Brexit Britain looks to French company to save crumbling borders and immigration tech The UK's Home Office has awarded a £37 million ($46.6 million) tech contract to Capgemini for its borders and immigration management as the services strive to recover from past failings. The French outsourcing and IT services biz has won the deal "to build, run and monitor applications" on the DevOps platform for the UK Border …
"In 2020, the National Audit Office (NAO) said that between 2014 and 2019, the department did not achieve value for money against its plans to deliver the Digital Services at the Border program."
Brexit actually happened on 31st January 2020.
The referendum was in 2016.
Evidently, the failures in the Digital Services at the Border program date back to 2014.Thus, the failures in the original program are nothing to do with Brexit.
It is clear that the failed program was pre-Brexit. Post Brexit, the UK is trying to fix (replace) that failed program. Seems eminently sensible (surprisingly so for any government). Perhaps you should have expanded your comment a little to "taken control and farmed it out to someone that might be able to deliver"
"But, Sir Humphrey, why aren't we contracting this to a British company?"
"Well, put it this way, Minister. If the project works, we laud your wisdom and insight at hiring the best contractors for the job. If it fails, we blame the French."
"So we can't lose?"
"Yes, Minister."
(with apologies to the original writers, I am so so sorry...)
This is obviously result of the Tories being inept, arrogant, feckless and corrupt. Might not be Brexit, and as a remainer, I promise to stop pointing towards Brexit as the problem. I will continue to point at Brexiteers along with the fucking Tories (official name) though, as they are more than likely the idiots that in 2010 voted the Tories in, and that continue to vote for them.
'Capgemini is expected to offer "strong architecture; engineering leadership capability; infrastructure integration; driving ongoing tooling/ process innovation, continuously exploring industry improvements; making operational efficiencies and reduce costs; secure network boundary controls; integration with third parties," according to a procurement notice published recently.'
Capgemini is not expected to deliver that shit, obv. We're stupid, but not that stupid, eh?
So what?
If a foreign firm can provide the best product then we should be buying it. It's only dishonest federalists that pretend that Brexit was about not doing business with European countries.
Such a shame that El Reg has joined the establishment. "Biting the hand that feeds IT" my backside.
You're quite right. Brexit really was about not doing business with European countries, given the amount of hoops UK businesses have to go through in order to keep the same level of trade with EU countries - let alone improve them.
Still, didn't the Royals look lovely on Saturday? That's the sort of stuff you need to keep your eye on sir, not the real world.
I'll explain it little words for you.
A non sequitur is where you say something that's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand in order to distract from the fact that you have nothing useful to say.
You may remember your recent comment about the Coronation. If you look in the dictionary you will find a screenshot of your comment as an example of a non sequitur.
If that still isn't clear to you: the democratic vote to leave the European Union has nothing to do with how nice the Royals looked on Saturday.
( No need to thank me for explaining )
The coronation was timed as it was due to the death of the Queen. It wasn't "bread and circuses". It was something that had been coming for the last 70 or so years - we just didn't know when.
Exports to the EU are the highest they have ever been. But sure, keep repeating what you read on Twitter.
Exports to the EU are the highest they have ever been? Do do know that inflation is the reason don't you? Or are you one of the hard of thinking club?
You shouldn't look at the value of trade, but the amount of trade. Difficult to tell the difference I know. But it means thinking about things.
Edit: werdsmith got there before me.
You are wasting your time on these remoaners. They can't let the past go and move on, they all still use Windows 95 and reset the clock so it doesn't crash at the year 2000. Some are so fanatical they even drive Fiat 500s and hang portraits of General de Gaulle above the mantel piece.
You’d have overestimated the level even if you’d grabbed a spade and started digging. Brexiteers were never ones for nuanced argument - or even being able to take a bit of a ribbing. Which is ironic given the accusations of snowflake which have been lobbed at many Remainers.
Still, you get a thumbs up from me!
1) I always thought Brexit was about appeasing rabid Yorkshiremen who think there are too many suntans in Leeds. ;-) And everyone who pointed out that leaving the EU would result in MORE paperwork for business was some southern, tree hugging, woke softy.
2) The Royals (Special Edition) , god did that suck the great hairy meatball. I streamed it in Spain for my GF and trust me that medieval crap did not travel well (in both time and distance).
