Charlie Flanagan warns against “jumping over the cliff into uncertainty” while Arlene Foster leaves door open for “deep reform”

After Sammy Wilson’s photo opportunity with Nigel Farage at a Leave.EU event and David McNarry’s weekend comments about the need for the “DUP to quit fence-sitting on the issue of leaving the EU”, today’s speeches by Belfast and Dublin ministers in front of a hundred people at Queen’s University had the potential to clarify DUP thinking. [Ed – Spoiler alert: it didn’t.]

I’ve spent more time in Belfast over the last three months than in my own constituency.

Brexit QUB Charlie Flanagan Arlene Foster from back of roomIrish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Charlie Flanagan began with some brief remarks about the latest Stormont deal. He expressed disappointment and regret that A Fresh Start didn’t include a set of proposals and a solution for dealing with the past. Across on the other side of the stage, Arlene Foster smiled when Flanagan suggested that at times the process of negotiation had stretched the patience of those involved.

Of course the European Union can be frustrating. Of course the institutions need improvement. It’s an ongoing project … Our government believes there is room for improvement … and that’s why we stand ready to support the efforts of Prime Minister Cameron to make it more effective … But our starting point is that membership of the European Union is in the interests of everyone on these islands.

Describing departure from the EU as “jumping over the cliff into uncertainty” he said that if Britain was to leave “we simply do not know how much it would mean for the border, for north/south cooperation and for the economy of all of Ireland”.

Those arguing for Brexit often state that they want the UK to take back control of its borders. Since the Anglo-Irish Agreement “we have been committed to making the border less of an impediment … tens of thousands of people cross the border daily to get to work, trade flows from one side to the other, and tourists”. Withdrawal from the EU would likely reinstate some form of border controls of some sort, light or heavy.

Flanagan also referred to EU funding streams – Common Agricultural Policy, Peace and regional programmes – that made a “significant contribution to GDP”. He said “Our economies would struggle if that contribution was suddenly shorn”, adding that “Brexit might be bad news for Foreign Direct Investment into Northern Ireland”.

He also highlighted that “membership of the European Union has been great for local universities”, mentioning how QUB, TCD and UCD have benefited from Erasmus exchanges. The minister finished:

I believe that a deal can be struck and secure the position of the UK within the European Union … benefit to EU of having UK as a firm influencer round the table and not in another room.

Finance Minister [Ed – and soon to be First Minister] Arlene Foster spoke about the need for discussion about the European Union to be “brought to the centre of public discourse”. Quoting Churchill and referring to the recent terror attacks in Paris she added:

Peace and stability in Europe remains a worthy goal … We celebrate democracy over tyranny.

QUB Brexit Arlene Foster Chralie Flanagan side view across Great Hall“The British public haven’t been consulted for forty years” and in the interim there have been many changes to the European institutions. “So it is good to have debate.”

Foster welcomed QUB’s involvement hosting the event as she sought “the broadest possible participation in the debate”.

[We] need to engage constructively with the public about the benefit of EU membership – positive and negative – and that affect of leaving would have on their lives.

Quoting Lord Brookeborough, she hoped that “somebody must be able to put it into a language that everyone understands”.

The finance minister’s speech looked at the potential to leave the European Union through a negotiated exit as well as the possibility of remaining within institutions after a “renegotiated settlement” and “deep reform”.

Tinkering at the edges will not do.

Could the United Kingdom thrive outside the European Union? Foster noted that other European countries were thriving – some in top ten of local competitiveness – outside the EU.

Exit would have major implications around trade and investment. Clarity was needed on market trading. Given our reliance on European markets, any restrictions on trade post-exit would have a large effect.

But don’t the forget trading relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU works both ways. UK is in a strong position to negotiate a mutually beneficial trade agreement with EU and Ireland.

Free from paying in Europe, she saw the potential for the UK Government to use that money for better targeted and more flexible regional aid.

Foster said that “there is a mixed response within farming community” regarding the EU. “Farmers are absolutely crippled by bureaucracy coming from the EU.”

She said that “Europe has done little to support farmers” during the current milk crisis and stated that “Commissioner Hogan could do a great deal more to support local farmers” including increasing the intervention price for milk.

People are looking for a meaningful change. It will be for people of UK, our people alone, [to make a decision on remaining or leaving]”.

QUB Brexit Charlie Flanagan and Arlene Foster at tableThe first question from the audience noted that while Charlie Flanagan had spoken about the possible impact on the north/south border, Arlene Foster had not mentioned the border as an issue.

“You cannot say what will happen to border until we see where we’re going in relation to reform agenda” she rebutted. But she waived away any suggestion that the type of border (with watchtowers) endured during the Troubles “due to the terrorist campaign” could return.

Charlie Flanagan referred positively to Arlene Foster’s desire for an evidence-based and informed debate and the need for flexibility.

While Arlene Foster’s speech was more Euro-sceptic than pro-European, she left the door open to support remaining in the EU if David Cameron can negotiate large enough reforms.

It seems likely that the DUP will wait until after any negotiations conclude before taking a party position on Brexit, and we can expect some individual elected representatives to campaign personally in the meantime.

The seventy five minute event was chaired by Daíthí O’Ceallaigh and organised by the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queen’s in association with the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) and the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations.

@CharlieFlanagan @iiea @IrishAssoc @ PISPatQUB @DPhinnemore @QPolAtQueens

, , , , , ,

  • Oriel27

    God help me, i cross the border everyday to and from work. I socialize either side of the border. My partner lives in the North, me in the South. My parish is either side. For me the border is irrelevant, it doesn’t exist. Imagine if i was hindered, stopped, questioned about my movements, etc, me and 1000’s like me – do you think that’s going to lead to a peaceful future for everyone? imagine the conflict or turmoil that could come out of a return of the so-called border, i certainly wouldn’t condemn any resistance…

  • chrisjones2

    ” i certainly wouldn’t condemn any resistance…”

    Errr what does that mean? You will go to war for Europe?

    Did all the people who for years lived on the French / German Spanish / French German / Swiss borders think “I am a bit hacked off with the border so lets do a bit of violence ”

    Do get over yourself

  • Ernst Blofeld

    I would like Arlene to foster greater relationships with the the EU. He is the man to foster greater links with Europe.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The British haven’t been consulted on Europe for 40 years … that’s a side effect of Britain’s main political differences with Continental Europe and European democracy i.e.

