data through a watchlist to find out if someone of interest is on board. I believe this is currently the case for transport to the UK - but it will change when, as mentioned in another thread, the UK introduces the electronic "visas" which are not to be called visas.

Since the UK requires API, you'll always need to provide it when flying in or out of the UK. Not sure of the UK's position on land and sea exits and entries, however for example in 2015(?) Eurostar had to start swiping your passport at St Pancras prior to French immigration, the purpose of which is to collect API for people departing the UK.

The intention was to match the exit data to entry records, but this doesn't always work because you may use a different passport to enter than to leave. When flying there is no option to enter different passport details for exiting the UK, but at St Pancras you can use different passports to leave the UK and enter France (for example a British/French citizen might do that).

(Note that nobody has to provide API proactively - you just can't check in online if you don't. API can be collected when you present your passport at the airport to be swiped.)

 

[najaB]

Not all countries require API, and for most countries API is not used by airlines to determine if you may enter.

Oh, I didn't mean that the airline would check your entry eligibility - more that they want to be sure that you hold a valid passport with enough months of validity left, and to be able to pass that information to the countries that do require it.

 

[RT4038]

Could you clarify as to how exactly the population has been diluted?

The difference between 'locals' and new 'immigrants'

You will find that us humans are descended from primates if follow the DNA profile back far enough.

Nothing as complex as that.. You are reading far too much into it.

Also, you have referred to UK people voting for Brexit. I would like to mention that Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar all voted to remain.

So did some pockets of England and Wales. However, the UK is one country, so I am referring to the UK as a whole.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2022 ==

Surely it can't be a reference to diluting the ethnic purity of the British race?

Quite. Not at all.

 

[adrock1976]

The difference between 'locals' and new 'immigrants'


Nothing as complex as that.. You are reading far too much into it.


So did some pockets of England and Wales. However, the UK is one country, so I am referring to the UK as a whole.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2022 ==


Quite. Not at all.

Many thanks for that.

 

[The Ham]

Surely it can't be a reference to diluting the ethnic purity of the British race?

British race. Which bit?

Normans? (1066 and so that)
Angle Saxons?
Viking (Dan Law and all that)?
Celtic?
Roman? (Given that they were here for about 350 years, so longer than since the Act of Union)
Whatever mongrel mix we had at the Act of Union in 1707?

 

[TwoYellas]

British race. Which bit?

Normans? (1066 and so that)
Angle Saxons?
Viking (Dan Law and all that)?
Celtic?
Roman? (Given that they were here for about 350 years, so longer than since the Act of Union)
Whatever mongrel mix we had at the Act of Union in 1707?

I wonder if any DNA of the French Huguenots exist. Or from further back, the Beaker folk?

 

[RT4038]

British race. Which bit?

Normans? (1066 and so that)
Angle Saxons?
Viking (Dan Law and all that)?
Celtic?
Roman? (Given that they were here for about 350 years, so longer than since the Act of Union)
Whatever mongrel mix we had at the Act of Union in 1707?

I think the question was 'tongue in cheek'..........

 

[najaB]

I think the question was 'tongue in cheek'..........

Not so much tongue in cheek as pointing out that "diluting" is a very odd term to use, given the above abbreviated history of Britain.

 

[Cloud Strife]

As with all things is never straight forwards, at there's many factors which come into play.

With the historic method glance at passport and wave through (say 30 second per passport) processing 1,200 would require 10 man hours of time.

Well, let me use my knowledge of the topic to explain further. Before the change to the Schengen Borders Code requiring every document to be scanned, there was considerable leeway on how EU/EEA/CH citizens should have been checked. Each country had their own rules, so for instance, Slovenia insisted on scanning every document, while France and Spain were quite happy to just take a glance at the photo to see that it matched the person holding it. I crossed both the Ceuta and La Linea borders countless times as an EU citizen, and you could just hold the document up for them 90% of the time.

Even then, Slovenia often waved people through informally, especially at crossings in urban areas if you were on foot or at the old locals-only crossings. I crossed the SLO/HR border on foot in many places, and they would often just take a visual look without even bothering to open the window at the booth.

So, at Dover, the French took this to ridiculous extremes, and they would often have just a couple of lanes open due to the fact that the vast majority of people travelling were EU citizens. If you back to when the departure lounge within the Dover Travel Centre was open, the French sometimes didn't even bother controlling people at the entry to the lounge. After the lounge was closed, foot passengers were often simply waved through on the bus from the travel centre to the ferry.