3) Capgemini... ((Many people + many bills) * x years) /0 = "lessons to be learned"
1: Yes, that's the slur that federalists tell each other in order to congratulate themselves on their imagined superiority. I always think that if you have to lie about your opponents opinions then you really need to reconsider your own, but then I'm not a federalist.
2: Fine. It plays well in America I believe. Although so what? It doesn't cost anything compared to the alternative ( Americans spend the same amount every four years ). If you don't like the coronation, who cares? It's not related to brexit.
Lindsay Clark said very little. Most of the article is quotes. If you ignore who is speaking, most of the words are pro-government and pro-Brexit. If you pay attention to where the words come from, most of the words are from sources with a vested interest and are completely incredible (as in: so implausible as to elicit disbelief). My irony meter was maxed out and tripping the sarcasm alarm. Try re-reading, but with a big /S at the start.
>You forgot to mention that it was to stop African and Asian immigration too
Unless you were campaigning in an Asian or African populated area where Brexit was all about being able to control your own immigration policy and so let in more Asian and African relatives rather than all these Poles
>>>The only people that really talked about immigration was the pro-federalists
Oh look it's Jumping Jack Flash, he's a ...
Gas, gas, gas!!!
Own your ****ing, "Send 'em back to where they came from!!!" allies. You lay with dogs, you're going to get fleas, mate.
>>>You forgot to mention that it was to stop African and Asian immigration too, if you're going to do the slur properly.
Plenty of my family got that, from the empowered flag nonces, after the Brexit result.
Only in the same sense that the Titanic was on course to reach New York.
Turkey's had no hope of joining the EU since long before Erdogan emerged from his sewer. Aside from the country's dire human rights record and failure to meet the acquis communitaire, Turkey does not recognise Cyprus - an EU member state.
Turkey will get no further than the EU accession list until the Cyprus clusterfuck is resolved. ie Not in our lifetime.
If the EU ended up needing Turkey before Ergodan went full mentalist, a deal would have been done.
See the migrant crisis where Turkey was to (from memory) house migrants that landed in Greece and Italy.
> Turkey does not recognise Cyprus - an EU member state.
A couple of years ago, Macedonia changed its name to North Macedonia to settle the dispute with Greece which was blocking its EU membership.
If Macedonia can give up its name, it's not ridiculous to think that Turkey would drop its claim to Cyprus.
The whole "Turkey was never on course to join the EU despite the EU giving them 'being on course to join the EU' status" thing was a federalist lie.
You're trolling - as usual.
(North) Macedonia isn't an EU member. It's an accession state - as is Turkey.
A cosmetic change of name is wildly different from a country giving up a territorial claim.
Turkey doesn't have a claim over Cyprus. It wants the rest of the world to endorse its illegal invasion and occupation of part of that island and recognise the so-called Northern Cyprus as a sovereign state. The notion that Turkey would give that up just like Macedonia changed its name is bat-shit crazy.
The idea that a sovereign nation would change its name in order to suit a foreign country is also batshit crazy.
Turkey will never be able to take Cyprus militarily or diplomatically. It's not outrageous to believe that they would have given up that impossible dream for a realistic one - EU membership would be huge, economically, for Turkey. And hopefully ( although not necessarily ) culturally too.
Either way, they were at the time on the ascension track and it isn't remotely dishonest to point that out.
Turkey were on course to join the EU eventually.
It was recognised by the EU back in 2011 that Turkey was not on course. It had taken the Turks six years to achieve just one of the 35 chapters required before a vote on EU membership could be offered to the Turkish people (the chapter on education standards and research-sharing, IIRC). Turkey hadn't even begun work on 19 of the chapters, and progress on the remaining 15 was euphemistically described as 'mixed'. Nothing further was achieved in the subsequent six years either; they were not on track in the least.
Of course it wasn't about immigration. Nigel Farage gurning in front of the Breaking Point poster tells me it was about anything but immigration.
Farage then went on to say "and not a shot was fired" after the Brexit referendum result seemingly forgetting two hours after he unveiled the poster Joe Cox was stabbed repeatedly then shot by someone who was mentally unstable enough to do that, probably after reading about the very same poster.
But no, it wasn't about immigration at all...
How would it stop those? The UK always set the rules for non FOM entry.
Non EU immigration was always a significant enough proportion of the whole, that cutting it would have made a massive reduction, so the immigration was obviously required by the economy.
Now of course you have replaced migration (people who go back and forth to fill a need) with immigration, where there is a big investment and so returning is unlikely, so the result (as long as the economy doesn't collapse too badly) is more immigration.