    * First Past The Post,
    * A political culture resistant/hesitant to acts of direct democracy
    * A political culture that focuses primarily on bipartisanship.

    All things UKIP opposes and wants to reform in British democracy, isn’t it funny how in some ways UKIP want to make the British more “European” to tackle the issue of the EU and Europe.

  • chrisjones2

    The European Project designed by the French – German axis is in utter disarray

    The Euro is crippling smaller countries and the rules around it have been fudged so many times it will take years to recover. Meanwhile its at risk of another major shock killing it

    Schenegen has been exposed as a nonsense. Members have lost control of their borders. They now have no idea who may be in their states.

    The open market isn’t that open – look for a French Government Body buying a British Made car or the French Armed forces buying a UK equipment

    Fraud is rampant. In many states so is corruption.

    If the UK goes Ireland needs to take a strategic decision on what it does and where its future lies. So blame Ireland …not the UK

  • Croiteir

    Your assuming that the British made item would be better

  • Oriel27

    Sorry Chris but would u like someone asking u for ID everyday going to work and checking your car ? That used to happen for years. Very hard to accept in your own hinterland. Germany France and Spain are their own countries – the north is and always will be disputed. Everything is fine now, why change it ?. Imposing an unwanted border will be the death of the peace process. Now what exactly do you want me to get over ?. I think its time the DUP start recognizing their own future prosperity is south and not east.

  • Sergiogiorgio

    What utter nonsense. I didn’t listen to the debate but if Charlie’s biggest issue for a managed UK exit of Europe is the imposition of a border between north and south then I know how I’ll be voting. Ever been to Switzerland? It’s not a member of the EU but has 10’s if not 100’s of thousands of French, Italian and German people crossing its borders every morning and evening to work in country. I know because I was one of them for a while. It doesn’t seem too much of a hassle for them. Remember we are not part of the euro (UK that is) and our world hardly ends at having to get our GBP changed to EURO for the annual Med holiday. If there is to be a cogent argument and discussion on the future of the UK in the EU then for Gods sake focus on the key issues……it’s the economy stoopid.

  • Sergiogiorgio

    Your generalisations abound Chris, yet you pretty much nail it for me. The EU, in its current form, both politically and economically, is a busted flush. Self interest alone is not reason enough not to reform it root and branch, or exit.

  • Reader

    It would be an option to live on the same side of the border as your partner and your job. That would save money and help the environment even now. Obviously there might be an issue with buying cheap fuel.
    On the other hand, the RoI could end up preferring the existing Common Travel Area to the newly discovered downsides of joining Schengen, so the border may not become an issue at all.

  • Reader

    It would be an option to live on the same side of the border as your partner and your job. That would save money and help the environment even now. Obviously there might be an issue with buying cheap fuel.
    On the other hand, the RoI could end up preferring the existing Common Travel Area to the newly discovered downsides of joining Schengen, so the border may not become an issue at all.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The Schengen arrangements and the Eurozone are not the causal factors to the migration and currency issues. Migration is not a simple matter of people going through border checkpoints, a lot will not. Not being in Schengen didn’t mean a jot for Adriatic non-EU nations in the Balkans like Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and FYR Macedonia.

    Do you honestly think the likes of Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Greece would not be targeted by refugees if Schengen didn’t exist? The border controls in Europe have been fairly proportionate but this is the result of a war. In the World war thousands of Poles and Lithuanians came to the UK and Ireland without an EEC and when soilders patrolled every border. Do you honestly think leaving the EU “shuts the door” when open door migration is a reality? We’ve seen exaggerated figures of the number of Bulgarians and Romanians coming over, and exaggerated percentage of that number who come only to claim. Non-EU migration by air travel directly from other continents is being blamed on the EU. Net migration is seen as a good thing economically, but those left behind are being told if they attack enough migrants they’ll get a free job.

    Countries aren’t rooms where there’s only one door in and out of. We’ve seen one UKIP member found guilty of human trafficking telling his constituents that the UK’s border are open. We’ve seen Farage blame “open door migration” for his inability to get from across a bridge linking England to Wales, when he can’t even logistically move easily from two countries in the UK. In the UK Thresa May gets in an the UK make a cock up on its border control for matters completely in her own hands despite spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric. These are the fools the British right are investing their hopes of closing borders in.

    No amount of legislation is going to stop rank and file incompetence, no amount of legislation is going to stop criminal migrants kick their habit of a lifetime, no amount of legislation will stop the migrant crisis from happening. The reason why the UK has an open door is simply because it loses its key so often and it’s convenient, it comes down to a pan-European culture of low enforcement. Turning the UK into a police state like the Hungarians have done is very much an option to the UK, in the EU already.

    The U.K. is the fastest growing population in Western Europe and yet we are to believe this is fine soley to the EU and even Schengen which the UK is not part of, even though the other 27 countries have the same responsibilities to its citizens. This is utterly ridiculous, and it’s all the UK’s fault one the one hand Brits want their cake and eat it to, free movement for themselves but not for others and on the other hand no reciprocation from other countries. On the one hand it wants to attract top talent from overseas and on the otherhand hold onto the prejudices that people from overseas have to be perceived as a threat.

    Switzerland and the United Kingdom are still feeling ill effects of the Global Recession and simply having the Swiss Franc and the Pound solves nothing. You say it is crippling smaller countries, but the reality is more countries in Europe want to get in the EU than to stay out of it. Estonia is one of the fastest growing countries in Europe but that is unwelcome in the anti-EU narrative. Greece wants to keep the Euro, as do all the Eurozone countries. The currency that’s experienced the biggest shocks financially has been the Russian roubel, the Swiss had pegged their currency to the Euro much to the chagrin of speculators so if the narrative that Eastern Europe would be better off out of this Euro disaster … They can look to their neighbours for the alternatives.

    There is also a myth that a UK outside Europe will return to being a pseudo superpower, where’s the evidence? Empires come and Go. Why is so much staked on the UK being a successful trading nation when it’s barely making things that are soley reliant on its internal resources? The Leave arguement is based on “We’ve got the money, you’ve got the stuff”, but just as the UK can free itself from trading with the EU, so the reverse is also true. The export side of the case isn’t being made by the leavers, only the cheaper import case. The U.K. Might lose CAP for a less efficient home based system as is the case in Norway and Switzerland, it might losing pan-European manufacture because reducing the ease of doing business is a small price to pay for whatever the leavers want in meddling in these affairs.