As a result, the general attitude of the PAF in Dover was that they wouldn't let queues build up, as they would just wave people through if they had EU numberplates.

Now assuming that Brixit was based on older rules of glance at and stamp passport (say 60 second per passport) then there's then a need for double the staffing levels (20 man hours of time).

Yes, that's very reasonable. They still need to check for stamps to see if the person hasn't overstayed, and 60 seconds per passport is reasonable.

Covid had made it hard to build the infrastructure, likewise there would have been reports from the assumed at Brexit level saying that the system has sufficient capacity so governments (both the British and French) would have been less willing to do anything to fix a problem that their reports had said wouldn't be an issue.

The French are now saying that they informed the British side that there was a need to expand the infrastructure, but the British refused. I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle, i.e. that they agreed not to do anything because the existing infrastructure was never used in full anyway.

As such it's likely that if we hadn't left there would have been issues, however Brexit has likely added to the issues (how much is hard to say) however still being within the EU it may have been that when it became obvious that there were a lack of French Boarder staff that the UK could have offered some of there's too help clear the backlog - an offer, given that it would be EU boarder staff checking EU documents could have been more likely to have been accepted than if such an offer was made post Brixit.

I'd go further and say that if the UK was still in the EU, then France would simply have waved through most people as they did before. One key point in the Schengen Borders Code is that it permits (in exceptional circumstances) member states to waive the scanning/checking of documents if they are held by EU citizens, which would have reduced the queues considerably.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2022 ==

AFAIK, that information is collected for the government of the country you are travelling to, rather than the UK government. Largely because the airline doesn't want to be stuck with the hassle/cost of returning you if you're denied entry.

No, the UK implemented exit checks like this on the land and sea borders. It's much cheaper than physically checking documents, but interestingly: from this report in 2017, https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/695321/An_inspection_of_exit_checks.pdf - it shows that they were a waste of time.

of 50 ‘hits’ for persons of interest departing the UK via Eurostar over a 10-month period, law
enforcement was able to intercept only 4 individuals as the travel data was not transmitted
until after the train had departed

ferry companies operating Dover to Calais crossings regularly submitted Travel Document Information (TDI) up to 90 minutes after the ferry had sailed, so the NCA did not have time to stop an individual leaving the UK or to warn their French counterparts of the individual’s arrival in France

This is the latest update with exit checks: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/developments-in-exit-checks/developments-in-exit-checks . The interesting thing is that not all EEA citizens are being processed yet.

Since the UK requires API, you'll always need to provide it when flying in or out of the UK. Not sure of the UK's position on land and sea exits and entries, however for example in 2015(?) Eurostar had to start swiping your passport at St Pancras prior to French immigration, the purpose of which is to collect API for people departing the UK.

Sea exits are done in this way, too. The only problem is that the UK doesn't receive this information from people departing the CTA via the Channel Islands or Ireland. Strictly speaking, API is only for air, while TDI (Travel Document Information) is for sea and rail.

 

[Berliner]

I recall a daytrip to Belgium (via Calais) in 2012 when I traveled by car with an American relative. Knowing that the French checks took place in Dover, as they had done many times before, I expected a glance at my passport and my cousin to get the usual entry stamp. Imagine my surprise to see absolutely no PAF booths open at 8am and nothing stopping me from driving right through. As it was mid week in mid winter I just thought they were closed due to low traffic and assumed we would be checked at some stage by a French official. This turned out not to be the case. We drove all the way to Brugges without showing a passport to anyone. On the way back the French exit booths were closed again and the only trace of our trip to the continent my cousin has in his passport is the entry stamp from the UK stating Calais.

Not quite the same story today it seems.

All of this strengthens the case to bring back direct ferry links to the continent from Scotland to save a long journey south becoming even longer. I assume issues aren't affecting the ports of Hull, Newcastle or Harwich where (as far as I know) no juxtaposed checks take place for Holland.

 

[The Ham]

Well, let me use my knowledge of the topic to explain further. Before the change to the Schengen Borders Code requiring every document to be scanned, there was considerable leeway on how EU/EEA/CH citizens should have been checked. Each country had their own rules, so for instance, Slovenia insisted on scanning every document, while France and Spain were quite happy to just take a glance at the photo to see that it matched the person holding it. I crossed both the Ceuta and La Linea borders countless times as an EU citizen, and you could just hold the document up for them 90% of the time.