There is a vacuum to be filled, but by those with a vested interest in settling, rather than just visiting seasonally.
My guess, equal part immigration and idiotic EUphobe myths over numerous years.(straight cucumber level bollocks). With a leavening of other myths, like fishing rights- which have, as predicted, bit the fishermen where it hurts, And the lies on the side of a bus. Possibly the biggest lie was in interpreting the vote. A tiny majority of those who voted was to leave.(2% either way). Those who were uncertain did not vote for the change. A small minority of the nation actively voted for a change* The Leave voices immediately claimed that as consent and rushed us into the next step, before anyone had opportunity to question that...Which is why places that allow votes for constitutional change usually have a threshold.
*And as the courts made clear the only reason they couldn't overturn the vote because of the shenanigans in the campaigning was that it was only ever framed as "advisory" until after it happened
Disgusted isn't interested in the reality. S/he is determinedly anti-EU to the point of total avoidance of evidence. Hence the use of that word "federalist" which even the Leave campaign didn't make anything of. A bit on the European Army idea was batted out, but that's as far as it went. TBH we should treat DisgusedofTunbridgeWells in the troll feeding category. And which s/he may very well be. Since the name itself is usually an ironic apocryphal reference to that kind of viewpoint. Not one that you'd expect a holder of such views to use for themselves.
Prior to brexit I could send a single 100 x 120 x 100 400Kg pallet to or from anywhere in Europe <-> UK for about £120. Delivery time was 3-4 days depending on a morning or afternoon collection. 1st of February that shot up to over £500, and a delivery time of 16 weeks. Currently I’m paying circa £350 and the delivery time is 3-4 weeks. And that doesn’t even take the paperwork into account. Prior to brexit there was 0 paperwork and 0 declarations. Now there’s roughly 2-3 hours of paperwork and declarations needing to be made, literally being checked by 3 people because errors can cost thousands to resolve. My last issue was actually caused by HMRC not having a procedure to deal with brexit complexities, meaning I was out of pocket for 18 months of £7000, and took over a hundred documented hours to resolve. They offered me £100 compensation after admitting it was an unforeseen brexit consequence. I come up against unforeseen consequences weekly at the moment. My european customers find it easier to buy from China than the uk.
"Prior to brexit I could send a single 100 x 120 x 100 400Kg pallet to or from anywhere in Europe <-> UK for about £120. Delivery time was 3-4 days depending on a morning or afternoon collection. 1st of February that shot up to over £500, and a delivery time of 16 weeks. Currently I’m paying circa £350 and the delivery time is 3-4 weeks. And that doesn’t even take the paperwork into account"
Yikes that is terrible. Its a good job we left them isnt it. So the rest of the world was being cut off by such expense, delay and red tape. Hopefully we can diverge from the protectionist restrictions and make it easier and cheaper to import what we want.
"My european customers find it easier to buy from China than the uk."
How interesting. By European you mean EU? Who choose to make it easier to trade with China than the UK instead of just making trade easier with everywhere. Hopefully the UK will take a better approach to its imports
@Adair
"Try looking up the meaning and purpose of a 'trading bloc',"
Why? We are joining one. After we left a political union.
"then consider the realities earning a living right next door to one."
We are joining one. But the advantage of a trade bloc being to reduce trade barriers, while the governments are the ones erecting such barriers and making it difficult to get what the country wants/needs. As I pointed out in my comment that we had to make things difficult while in the EU.
"As I pointed out in my comment that we had to make things difficult while in the EU."
Ermm, no. I'm reasonably familiar with health and safety regs in NL and the UK (have site safety passports for both). On the whole UK regs are stricter than elsewhere. E.g. NL working at heights regs apply from 2.5 m above ground (like the used to in the UK), the current UK Work at Height Regulations apply from any height that could pose a hazard. In NL a basic chainsaw course is three days with 8 trainees to 1 instructor, in the UK the ratio is 4 to 1 (and the course may be one day longer, not sure).
Basing the UK CSCS construction site safety passport system (set up by industry, not the HSE) on both a basic safety qualification and skills gained by formal training makes it very difficult for skilled folks without formal training to get a CSCS card which you need to work on larger projects. Getting your card also takes a fair amount of bureaucracy. The comparable VCA system in NL only requires passing a safety test (v similar to that for CSCS) so anyone who takes a 1-day course or reads the book can get a VCA card.