    As someone from an engineering background, who would want to make something, I wouldn’t trust the interests of Marketeers like Farage, Old money like Carswell and career politicians like Hoey.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The Schengen arrangements and the Eurozone are not the causal factors to the migration and currency issues. Migration is not a simple matter of people going through border checkpoints, a lot will not. Not being in Schengen didn’t mean a jot for Adriatic non-EU nations in the Balkans like Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and FYR Macedonia.

    Do you honestly think the likes of Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Greece would not be targeted by refugees if Schengen didn’t exist? The border controls in Europe have been fairly proportionate but this is the result of a war. In the World war thousands of Poles and Lithuanians came to the UK and Ireland without an EEC and when soilders patrolled every border. Do you honestly think leaving the EU “shuts the door” when open door migration is a reality? We’ve seen exaggerated figures of the number of Bulgarians and Romanians coming over, and exaggerated percentage of that number who come only to claim. Non-EU migration by air travel directly from other continents is being blamed on the EU. Net migration is seen as a good thing economically, but those left behind are being told if they attack enough migrants they’ll get a free job.

    Countries aren’t rooms where there’s only one door in and out of. We’ve seen one UKIP member found guilty of human trafficking telling his constituents that the UK’s border are open. We’ve seen Farage blame “open door migration” for his inability to get from across a bridge linking England to Wales, when he can’t even logistically move easily from two countries in the UK. In the UK Thresa May gets in an the UK make a cock up on its border control for matters completely in her own hands despite spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric. These are the fools the British right are investing their hopes of closing borders in.

    No amount of legislation is going to stop rank and file incompetence, no amount of legislation is going to stop criminal migrants kick their habit of a lifetime, no amount of legislation will stop the migrant crisis from happening. The reason why the UK has an open door is simply because it loses its key so often and it’s convenient, it comes down to a pan-European culture of low enforcement. Turning the UK into a police state like the Hungarians have done is very much an option to the UK, in the EU already.

    The U.K. is the fastest growing population in Western Europe and yet we are to believe this is fine soley to the EU and even Schengen which the UK is not part of, even though the other 27 countries have the same responsibilities to its citizens. This is utterly ridiculous, and it’s all the UK’s fault one the one hand Brits want their cake and eat it to, free movement for themselves but not for others and on the other hand no reciprocation from other countries. On the one hand it wants to attract top talent from overseas and on the otherhand hold onto the prejudices that people from overseas have to be perceived as a threat.

    Switzerland and the United Kingdom are still feeling ill effects of the Global Recession and simply having the Swiss Franc and the Pound solves nothing. You say it is crippling smaller countries, but the reality is more countries in Europe want to get in the EU than to stay out of it. Estonia is one of the fastest growing countries in Europe but that is unwelcome in the anti-EU narrative. Greece wants to keep the Euro, as do all the Eurozone countries. The currency that’s experienced the biggest shocks financially has been the Russian roubel, the Swiss had pegged their currency to the Euro much to the chagrin of speculators so if the narrative that Eastern Europe would be better off out of this Euro disaster … They can look to their neighbours for the alternatives.

    There is also a myth that a UK outside Europe will return to being a pseudo superpower, where’s the evidence? Empires come and Go. Why is so much staked on the UK being a successful trading nation when it’s barely making things that are soley reliant on its internal resources? The Leave arguement is based on “We’ve got the money, you’ve got the stuff”, but just as the UK can free itself from trading with the EU, so the reverse is also true. The export side of the case isn’t being made by the leavers, only the cheaper import case. The U.K. Might lose CAP for a less efficient home based system as is the case in Norway and Switzerland, it might losing pan-European manufacture because reducing the ease of doing business is a small price to pay for whatever the leavers want in meddling in these affairs.

    As someone from an engineering background, who would want to make something, I wouldn’t trust the interests of Marketeers like Farage, Old money like Carswell and career politicians like Hoey.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The Schengen arrangements and the Eurozone are not the causal factors to the migration and currency issues. Migration is not a simple matter of people going through border checkpoints, a lot will not. Not being in Schengen didn’t mean a jot for Adriatic non-EU nations in the Balkans like Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and FYR Macedonia.

    Do you honestly think the likes of Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Greece would not be targeted by refugees if Schengen didn’t exist? The border controls in Europe have been fairly proportionate but this is the result of a war. In the World war thousands of Poles and Lithuanians came to the UK and Ireland without an EEC and when soilders patrolled every border. Do you honestly think leaving the EU “shuts the door” when open door migration is a reality? We’ve seen exaggerated figures of the number of Bulgarians and Romanians coming over, and exaggerated percentage of that number who come only to claim. Non-EU migration by air travel directly from other continents is being blamed on the EU. Net migration is seen as a good thing economically, but those left behind are being told if they attack enough migrants they’ll get a free job.

    Countries aren’t rooms where there’s only one door in and out of. We’ve seen one UKIP member found guilty of human trafficking telling his constituents that the UK’s border are open. We’ve seen Farage blame “open door migration” for his inability to get from across a bridge linking England to Wales, when he can’t even logistically move easily from two countries in the UK. In the UK Thresa May gets in an the UK make a cock up on its border control for matters completely in her own hands despite spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric. These are the fools the British right are investing their hopes of closing borders in.

    No amount of legislation is going to stop rank and file incompetence, no amount of legislation is going to stop criminal migrants kick their habit of a lifetime, no amount of legislation will stop the migrant crisis from happening. The reason why the UK has an open door is simply because it loses its key so often and it’s convenient, it comes down to a pan-European culture of low enforcement. Turning the UK into a police state like the Hungarians have done is very much an option to the UK, in the EU already.

    The U.K. is the fastest growing population in Western Europe and yet we are to believe this is fine soley to the EU and even Schengen which the UK is not part of, even though the other 27 countries have the same responsibilities to its citizens. This is utterly ridiculous, and it’s all the UK’s fault one the one hand Brits want their cake and eat it to, free movement for themselves but not for others and on the other hand no reciprocation from other countries. On the one hand it wants to attract top talent from overseas and on the otherhand hold onto the prejudices that people from overseas have to be perceived as a threat.