Even then, Slovenia often waved people through informally, especially at crossings in urban areas if you were on foot or at the old locals-only crossings. I crossed the SLO/HR border on foot in many places, and they would often just take a visual look without even bothering to open the window at the booth.

So, at Dover, the French took this to ridiculous extremes, and they would often have just a couple of lanes open due to the fact that the vast majority of people travelling were EU citizens. If you back to when the departure lounge within the Dover Travel Centre was open, the French sometimes didn't even bother controlling people at the entry to the lounge. After the lounge was closed, foot passengers were often simply waved through on the bus from the travel centre to the ferry.

As a result, the general attitude of the PAF in Dover was that they wouldn't let queues build up, as they would just wave people through if they had EU numberplates.



Yes, that's very reasonable. They still need to check for stamps to see if the person hasn't overstayed, and 60 seconds per passport is reasonable.



The French are now saying that they informed the British side that there was a need to expand the infrastructure, but the British refused. I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle, i.e. that they agreed not to do anything because the existing infrastructure was never used in full anyway.



I'd go further and say that if the UK was still in the EU, then France would simply have waved through most people as they did before. One key point in the Schengen Borders Code is that it permits (in exceptional circumstances) member states to waive the scanning/checking of documents if they are held by EU citizens, which would have reduced the queues considerably.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2022 ==



No, the UK implemented exit checks like this on the land and sea borders. It's much cheaper than physically checking documents, but interestingly: from this report in 2017, https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/695321/An_inspection_of_exit_checks.pdf - it shows that they were a waste of time.



This is the latest update with exit checks: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/developments-in-exit-checks/developments-in-exit-checks . The interesting thing is that not all EEA citizens are being processed yet.



Sea exits are done in this way, too. The only problem is that the UK doesn't receive this information from people departing the CTA via the Channel Islands or Ireland. Strictly speaking, API is only for air, while TDI (Travel Document Information) is for sea and rail.

Thank you for sharing your experiences which confirms what I thought/worked out from the data available.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2022 ==

Something else for some to be aware of when traveling to the EU:

Blue badges may be rejected in Europe, drivers warned

Eleven countries including France, Spain and Greece are yet to decide whether to recognise the badges.

www.bbc.co.uk

Disabled drivers are being warned that their blue badges may not be accepted in popular European holiday destinations this summer due to Brexit. Ministers are negotiating the status of the badges - which were recognised when the UK was in the EU - with 11 nations. France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy are among those "undecided" on recognising the discs, which help people park closer to a destination. The AA said keeping blue badge users in "limbo" was "simply unacceptable". Bulgaria, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia are also undecided on the issue, but all other EU nations accept UK badges. The government website tells badge-holders to check with the embassy of their destination country for the latest guidance. But the AA said most embassies were unable to provide them with any assurances or advice. The motoring group said disabled drivers may leave themselves open to parking fines if they use their permits in undecided countries, saying it was "simply unacceptable" that the issue had not been resolved. Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA, said: "Blue badges are issued because of specific health reasons, and to not have their status confirmed two years down the line [after the UK left the EU] is simply outrageous." Mr Cousens advised badge-holders to use drop-off and collection zones where possible, adding: "While problematic, it reduces the risk of a vehicle being given a ticket or towed away." A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "Negotiations on blue badge recognition are ongoing between the UK and individual EU states, and motorists should check our guidance to find out where the blue badge is recognised in the EU."

 

[Berliner]

I'm failing to understand how longer waits to leave the UK and uncertainty about the validity of disabled parking badges are benefits. Can any brexiteer explain how these are gains and where in the leave campaign these were mentioned?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm failing to understand how longer waits to leave the UK and uncertainty about the validity of disabled parking badges are benefits. Can any brexiteer explain how these are gains and where in the leave campaign these were mentioned?

Don't you think this is getting a bit puerile? (And that's from someone who Remain too!) Obviously those things are not benefits. However, in the big scheme of things they are very minor. Yes, obviously unpleasant if you're caught up in the queues and I'd hate to be one of those people. But whether or not people have to queue for a couple of hours at a port is hardly the kind of thing that should be a big determining factor in a decision that was fundamentally about where the UK steers its role in the international community and the way it viewed its sovereignty!