So, in short, the UK has a talent for making things more difficult than other countries. And 'can't do that cos of health and safety/data protection' is much more common jobsworth's excuse in the UK than NL.
@H in The Hague
"the current UK Work at Height Regulations"
Interestingly this was a conversation I was having only 30 mins ago with one of the people who recently was trained up for something related. She was complaining that the gov is looking at reducing or removing an amount of restrictions concerning Work At Height and such in 2026. To which she thinks people wont be wearing hard hats and wont have any safety rigging as well as maybe putting her out of a job. I am guessing this is one of those areas you are saying we over-regulate.
Not sure how that is related to the trade conversation you replied to, I was amused at the coincidence though.
@Terry 6
"I was just wondering how removing much our better then EU minimum requirements"
That brings about the huge question of if the tighter than EU minimum requirements (or even the minimum requirement itself) is better. That is an assumption that would first need to be demonstrated. Second it is H in The Hague who seems to be pointing that the Netherlands with lower requirements is better (if I understand the comment correctly).
"And indeed how much reduced requirementsfor safety is a benefit, or would be thought of one when people get injured."
Were you about when the UK went through a health and safety insanity? The insanity not being about health nor safety but about box checkers, prod noses and control freaks trying to grind everyone to a halt.
"Second it is H in The Hague who seems to be pointing that the Netherlands with lower requirements is better (if I understand the comment correctly)."
No, not saying that NL is better! I was just comparing NL with UK legislation to demonstrate that the high standards (i.e. higher than in some EU countries) are due to choices made by various UK governments, not imposed by the EU.
So folk complaining about "expensive/bureaucratic health and safety legislation" should point the finger at past UK governments, not the EU. (Incidentally, I'm in favour of effective H&S legislation and enforcement: avoids accidents and suffering, avoids health service costs, benefits well-run businesses, targets poorly run businesses).
A few things worth to remember about EU standards is that they are minimum standards required within the EU.
The EU will not demand higher standards than the 27 can deliver, that would be stupid.
So when a Brit claims Britain has a higher standard than the EU standard it only means the British standard is higher than the lowest allowed.
It could be higher than what the 27 have, but it could also be lower than what all the 27 have.
It doesn't really mean much anything of what people try to claim it means.
The EU is not a country.
British food standards, for instance, are good but they are not the highest in the "EU" and most EU countries most likely have a higher standard than the minimum.
From memory, CSCS started out with 'grandfathered rights' type qualification for the skilled folks without training, which was then phased out after a while (i.e. after everyone was supposed to have sorted themselves out and got the right bit of paperwork).
I've no practical experience of the 'skilled but no formal training' route, but it probably is very difficult now, since an operative needs to prove competence. If you have relevant training or qualifications recognized by the system, however, getting a card is straight forward (well, always has been for me).
Also, UK H&S at work statistics are good compared to European or EU27 (though not the best), so H&S rules possibly more justified than jobsworth (though I've seen my fair share of idiotic obstruction on incorrect H&S grounds, so it does happen)
Anecdotally, for a summer job at college I worked in a university estates department - moving furniture, painting rooms, that sort of thing.
I was sent to work in a building that was undergoing construction. We were forced to wear hard hats despite working in a closed room away from the construction. I was told that the guy insisting on the hard hats would be held legally liable should we be killed by falling ( and teleporting ) debris.
if this is indicative of the wider construction industry then there are definitely jobsworth (interpretations of?) rules that need fixing.
Your delusion is off the scale. While in the EU we had frictionless access to the single market, the ability to live and work throughout the EU/EEA without paperwork or visas, easy cross-border travel, access to the Erasmus and Horizon programmes, participation in Galileo and the ESA, etc, etc. All of those things made life far simpler and not difficult at all. After leaving the EU, UK has made things needlessly difficult for itself - the lack of a trade agreement or being in the customs union or the NI clusterfuck for example.
You know that that is a lie so why repeat it?
Federalist Treasury officials used a static analysis to tell us what it would be worth if we completely ignore our membership of the TPP. I presume they also used the gravity model which pretends that we live in an age of steam trains rather than of global shipping.
Our biggest trade partner is the USA. Germany's is China. Neither of those countries are next door.
It galls that you people think you have the right to pretend to be the honest ones.
Sum up all the EU countries (because the UK left the EU) and compare with the US.
Who's the UK's biggest trading partner?