    Switzerland and the United Kingdom are still feeling ill effects of the Global Recession and simply having the Swiss Franc and the Pound solves nothing. You say it is crippling smaller countries, but the reality is more countries in Europe want to get in the EU than to stay out of it. Estonia is one of the fastest growing countries in Europe but that is unwelcome in the anti-EU narrative. Greece wants to keep the Euro, as do all the Eurozone countries. The currency that’s experienced the biggest shocks financially has been the Russian roubel, the Swiss had pegged their currency to the Euro much to the chagrin of speculators so if the narrative that Eastern Europe would be better off out of this Euro disaster … They can look to their neighbours for the alternatives.

    There is also a myth that a UK outside Europe will return to being a pseudo superpower, where’s the evidence? Empires come and Go. Why is so much staked on the UK being a successful trading nation when it’s barely making things that are soley reliant on its internal resources? The Leave arguement is based on “We’ve got the money, you’ve got the stuff”, but just as the UK can free itself from trading with the EU, so the reverse is also true. The export side of the case isn’t being made by the leavers, only the cheaper import case. The U.K. Might lose CAP for a less efficient home based system as is the case in Norway and Switzerland, it might losing pan-European manufacture because reducing the ease of doing business is a small price to pay for whatever the leavers want in meddling in these affairs.

    As someone from an engineering background, who would want to make something, I wouldn’t trust the interests of Marketeers like Farage, Old money like Carswell and career politicians like Hoey.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The Schengen arrangements and the Eurozone are not the causal factors to the migration and currency issues. Migration is not a simple matter of people going through border checkpoints, a lot will not. Not being in Schengen didn’t mean a jot for Adriatic non-EU nations in the Balkans like Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and FYR Macedonia.

    Do you honestly think the likes of Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Greece would not be targeted by refugees if Schengen didn’t exist? The border controls in Europe have been fairly proportionate but this is the result of a war. In the World war thousands of Poles and Lithuanians came to the UK and Ireland without an EEC and when soilders patrolled every border. Do you honestly think leaving the EU “shuts the door” when open door migration is a reality? We’ve seen exaggerated figures of the number of Bulgarians and Romanians coming over, and exaggerated percentage of that number who come only to claim. Non-EU migration by air travel directly from other continents is being blamed on the EU. Net migration is seen as a good thing economically, but those left behind are being told if they attack enough migrants they’ll get a free job.

    Countries aren’t rooms where there’s only one door in and out of. We’ve seen one UKIP member found guilty of human trafficking telling his constituents that the UK’s border are open. We’ve seen Farage blame “open door migration” for his inability to get from across a bridge linking England to Wales, when he can’t even logistically move easily from two countries in the UK. In the UK Thresa May gets in an the UK make a cock up on its border control for matters completely in her own hands despite spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric. These are the fools the British right are investing their hopes of closing borders in.

    No amount of legislation is going to stop rank and file incompetence, no amount of legislation is going to stop criminal migrants kick their habit of a lifetime, no amount of legislation will stop the migrant crisis from happening. The reason why the UK has an open door is simply because it loses its key so often and it’s convenient, it comes down to a pan-European culture of low enforcement. Turning the UK into a police state like the Hungarians have done is very much an option to the UK, in the EU already.

    The U.K. is the fastest growing population in Western Europe and yet we are to believe this is fine soley to the EU and even Schengen which the UK is not part of, even though the other 27 countries have the same responsibilities to its citizens. This is utterly ridiculous, and it’s all the UK’s fault one the one hand Brits want their cake and eat it to, free movement for themselves but not for others and on the other hand no reciprocation from other countries. On the one hand it wants to attract top talent from overseas and on the otherhand hold onto the prejudices that people from overseas have to be perceived as a threat.

    Switzerland and the United Kingdom are still feeling ill effects of the Global Recession and simply having the Swiss Franc and the Pound solves nothing. You say it is crippling smaller countries, but the reality is more countries in Europe want to get in the EU than to stay out of it. Estonia is one of the fastest growing countries in Europe but that is unwelcome in the anti-EU narrative. Greece wants to keep the Euro, as do all the Eurozone countries. The currency that’s experienced the biggest shocks financially has been the Russian roubel, the Swiss had pegged their currency to the Euro much to the chagrin of speculators so if the narrative that Eastern Europe would be better off out of this Euro disaster … They can look to their neighbours for the alternatives.

    There is also a myth that a UK outside Europe will return to being a pseudo superpower, where’s the evidence? Empires come and Go. Why is so much staked on the UK being a successful trading nation when it’s barely making things that are soley reliant on its internal resources? The Leave arguement is based on “We’ve got the money, you’ve got the stuff”, but just as the UK can free itself from trading with the EU, so the reverse is also true. The export side of the case isn’t being made by the leavers, only the cheaper import case. The U.K. Might lose CAP for a less efficient home based system as is the case in Norway and Switzerland, it might losing pan-European manufacture because reducing the ease of doing business is a small price to pay for whatever the leavers want in meddling in these affairs.

    As someone from an engineering background, who would want to make something, I wouldn’t trust the interests of Marketeers like Farage, Old money like Carswell and career politicians like Hoey.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The Schengen arrangements and the Eurozone are not the causal factors to the migration and currency issues. Migration is not a simple matter of people going through border checkpoints, a lot will not. Not being in Schengen didn’t mean a jot for Adriatic non-EU nations in the Balkans like Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and FYR Macedonia.

    Do you honestly think the likes of Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Greece would not be targeted by refugees if Schengen didn’t exist? The border controls in Europe have been fairly proportionate but this is the result of a war. In the World war thousands of Poles and Lithuanians came to the UK and Ireland without an EEC and when soilders patrolled every border. Do you honestly think leaving the EU “shuts the door” when open door migration is a reality? We’ve seen exaggerated figures of the number of Bulgarians and Romanians coming over, and exaggerated percentage of that number who come only to claim. Non-EU migration by air travel directly from other continents is being blamed on the EU. Net migration is seen as a good thing economically, but those left behind are being told if they attack enough migrants they’ll get a free job.

    Countries aren’t rooms where there’s only one door in and out of. We’ve seen one UKIP member found guilty of human trafficking telling his constituents that the UK’s border are open. We’ve seen Farage blame “open door migration” for his inability to get from across a bridge linking England to Wales, when he can’t even logistically move easily from two countries in the UK. In the UK Thresa May gets in an the UK make a cock up on its border control for matters completely in her own hands despite spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric. These are the fools the British right are investing their hopes of closing borders in.