In the end, these are basically small-scale teething problems that you can expect will get gradually resolved as the UK adapts to its new status outside the EU. Yes, they are annoying/inconvenient, but they aren't by themselves a massive reason to rubbish Brexit or the Leave campaign.

 

[SynthD]

The difference between 'locals' and new 'immigrants

Our German monarchy, American born PM, various South Asian or Black current or former cabinet members and other key members of society can be conveniently overlooked. Or was it ok for past generations to accept those newcomers.

As I understand it, and real stats will help us all, the drop in EU citizen immigration has been more than made up for in immigration from further afield, usually non-white people.

 

[Cloud Strife]

In the end, these are basically small-scale teething problems that you can expect will get gradually resolved as the UK adapts to its new status outside the EU. Yes, they are annoying/inconvenient, but they aren't by themselves a massive reason to rubbish Brexit or the Leave campaign.

There is a point that Brexit is not really a major change, but rather a series of annoyances. They might not be a big deal in isolation, but combined, it makes things much worse.

I do think, however, that Boris simply wasn't interested in getting these things sorted because they didn't affect him. The WA itself should have contained a comprehensive agreement to maintain mutual recognition of things like blue badges, but it..didn't.

 

[edwin_m]

Don't you think this is getting a bit puerile? (And that's from someone who Remain too!) Obviously those things are not benefits. However, in the big scheme of things they are very minor. Yes, obviously unpleasant if you're caught up in the queues and I'd hate to be one of those people. But whether or not people have to queue for a couple of hours at a port is hardly the kind of thing that should be a big determining factor in a decision that was fundamentally about where the UK steers its role in the international community and the way it viewed its sovereignty!

In the end, these are basically small-scale teething problems that you can expect will get gradually resolved as the UK adapts to its new status outside the EU. Yes, they are annoying/inconvenient, but they aren't by themselves a massive reason to rubbish Brexit or the Leave campaign.

The so-called benefit of national sovereignty is no more than notional. Attempting to control your destiny with no regard for your neighbours is impossible unless you seek total isolation from those neighbours, and seek to impose your will rather than reaching a compromise when a disagreement arises. The queues at the border are a minor symptom, but businesses whose imports and exports are essential to our wellbeing and prosperity are also affected in much more severe ways. That in turn worsens the economy, requiring more public spending on benefits, and reduces the tax base from which that and all other public services are paid for. At the same time businesses have to pass on costs as higher prices, causing an inflationary spiral that obliterates the higher wages obtained by a few groups that cased to be in competition with immigrants.

The result is some combination of higher prices, higher taxes, poorer benefits and services, and pursuit of some form of deregulation which (certainly if conducted by the current government) would make life worse for most of the population. I don't suppose many people who voted for Brexit wanted to be poorer in order to obtain some nominal but meaningless freedom.

 

[najaB]

Obviously those things are not benefits. However, in the big scheme of things they are very minor.

For some reason the phrase "death by a thousand cuts" comes to mind. Can't think why though.

 

[RT4038]

Our German monarchy, American born PM, various South Asian or Black current or former cabinet members and other key members of society can be conveniently overlooked. Or was it ok for past generations to accept those newcomers.

As I understand it, and real stats will help us all, the drop in EU citizen immigration has been more than made up for in immigration from further afield, usually non-white people.

I don't think that the arrival of the German Monarchy came with such an entourage as to create social issues in the general population. In 1944, a large quantity of Americans arriving in our society, and in the 60s/70s certainly those from the Caribbean and South Asia did. However, the rest of the population were not asked in a referendum which involved such things at that time, but I think we can be sure what the reaction would have been if they had.

Remembering that the context of my comment was the theme of 'Why did people so easily vote away their FoM rights in the Brexit referendum?'

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2022 ==

The so-called benefit of national sovereignty is no more than notional. Attempting to control your destiny with no regard for your neighbours is impossible unless you seek total isolation from those neighbours, and seek to impose your will rather than reaching a compromise when a disagreement arises. The queues at the border are a minor symptom, but businesses whose imports and exports are essential to our wellbeing and prosperity are also affected in much more severe ways. That in turn worsens the economy, requiring more public spending on benefits, and reduces the tax base from which that and all other public services are paid for. At the same time businesses have to pass on costs as higher prices, causing an inflationary spiral that obliterates the higher wages obtained by a few groups that cased to be in competition with immigrants.

On the assumption that the country does not gradually adapt and finds well being and prosperity without the EU strings?