Yeah, the trade bloc it's not part of any more.
@Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells
Even just France and Ireland together are bigger trading partners than the USA, not to mention the EU combined of course.
Germany's is not China (4) but the United States.
I suppose you are honest and just ill informed or lazy.
https://www.worldstopexports.com/germanys-top-import-partners/
"Only just today Sunak's lot have pulled back from burning all the UK's "EU" laws at the end of the year."
That always struck me as a completely bonkers plan. And some in industry seem to be quite relieved that the "escape from EU bureaucracy" is not happening:
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/health-and-safety/industry-relief-as-vital-safety-laws-saved-from-brexit-cull-11-05-2023
"Federation of Master Builders chief executive Brian Berry echoed the comments, saying: “Many of these laws are used by our members every day to keep people safe. “Everything from environmental protections, workers’ rights, through to health and safety regulations, were set to have been discarded, with no clear plan for equivalents to replace them. This is a case of government rhetoric meeting with reality and I’m glad sensible heads have prevailed.”
Businesses like keeping rules. They have adapted to them, they've learned to live with them. Their potential future competitors haven't.
It's why, eg, Facebook ( despite telling you otherwise ) wants ridiculously strict regulation on social media. The stricter the regulation the deeper the moat.
So... nothing else has happened in the intervening time? Nothing spring to mind?
At the moment, no-one is finding it easier to buy from China. If you think the xenophobic Brexit lot were bad, try paying a little attention to what's happening in the East at the moment, and how Europe are reacting.
Frankly a lot of the 'unforeseen Brexit consequences' are down to astonishingly incompetent government and public services. So, technically, foreseen. The shameful truth is that many of them are hiding behind the "it's Brexit, innit?" excuse rather than trying to sort things out. Playing along with that sort of BS may suit some people politically, but only makes services in this country worse. In that sense the idea of "taking back control" was actually a real thing - we can either take responsibility for fixing these things, or wish ourselves into decline.
That anyone could downvote your simple statement of fact makes me want to weep.
For the hard of thinking, here's an example from within my family. My stepdaughter and her husband set up a business selling clothing online and over the years built it up into a multi-million pound enterprise. They actually stock and ship the stuff world-wide themselves rather than act as a middle man and are UK based.
Then came Brexit. They have tried everything, including setting up a subsidiary in Holland, but have had to give up selling directly to customers in the EU. Luckily they also supply a few retailers as well, so now they just refer potential customers on the continent to them.
The utter killer is the cost of returns. The business has been built on exemplary customer service, and honouring returns has been a big part of that. I can't remember the precise details but essentially they can't reclaim something like VAT or customs charges. So if a customer returns a £70 shirt it will cost them around £40 to process the return. You do the maths, you can't run a business on that basis.
I think the point being made, at least by some here, is that none of this is an inevitable consequence of Brexit. It's wilful incompetence by our current Government, aided in no small part by an utterly immobile HMRC.
Being able to reclaim VAT on a return is entirely a choice being made by the current lot in power. It's nothing whatsoever to do with whether we're in Europe or not. There are an enormous number of things the civil service and government could do to make trading *worldwide* (not just Europe) easier. Sure, the list of things has changed since Brexit (they change anyway as world events continue to occur), but there is still a very long list of things we can address before we get anywhere near being "unable to trade".
The problem here is that some people so desperately want this to be "because Brexit" that they (deliberately or otherwise) refuse to admit that these are things we can fix. In fact, in some cases I get the real impression that some people are setting out to make it hard for businesses and individuals just to "make a point". Until we start acknowledging that fact, the combination of incompetence and intransigence will be tolerated, and we'll continue to have people enforcing stupid rules that are entirely within our power to change.
Since I see no way to change the fact we've left, I'm increasingly frustrated with the people who keep wanting to fight that particular fight rather than trying to improve our current environment.
Because Boris ( on that day ) was being a proper classical liberal as opposed to the corporatist that you are apparently saying he should be.
Businesses exist to serve us. We should encourage their existence and success, but not at our expense. So when, say, Pret said that leaving the EU will drive up wages and that's a bad thing, all the corporatists agreed with them.
And Pret were wrong weren't they?
Far from the Clown PM's promise of a "high skill high wage economy", the BoE has now come clean and said "Britons need to accept they're poorer".
Our betters have spoken. Back to rolling round in the mud, serfs.