    No amount of legislation is going to stop rank and file incompetence, no amount of legislation is going to stop criminal migrants kick their habit of a lifetime, no amount of legislation will stop the migrant crisis from happening. The reason why the UK has an open door is simply because it loses its key so often and it’s convenient, it comes down to a pan-European culture of low enforcement. Turning the UK into a police state like the Hungarians have done is very much an option to the UK, in the EU already.

    The U.K. is the fastest growing population in Western Europe and yet we are to believe this is fine soley to the EU and even Schengen which the UK is not part of, even though the other 27 countries have the same responsibilities to its citizens. This is utterly ridiculous, and it’s all the UK’s fault one the one hand Brits want their cake and eat it to, free movement for themselves but not for others and on the other hand no reciprocation from other countries. On the one hand it wants to attract top talent from overseas and on the otherhand hold onto the prejudices that people from overseas have to be perceived as a threat.

    Switzerland and the United Kingdom are still feeling ill effects of the Global Recession and simply having the Swiss Franc and the Pound solves nothing. You say it is crippling smaller countries, but the reality is more countries in Europe want to get in the EU than to stay out of it. Estonia is one of the fastest growing countries in Europe but that is unwelcome in the anti-EU narrative. Greece wants to keep the Euro, as do all the Eurozone countries. The currency that’s experienced the biggest shocks financially has been the Russian roubel, the Swiss had pegged their currency to the Euro much to the chagrin of speculators so if the narrative that Eastern Europe would be better off out of this Euro disaster … They can look to their neighbours for the alternatives.

    There is also a myth that a UK outside Europe will return to being a pseudo superpower, where’s the evidence? Empires come and Go. Why is so much staked on the UK being a successful trading nation when it’s barely making things that are soley reliant on its internal resources? The Leave arguement is based on “We’ve got the money, you’ve got the stuff”, but just as the UK can free itself from trading with the EU, so the reverse is also true. The export side of the case isn’t being made by the leavers, only the cheaper import case. The U.K. Might lose CAP for a less efficient home based system as is the case in Norway and Switzerland, it might losing pan-European manufacture because reducing the ease of doing business is a small price to pay for whatever the leavers want in meddling in these affairs.

    As someone from an engineering background, who would want to make something, I wouldn’t trust the interests of Marketeers like Farage, Old money like Carswell and career politicians like Hoey.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The thing about Schengen is that the reality is that migration doesn’t simply happen at border checkpoints. You cannot police every square inch of a international border be that land or sea based, no country on Earth can afford to do it, the costs can massively outweigh the benefits . Having one overly funded security post on a main road or port is useless when it’s very easy for a migrant or criminal to know where the security gaps are. It would be better to monitor people discretely through conventional policing and the sharing of information between nations, not cutting these resources to build an expensive national fortress that would still have many cracks anyway.

    Schengen was there to help Continental Europe deal with that problem and the problem of what happens if someone escapes into another country. The European Arrest Warrent I believe came from Schengen to aid with criminal elements jumping borders. Countries can deal with the strategies of multinational organised crime because it cut massive red tape in policing. Criminals could get through with sham visas but police officers had limited ability to even go into the country and share info with other police in person. Our own experience with the PSNI and Garda shows how much of a difference co-opperation can make, but border or not it’s not going to stop criminality.

    The UK opposed identity cards, but other EU countries have them, what’s up with that?

    It takes more than a simple standard security check at an airport or seaport to vet people coming in and out of a region or country. Criminals international or domestic aren’t going to bring attention to themselves. The Munich terrorists all had visas. The Parisian terrorists were mainly natives, whose links to Islam weren’t from the Arab Gulf but the former French colonies in North Africa. Prejudices are being used as a substitute for the hard intelligence police services need to enforce.

    Areas along the EU’s regional border were meant to be patrolled like any international border, it’s not compliance with Schengen that was the reason why they weren’t. The UK’s own inability to deal with those coming from Calais shows how little an international arrangement actually means. The far right tried to milk the political capital out of a migrant witch hunt but were found wanting when a poor Syrian boy was washed up on a beach. Refugees are going to come from Africa into these isles on boats directly, and blaming other European countries, or the passing of home made migration laws aren’t going to change that one iota.

    The United Kingdom and the Republic could keep the Common Travel Zone, if they leave the E.U. they might even go to the pre-CTZ situation where everyone on the island of Ireland had to show their passport to get into Britain. They might get tougher border control if the Republic of Ireland joined Schengen itself and the U.K. decided to treat it like France.

    My own opinion is how the U.K. chooses to enforce its border with the continent and overseas travel has been entirely in its own hands all this time.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The thing about Schengen is that the reality is that migration doesn’t simply happen at border checkpoints. You cannot police every square inch of a international border be that land or sea based, no country on Earth can afford to do it, the costs can massively outweigh the benefits . Having one overly funded security post on a main road or port is useless when it’s very easy for a migrant or criminal to know where the security gaps are. It would be better to monitor people discretely through conventional policing and the sharing of information between nations, not cutting these resources to build an expensive national fortress that would still have many cracks anyway.

    Schengen was there to help Continental Europe deal with that problem and the problem of what happens if someone escapes into another country. The European Arrest Warrent I believe came from Schengen to aid with criminal elements jumping borders. Countries can deal with the strategies of multinational organised crime because it cut massive red tape in policing. Criminals could get through with sham visas but police officers had limited ability to even go into the country and share info with other police in person. Our own experience with the PSNI and Garda shows how much of a difference co-opperation can make, but border or not it’s not going to stop criminality.

    The UK opposed identity cards, but other EU countries have them, what’s up with that?

    It takes more than a simple standard security check at an airport or seaport to vet people coming in and out of a region or country. Criminals international or domestic aren’t going to bring attention to themselves. The Munich terrorists all had visas. The Parisian terrorists were mainly natives, whose links to Islam weren’t from the Arab Gulf but the former French colonies in North Africa. Prejudices are being used as a substitute for the hard intelligence police services need to enforce.