The result is some combination of higher prices, higher taxes, poorer benefits and services, and pursuit of some form of deregulation which (certainly if conducted by the current government) would make life worse for most of the population. I don't suppose many people who voted for Brexit wanted to be poorer in order to obtain some nominal but meaningless freedom.

Perhaps some believe that this 'nominal but meaningless freedom', as you put it, is worth these inconveniences for a while. Respect the view, even if not agreed with.

 

[SynthD]

Those inconveniences were not mentioned, or instead dismissed, before the vote. People were misled, used for a different mandate. The suggestion that non European immigration would rise was briefly mentioned, but I don’t think it was accepted by leave voters. The suggestion turned into policy. I respect the view of informed voters, who may be most of those still arguing about the topic now, but I don’t think that covers enough of the slim majority. Sorry if I’m rehashing the previous pages I haven’t read.

Even if you say that’s all in the past, the real world is where brexiteers wanted Brexit to happen. They are in charge, yet have not overcome the obstacles they knew about ahead of time. I can’t accept that the challenges were bigger than they thought, yet the need to get it done (or announce it like Bush on an aircraft carrier) is no smaller. I judge them for passing the buck.

 

[Berliner]

Don't you think this is getting a bit puerile? (And that's from someone who Remain too!) Obviously those things are not benefits. However, in the big scheme of things they are very minor. Yes, obviously unpleasant if you're caught up in the queues and I'd hate to be one of those people. But whether or not people have to queue for a couple of hours at a port is hardly the kind of thing that should be a big determining factor in a decision that was fundamentally about where the UK steers its role in the international community and the way it viewed its sovereignty!

In the end, these are basically small-scale teething problems that you can expect will get gradually resolved as the UK adapts to its new status outside the EU. Yes, they are annoying/inconvenient, but they aren't by themselves a massive reason to rubbish Brexit or the Leave campaign.

These are examples from just this week. I'm afraid I don't accept that these are tething issues that will sort themselves out in time. They were things which should have never occurred in the first place and wouldn't have done without us either brexiting on a whim or by having a competent negotiating team who weren't just union jack waving lunatics. Things like this will become the norm. Its not for you to decide if these are minor issues or not. For some people, my own family for example, these two issues alone will have a huge impact on thier holiday abroad this year. But I'll tell my relatives that getting fined or not being able to park close to entrances with thier disabled son Is just a minor nuisance and that they had to loose that right they have enjoyed for years so that the country can benefit in some unknown way at some undetermined point in the future

 

[Gloster]

The problems at Dover are, with no disrespect to those who have been stuck in queues, a relatively minor matter. What is far more serious but much less noticeable, is the slow loss of jobs and income from abroad caused by the increasing difficulties of importing and exporting goods. As there has not (yet) been some massive and obvious economic crash, the government has not been put under serious pressure to sort out barriers to trade. They just keep on posturing and trying to blame the foreigners for everything. Whether there will be a massive one time economic disaster or whether the dominos will just start falling horrendously fast remains to be seen.

 

[alex397]

Another reason I don’t think this can be nonchalantly brushed off as ‘minor teething issues’ is the impact to the local economy of Kent. The tourist industry is trying to recover from Covid, and this will not be helping at all.
Not just the tourist industry either, but anything in the Folkestone and Dover areas which have been impacted by this.

 

[reddragon]

The problem with Brexit is not Brexit but the dogma & reasons behind it bringing the worst of all outcomes. I guess I was 55% remain so not staunchly either side as I think most people were, but I have zero confidence of the actual outcome. I see no fundamental issue with Brexit in principal but the process & outcome is totally flawed.

The fundamental issue driving Brexit has been a misplaced hatred of the EU & fictional benefits of Brexit. Yes the EU has big issues but in any divorce you cannot expect all the outcomes that you desire. Added to the fact that the vote to leave was tiny overall & regional, so many would fight against it in the UK & EU the sad outcome was inevitable. Worse still, the 4m or so EU citizens in the UK and the many more millions of UK citizens residing overseas were not allowed to vote despite being significantly disadvantaged. So many thousands of families trapped in one country & UK citizens losing the British nationality needlessly.

This Dover business is again driven by misplaced hatred of the French. Whilst many in France may love rubbing salt in the wound & playing with us, the simple fact is that we have taken minimal measures to cater for the additional checks required, no extra booths at Dover or the Eurotunnel & nothing at airports. If we 'took back control', how could 6 French border officials arriving late cause such chaos in Kent then?