..."strong architecture; engineering leadership capability; infrastructure integration; driving ongoing tooling/ process innovation, continuously exploring industry improvements; making operational efficiencies and reduce costs; secure network boundary controls; integration with third parties,"...
Stop it! My bullshit bingo card just overflowed!
from the article...
"DevOps may have been the big thing in software development for more than 10 years, but perhaps its moment is beginning to pass."
How on earth did you make that assertion? DevOps is pretty much how things are done everywhere nowadays. It's just standard practice in tech, unless you work for the local council or some SME who might be still rolling things by hand. Really odd comment.
And then the next paragraph...
"As an Amazon case study from Prime Video showed, its team saved money by moving from a microservices architecture to a monolith, avoiding costly services such as AWS Step Functions and Lambda serverless functions."
Yes, I can see that happening. Some workloads are excellent for microservices, others not so much.
Are you conflating DevOps and microservices? Was this whole article written by an AI?
I’m still holding out for proper hardback passports with none of this new fangled biometric technology. And I want the RAF to re-equip with sopwith camels, the navy to resurrect Nelson and defend our interests with ships of the line, and the army to replace the tanks with horses.
Huzzah! We’ll show Johnny Foreigner and have the empire back in no time.
For a border to be effective doesnt it need to be enforced? Such as pushing those dinghies back out of UK territory waters. For those who land can leave if they dont like the army barracks accommodation they occupy while being processed.
Not that fixing the border systems wouldnt be a good thing for the country.
Now if you'd said use the Rwanda scheme to send people like those nasty couple that run that pub in Essex, you know the ones with the black dolls that had ropes round their necks, abroad, then I'd give the government's scheme a big thumbs up. Bit appears it is only available to brown people, which I feel is a bit discriminatory.
@AC
"Now if you'd said use the Rwanda scheme to send people like those nasty couple that run that pub in Essex"
Why? The Rwanda scheme being a place to accommodate the flood of illegal immigrants who need to be processed. Were the Essex couple illegal immigrants?
"you know the ones with the black dolls that had ropes round their necks"
Ropes around their necks? Thats a piece of information I havnt seen reported anywhere even in the Guardian article about it. The dolls being Gollywog dolls which are just dolls. Regardless of your taste for or against an inanimate doll they are just that. I recall years ago there were cries that kids dolls were almost all white.
"Bit appears it is only available to brown people, which I feel is a bit discriminatory."
Is that the only discriminating factor? Not maybe the illegal part of the immigration?
>>Why? The Rwanda scheme being a place to accommodate the flood of illegal immigrants
Bollocks. It's just theatre for the flag shaggers.
Here's how you deal with real illegal immigrants.
Also, for every person the UK ships to Rwanda uk.gov agreed to take a Rwanda in their place. So number of people in UK under this scheme remains unchanged.
@AC
"Here's how you deal with real illegal immigrants."
Unfortunately that doesnt really work. The UK citizens wernt illegally entering the country etc they were there legally and then the EU ordered them to leave. We can tell the illegals not to make the journey and it makes no difference. They still flee the EU particularly France to sneak into the country.
"Also, for every person the UK ships to Rwanda uk.gov agreed to take a Rwanda in their place. So number of people in UK under this scheme remains unchanged."
Which is why I prefer the enforcing of the border. I didnt bring up the Rwanda idea, I said push them back out of our waters and for those here if they want to complain about the accommodation can leave the country.
>>>The UK citizens wernt illegally entering the country etc they were there legally and then the EU ordered them to leave.
They were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
They got sent home by the sovereign nation of Sweden. EU ? Get away with you. This is EXACTLY what Brexit Brigade voted for: to remove the right of Brits to live in the EU. You won. Here's the prize!
>>>I said push them back out of our waters
That's a Dinghy-Nonce statement. Don't befoul yourself with that.
@AC
"What is to understand?"
You equated the legal entry and existence in another country where then the host country changes its eligibility for legal residence with invading the borders by actively circumventing legal routes to enter a country with the intent to be an illegal migrant. Not sure how many people didnt go through the residence process and just stayed illegally in the EU nor what reasons they have. But fleeing the 3rd world, war torn hell hole country of France to illegally enter the UK is very different.
@AC
"So you agree that British illegal immigrants should be deported. That wasn't so difficult was it?"
At no point was it difficult. Again I think you were having a different conversation than the one I was having.
"I wonder why the UK is not capable of doing this? Has Brexit helped the situation in any way?"