    Areas along the EU’s regional border were meant to be patrolled like any international border, it’s not compliance with Schengen that was the reason why they weren’t. The UK’s own inability to deal with those coming from Calais shows how little an international arrangement actually means. The far right tried to milk the political capital out of a migrant witch hunt but were found wanting when a poor Syrian boy was washed up on a beach. Refugees are going to come from Africa into these isles on boats directly, and blaming other European countries, or the passing of home made migration laws aren’t going to change that one iota.

    The United Kingdom and the Republic could keep the Common Travel Zone, if they leave the E.U. they might even go to the pre-CTZ situation where everyone on the island of Ireland had to show their passport to get into Britain. They might get tougher border control if the Republic of Ireland joined Schengen itself and the U.K. decided to treat it like France.

    My own opinion is how the U.K. chooses to enforce its border with the continent and overseas travel has been entirely in its own hands all this time.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The thing about Schengen is that the reality is that migration doesn’t simply happen at border checkpoints. You cannot police every square inch of a international border be that land or sea based, no country on Earth can afford to do it, the costs can massively outweigh the benefits . Having one overly funded security post on a main road or port is useless when it’s very easy for a migrant or criminal to know where the security gaps are. It would be better to monitor people discretely through conventional policing and the sharing of information between nations, not cutting these resources to build an expensive national fortress that would still have many cracks anyway.

    Schengen was there to help Continental Europe deal with that problem and the problem of what happens if someone escapes into another country. The European Arrest Warrent I believe came from Schengen to aid with criminal elements jumping borders. Countries can deal with the strategies of multinational organised crime because it cut massive red tape in policing. Criminals could get through with sham visas but police officers had limited ability to even go into the country and share info with other police in person. Our own experience with the PSNI and Garda shows how much of a difference co-opperation can make, but border or not it’s not going to stop criminality.

    The UK opposed identity cards, but other EU countries have them, what’s up with that?

    It takes more than a simple standard security check at an airport or seaport to vet people coming in and out of a region or country. Criminals international or domestic aren’t going to bring attention to themselves. The Munich terrorists all had visas. The Parisian terrorists were mainly natives, whose links to Islam weren’t from the Arab Gulf but the former French colonies in North Africa. Prejudices are being used as a substitute for the hard intelligence police services need to enforce.

    Areas along the EU’s regional border were meant to be patrolled like any international border, it’s not compliance with Schengen that was the reason why they weren’t. The UK’s own inability to deal with those coming from Calais shows how little an international arrangement actually means. The far right tried to milk the political capital out of a migrant witch hunt but were found wanting when a poor Syrian boy was washed up on a beach. Refugees are going to come from Africa into these isles on boats directly, and blaming other European countries, or the passing of home made migration laws aren’t going to change that one iota.

    The United Kingdom and the Republic could keep the Common Travel Zone, if they leave the E.U. they might even go to the pre-CTZ situation where everyone on the island of Ireland had to show their passport to get into Britain. They might get tougher border control if the Republic of Ireland joined Schengen itself and the U.K. decided to treat it like France.

    My own opinion is how the U.K. chooses to enforce its border with the continent and overseas travel has been entirely in its own hands all this time.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The thing about Schengen is that the reality is that migration doesn’t simply happen at border checkpoints. You cannot police every square inch of a international border be that land or sea based, no country on Earth can afford to do it, the costs can massively outweigh the benefits . Having one overly funded security post on a main road or port is useless when it’s very easy for a migrant or criminal to know where the security gaps are. It would be better to monitor people discretely through conventional policing and the sharing of information between nations, not cutting these resources to build an expensive national fortress that would still have many cracks anyway.

    Schengen was there to help Continental Europe deal with that problem and the problem of what happens if someone escapes into another country. The European Arrest Warrent I believe came from Schengen to aid with criminal elements jumping borders. Countries can deal with the strategies of multinational organised crime because it cut massive red tape in policing. Criminals could get through with sham visas but police officers had limited ability to even go into the country and share info with other police in person. Our own experience with the PSNI and Garda shows how much of a difference co-opperation can make, but border or not it’s not going to stop criminality.

    The UK opposed identity cards, but other EU countries have them, what’s up with that?

    It takes more than a simple standard security check at an airport or seaport to vet people coming in and out of a region or country. Criminals international or domestic aren’t going to bring attention to themselves. The Munich terrorists all had visas. The Parisian terrorists were mainly natives, whose links to Islam weren’t from the Arab Gulf but the former French colonies in North Africa. Prejudices are being used as a substitute for the hard intelligence police services need to enforce.

    Areas along the EU’s regional border were meant to be patrolled like any international border, it’s not compliance with Schengen that was the reason why they weren’t. The UK’s own inability to deal with those coming from Calais shows how little an international arrangement actually means. The far right tried to milk the political capital out of a migrant witch hunt but were found wanting when a poor Syrian boy was washed up on a beach. Refugees are going to come from Africa into these isles on boats directly, and blaming other European countries, or the passing of home made migration laws aren’t going to change that one iota.

    The United Kingdom and the Republic could keep the Common Travel Zone, if they leave the E.U. they might even go to the pre-CTZ situation where everyone on the island of Ireland had to show their passport to get into Britain. They might get tougher border control if the Republic of Ireland joined Schengen itself and the U.K. decided to treat it like France.

    My own opinion is how the U.K. chooses to enforce its border with the continent and overseas travel has been entirely in its own hands all this time.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The thing about Schengen is that the reality is that migration doesn’t simply happen at border checkpoints. You cannot police every square inch of a international border be that land or sea based, no country on Earth can afford to do it, the costs can massively outweigh the benefits . Having one overly funded security post on a main road or port is useless when it’s very easy for a migrant or criminal to know where the security gaps are. It would be better to monitor people discretely through conventional policing and the sharing of information between nations, not cutting these resources to build an expensive national fortress that would still have many cracks anyway.

    Schengen was there to help Continental Europe deal with that problem and the problem of what happens if someone escapes into another country. The European Arrest Warrent I believe came from Schengen to aid with criminal elements jumping borders. Countries can deal with the strategies of multinational organised crime because it cut massive red tape in policing. Criminals could get through with sham visas but police officers had limited ability to even go into the country and share info with other police in person. Our own experience with the PSNI and Garda shows how much of a difference co-opperation can make, but border or not it’s not going to stop criminality.

    The UK opposed identity cards, but other EU countries have them, what’s up with that?