These are not minor teething issues but fundamental flaws in the Brexit process and more & more will be exposed over time. Whilst we 'hate' the EU & 'blame' them for our own actions things will progressively get worse. Every trip I now make to the EU costs more, takes longer & required lots of paperwork & forms. For business this is magnified and the UK PLC will suffer increasingly.

Until we accept what we have chosen to do as a nation, move on and deal with it instead of blaming someone else nothing will improve.

 

[JamesT]

The problem with Brexit is not Brexit but the dogma & reasons behind it bringing the worst of all outcomes. I guess I was 55% remain so not staunchly either side as I think most people were, but I have zero confidence of the actual outcome. I see no fundamental issue with Brexit in principal but the process & outcome is totally flawed.

The fundamental issue driving Brexit has been a misplaced hatred of the EU & fictional benefits of Brexit. Yes the EU has big issues but in any divorce you cannot expect all the outcomes that you desire. Added to the fact that the vote to leave was tiny overall & regional, so many would fight against it in the UK & EU the sad outcome was inevitable. Worse still, the 4m or so EU citizens in the UK and the many more millions of UK citizens residing overseas were not allowed to vote despite being significantly disadvantaged. So many thousands of families trapped in one country & UK citizens losing the British nationality needlessly.

This Dover business is again driven by misplaced hatred of the French. Whilst many in France may love rubbing salt in the wound & playing with us, the simple fact is that we have taken minimal measures to cater for the additional checks required, no extra booths at Dover or the Eurotunnel & nothing at airports. If we 'took back control', how could 6 French border officials arriving late cause such chaos in Kent then?

These are not minor teething issues but fundamental flaws in the Brexit process and more & more will be exposed over time. Whilst we 'hate' the EU & 'blame' them for our own actions things will progressively get worse. Every trip I now make to the EU costs more, takes longer & required lots of paperwork & forms. For business this is magnified and the UK PLC will suffer increasingly.

Until we accept what we have chosen to do as a nation, move on and deal with it instead of blaming someone else nothing will improve.

Apparently we did install extra booths at Dover - https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2...er-control-booths-in-attempt-to-reduce-delays

 

[reddragon]

Apparently we did install extra booths at Dover - https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2...er-control-booths-in-attempt-to-reduce-delays

hahaha 2 extra last minute booths installed for multiple times the amount of work, fantastic eh!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Worse still, the 4m or so EU citizens in the UK and the many more millions of UK citizens residing overseas were not allowed to vote despite being significantly disadvantaged.

I wouldn't dispute that Brexit has caused problems for many people, but since when was being 'significantly disadvantaged' a qualification for being able to vote? By that logic, I guess the UK Government shouldn't make any decisions that might impact - for example - the overseas aid budget - without first giving everyone in Africa a vote in UK elections.

So many thousands of families trapped in one country & UK citizens losing the British nationality needlessly.

How can a UK citizen lose British nationality because of Brexit?

And you say, trapped in one country as if that's a terrible or unusual thing. But last time I checked it was the norm, pretty much across the entire World, for people to need a visa if they want to live somewhere other than their own country (with specific agreements between countries to waive that generally being the exception).

This Dover business is again driven by misplaced hatred of the French. Whilst many in France may love rubbing salt in the wound & playing with us, the simple fact is that we have taken minimal measures to cater for the additional checks required, no extra booths at Dover or the Eurotunnel & nothing at airports. If we 'took back control', how could 6 French border officials arriving late cause such chaos in Kent then?

How on Earth is 'taken minimal measures to cater for the additional checks required' driven by 'misplaced hatred of the French'? Do you imagine that some manager responsible for deciding on additional measures was going, 'Nah, I HATE the French. Let's not do anything to improve capacity at Dover. We'll make *British* tourists suffer, just to spite the French!'

 

[AlterEgo]

This Dover business is again driven by misplaced hatred of the French. Whilst many in France may love rubbing salt in the wound & playing with us, the simple fact is that we have taken minimal measures to cater for the additional checks required, no extra booths at Dover or the Eurotunnel & nothing at airports.

What extra is needed at airports relating to Brexit? EU citizens use the e-gates.

If we 'took back control', how could 6 French border officials arriving late cause such chaos in Kent then?

Because the controls are juxtaposed at Dover Port, unlike at airports.