    It takes more than a simple standard security check at an airport or seaport to vet people coming in and out of a region or country. Criminals international or domestic aren’t going to bring attention to themselves. The Munich terrorists all had visas. The Parisian terrorists were mainly natives, whose links to Islam weren’t from the Arab Gulf but the former French colonies in North Africa. Prejudices are being used as a substitute for the hard intelligence police services need to enforce.

    Areas along the EU’s regional border were meant to be patrolled like any international border, it’s not compliance with Schengen that was the reason why they weren’t. The UK’s own inability to deal with those coming from Calais shows how little an international arrangement actually means. The far right tried to milk the political capital out of a migrant witch hunt but were found wanting when a poor Syrian boy was washed up on a beach. Refugees are going to come from Africa into these isles on boats directly, and blaming other European countries, or the passing of home made migration laws aren’t going to change that one iota.

    The United Kingdom and the Republic could keep the Common Travel Zone, if they leave the E.U. they might even go to the pre-CTZ situation where everyone on the island of Ireland had to show their passport to get into Britain. They might get tougher border control if the Republic of Ireland joined Schengen itself and the U.K. decided to treat it like France.

    My own opinion is how the U.K. chooses to enforce its border with the continent and overseas travel has been entirely in its own hands all this time.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The thing about Schengen is that the reality is that migration doesn’t simply happen at border checkpoints. You cannot police every square inch of a international border be that land or sea based, no country on Earth can afford to do it, the costs can massively outweigh the benefits . Having one overly funded security post on a main road or port is useless when it’s very easy for a migrant or criminal to know where the security gaps are. It would be better to monitor people discretely through conventional policing and the sharing of information between nations, not cutting these resources to build an expensive national fortress that would still have many cracks anyway.

    Schengen was there to help Continental Europe deal with that problem and the problem of what happens if someone escapes into another country. The European Arrest Warrent I believe came from Schengen to aid with criminal elements jumping borders. Countries can deal with the strategies of multinational organised crime because it cut massive red tape in policing. Criminals could get through with sham visas but police officers had limited ability to even go into the country and share info with other police in person. Our own experience with the PSNI and Garda shows how much of a difference co-opperation can make, but border or not it’s not going to stop criminality.

    The UK opposed identity cards, but other EU countries have them, what’s up with that?

    It takes more than a simple standard security check at an airport or seaport to vet people coming in and out of a region or country. Criminals international or domestic aren’t going to bring attention to themselves. The Munich terrorists all had visas. The Parisian terrorists were mainly natives, whose links to Islam weren’t from the Arab Gulf but the former French colonies in North Africa. Prejudices are being used as a substitute for the hard intelligence police services need to enforce.

    Areas along the EU’s regional border were meant to be patrolled like any international border, it’s not compliance with Schengen that was the reason why they weren’t. The UK’s own inability to deal with those coming from Calais shows how little an international arrangement actually means. The far right tried to milk the political capital out of a migrant witch hunt but were found wanting when a poor Syrian boy was washed up on a beach. Refugees are going to come from Africa into these isles on boats directly, and blaming other European countries, or the passing of home made migration laws aren’t going to change that one iota.

    The United Kingdom and the Republic could keep the Common Travel Zone, if they leave the E.U. they might even go to the pre-CTZ situation where everyone on the island of Ireland had to show their passport to get into Britain. They might get tougher border control if the Republic of Ireland joined Schengen itself and the U.K. decided to treat it like France.

    My own opinion is how the U.K. chooses to enforce its border with the continent and overseas travel has been entirely in its own hands all this time.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Charlie didn’t say that, indeed he made a similar point he primarily mentioned the uncertainty particularly to the economy because unlike Switzerland and Norway (both Schengen members) it will be the first member country to leave the European Union. There might be a bit of a way out through Lisbon, but to even speculate the outcomes for the UK more so than the EU of that is difficult for businesses, students, families and some expatriates with a vested interest in EU legislation not becoming protectionist, isolationist or bordering on the xenophobic. Every company in the UK might have to face root and branch reform to working with 27 different nations and perhaps more but companies in the EU only will need to reform with regards to the UK.

    The small net contribution the UK makes to the EU is not going to massively damage either if it no longer existed. The rebate would be scrapped, the UK will be paying fees to be part of European science projects, crossborder security and accessing the market. Both regions will evtually adapt to something like the Norway or Switzerlad model, but the UK has the competive disadvantage of needing a lot of time to do so. What is bad for the UK, is a contagion to the Republic and Northern Ireland is squeezed in between that.

    The U.K. Leavers if they get the Brexit they want would have to stop trying to reinvent the game but play the ball where it lies, and be sporting to potential new opponents. It’s like Israel being a stand alone member of FIFA for a while when few confederations would have them. It would leave them with their own version of the Wilderness years and the sort of situation which drove them into the EU, ECC in the first place.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Charlie didn’t say that, indeed he made a similar point he primarily mentioned the uncertainty particularly to the economy because unlike Switzerland and Norway (both Schengen members) it will be the first member country to leave the European Union. There might be a bit of a way out through Lisbon, but to even speculate the outcomes for the UK more so than the EU of that is difficult for businesses, students, families and some expatriates with a vested interest in EU legislation not becoming protectionist, isolationist or bordering on the xenophobic. Every company in the UK might have to face root and branch reform to working with 27 different nations and perhaps more but companies in the EU only will need to reform with regards to the UK.

    The small net contribution the UK makes to the EU is not going to massively damage either if it no longer existed. The rebate would be scrapped, the UK will be paying fees to be part of European science projects, crossborder security and accessing the market. Both regions will evtually adapt to something like the Norway or Switzerlad model, but the UK has the competive disadvantage of needing a lot of time to do so. What is bad for the UK, is a contagion to the Republic and Northern Ireland is squeezed in between that.

    The U.K. Leavers if they get the Brexit they want would have to stop trying to reinvent the game but play the ball where it lies, and be sporting to potential new opponents. It’s like Israel being a stand alone member of FIFA for a while when few confederations would have them. It would leave them with their own version of the Wilderness years and the sort of situation which drove them into the EU, ECC in the first place.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Charlie didn’t say that, indeed he made a similar point he primarily mentioned the uncertainty particularly to the economy because unlike Switzerland and Norway (both Schengen members) it will be the first member country to leave the European Union. There might be a bit of a way out through Lisbon, but to even speculate the outcomes for the UK more so than the EU of that is difficult for businesses, students, families and some expatriates with a vested interest in EU legislation not becoming protectionist, isolationist or bordering on the xenophobic. Every company in the UK might have to face root and branch reform to working with 27 different nations and perhaps more but companies in the EU only will need to reform with regards to the UK.

    The small net contribution the UK makes to the EU is not going to massively damage either if it no longer existed. The rebate would be scrapped, the UK will be paying fees to be part of European science projects, crossborder security and accessing the market. Both regions will evtually adapt to something like the Norway or Switzerlad model, but the UK has the competive disadvantage of needing a lot of time to do so. What is bad for the UK, is a contagion to the Republic and Northern Ireland is squeezed in between that.

    The U.K. Leavers if they get the Brexit they want would have to stop trying to reinvent the game but play the ball where it lies, and be sporting to potential new opponents. It’s like Israel being a stand alone member of FIFA for a while when few confederations would have them. It would leave them with their own version of the Wilderness years and the sort of situation which drove them into the EU, ECC in the first place.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Charlie didn’t say that, indeed he made a similar point he primarily mentioned the uncertainty particularly to the economy because unlike Switzerland and Norway (both Schengen members) it will be the first member country to leave the European Union. There might be a bit of a way out through Lisbon, but to even speculate the outcomes for the UK more so than the EU of that is difficult for businesses, students, families and some expatriates with a vested interest in EU legislation not becoming protectionist, isolationist or bordering on the xenophobic. Every company in the UK might have to face root and branch reform to working with 27 different nations and perhaps more but companies in the EU only will need to reform with regards to the UK.

    The small net contribution the UK makes to the EU is not going to massively damage either if it no longer existed. The rebate would be scrapped, the UK will be paying fees to be part of European science projects, crossborder security and accessing the market. Both regions will evtually adapt to something like the Norway or Switzerlad model, but the UK has the competive disadvantage of needing a lot of time to do so. What is bad for the UK, is a contagion to the Republic and Northern Ireland is squeezed in between that.

    The U.K. Leavers if they get the Brexit they want would have to stop trying to reinvent the game but play the ball where it lies, and be sporting to potential new opponents. It’s like Israel being a stand alone member of FIFA for a while when few confederations would have them. It would leave them with their own version of the Wilderness years and the sort of situation which drove them into the EU, ECC in the first place.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Charlie didn’t say that, indeed he made a similar point he primarily mentioned the uncertainty particularly to the economy because unlike Switzerland and Norway (both Schengen members) it will be the first member country to leave the European Union. There might be a bit of a way out through Lisbon, but to even speculate the outcomes for the UK more so than the EU of that is difficult for businesses, students, families and some expatriates with a vested interest in EU legislation not becoming protectionist, isolationist or bordering on the xenophobic. Every company in the UK might have to face root and branch reform to working with 27 different nations and perhaps more but companies in the EU only will need to reform with regards to the UK.

    The small net contribution the UK makes to the EU is not going to massively damage either if it no longer existed. The rebate would be scrapped, the UK will be paying fees to be part of European science projects, crossborder security and accessing the market. Both regions will evtually adapt to something like the Norway or Switzerlad model, but the UK has the competive disadvantage of needing a lot of time to do so. What is bad for the UK, is a contagion to the Republic and Northern Ireland is squeezed in between that.

    The U.K. Leavers if they get the Brexit they want would have to stop trying to reinvent the game but play the ball where it lies, and be sporting to potential new opponents. It’s like Israel being a stand alone member of FIFA for a while when few confederations would have them. It would leave them with their own version of the Wilderness years and the sort of situation which drove them into the EU, ECC in the first place.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Charlie didn’t say that, indeed he made a similar point he primarily mentioned the uncertainty particularly to the economy because unlike Switzerland and Norway (both Schengen members) it will be the first member country to leave the European Union. There might be a bit of a way out through Lisbon, but to even speculate the outcomes for the UK more so than the EU of that is difficult for businesses, students, families and some expatriates with a vested interest in EU legislation not becoming protectionist, isolationist or bordering on the xenophobic. Every company in the UK might have to face root and branch reform to working with 27 different nations and perhaps more but companies in the EU only will need to reform with regards to the UK.

    The small net contribution the UK makes to the EU is not going to massively damage either if it no longer existed. The rebate would be scrapped, the UK will be paying fees to be part of European science projects, crossborder security and accessing the market. Both regions will evtually adapt to something like the Norway or Switzerlad model, but the UK has the competive disadvantage of needing a lot of time to do so. What is bad for the UK, is a contagion to the Republic and Northern Ireland is squeezed in between that.

    The U.K. Leavers if they get the Brexit they want would have to stop trying to reinvent the game but play the ball where it lies, and be sporting to potential new opponents. It’s like Israel being a stand alone member of FIFA for a while when few confederations would have them. It would leave them with their own version of the Wilderness years and the sort of situation which drove them into the EU, ECC in the first place.

  • Hugh Davison

    French/German, Spanish/French, Schengen – free movement, no border (I can’t speak for Switzerland). Ireland is not in Schengen because UK is not in Schengen, and we share a border with UK. Germans don’t show passports when flying to Spain. Irish and British do. It’s not such a big deal psychologicallybecause we live on islands.
    If you had to show your passport travelling between Newry and Dundalk it would be significant.

  • Hugh Davison

    Links for each paragraph would be nice. Otherwise your post just comes across as another Kipper diatribe against nasty foreigners.

  • Hugh Davison

    Exactly right. No response in 14 hours says something.

  • Kevin Breslin

    It might be better. The issue is what is a “British made item” these days in these globalized world, can you really “nationalize” an item?

    The computer I am typing on may have British parts in it, but it could also have American, Japanese, Chinese, French, German, Canadian manufactured parts. The iron for the hard disk could be Australian mined, The oil for the plastic parts could come from a Gulf State, the lithium for the battery may be from Argentina, gold on the circuit board may be from Africa.

  • Croiteir

    Globalisation has always existed it is just a term invented recently that means absolutely nothing in a historical context. The finished product, the one with added value and wealth creating is British may well be the best in the world and may not be. That is not the point. The point is relative to Chrisjones rather odd idea that other countries are not open if they do not buy British goods.

  • Kevin Breslin

    It means that nation states are holding back on some protectionist practices to ensure a level playing field.

  • Croiteir

    Interesting definition but so what?