For example the UK citizens will have arrived legally and have been entitled to be there. Making it more likely that they want to comply with the law and administrative services. Compare that to illegals pushing their way into countries, which is an actual issue in the EU too and they too proposed 'processing centres' in foreign countries to hold the people being processed. I am not sure brexit has much bearing on this aspect of border control.
Many British have illegally pushed themselves into EU countries post Brexit: Non-residents overstaying 90 days. People applying for residency without a means of support. These are all illegal immigrants. Arriving with intent to try and fool the authorities. They are removed. Just because they flew in, or arrived in an illegally imported car, they are no different than any other illegal immigrant. Apart from their Britishness.
This is why the British must now wait in line for their documents to be checked and passports stamped. Can't be trusted any more.
This is why the British must now wait in line for their documents to be checked and passports stamped.
Nope. That's happening because Westminster's clown parade couldn't be arsed to sort out a post Brexit agreement on passports with the EU. Just like how Boris the Lying Shagger and his fuckwit cronies couldn't be arsed to sort out post Brexit agreements on the customs union, single market, Northern Ireland, the Horizon programme, fishing, etc. So much for taking back control.
@R Soul
No such agreements were available for Britain with the demands Britain had.
Some yes, like Horizon but Boris didn't want that, nor the agreement with France on returning refugees to France.
May did have some more intelligence and realism but was down voted as I am sure you know.
Remember "no cherry picking".
The brexit most Brits voted for did not exist.
@AC
Regarding "Can't be trusted any more."
It's not about trust it's about control because those laws with such and such many days to stay have to be documented. If a Brit travels to the USA it's the same thing or when an American enters Britain or the EU.
People who take that personally are snowflakes indeed. (whatever it means).
Lars > Regarding "Can't be trusted any more."
That is a very good/fair point in that discussion.
But there are some quite unsavory/untrustworty Brits too.
Normally it's the ones who refer to themselves as "Expats".
They normally have some hustle on, to get round tax/residency rules, in my experience.
"then the EU ordered them to leave."
To be a bit honest, the EU countries suggested Brits apply for citizenship, some have, or stay according to the rules, that is to go home in between visiting the countries like other people also from outside the EU.
Nothing surprising there and some countries apply slightly different rules, like for instance Portugal I think.
Any idiot, even a brexiteer must have understood that from the beginning, exit means exit.
>>>The UK citizens wernt illegally entering the country etc they were there legally and then the EU ordered them to leave. <<<
Incorrect. All countries have rules about means of support. Even in the EU. If you cannot demonstrate that you can financial support yourself then you are an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT and you get thrown out. Do you not understand sovereignty and controlling one's borders?
"The Rwanda scheme being a place to accommodate the flood of illegal immigrants who need to be processed."
"The annual number of asylum applications to the UK peaked in 2002 at 84,132. After that the number fell sharply to reach a twenty-year low point of 17,916 in 2010. It rose steadily throughout the 2010s, then sharply in 2021 and again in 2022 to reach 74,751 applications, the highest annual number since 2002."
Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
For a country the size of the UK, an annual rate of 75000 is nothing. The UK does not have a "flood of refugees" problem. It has a populist government hyping red meat to Xenophobes in order to stay in power problem.
@LogicGate
"The UK does not have a "flood of refugees" problem"
Arrival through small boats or even when they invaded the tunnel. Does that sound controlled? I do notice you changed my wording from illegal immigrants to refugees. A refugee is someone we give shelter from a dangerous situation back home. While you could hold a less than approving opinion of France that is an economic migrant which should be done legally. Illegal immigrant may or not apply for asylum. And the UK has so little a problem that the gov has no idea how many are in the country. Not a clue.
"hyping red meat to Xenophobes"
So the idea of actually managing the countries borders is xenophobic? Insisting people should follow a legal process before entering the country is xenophobic? I think you might be exaggerating a bit.
> Ropes around their necks?
Several of the dolls were hanging from fixtures in the pub, albeit not with ropes around their necks, but the (now deleted) Faceache post by the then landlord, screenshotted in this news article https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pub-owner-embroiled-gollies-controversy-29691493, might lead one to infer a particular context around the hanging dolls...
As a result of both internal and external factors, the Department did not deliver the programme by its original timetable of March 2019,
I can only assume that the term "internal and external factors" means they cocked up the requirements specifications and contractor management, and the contractors over-promised and under-delivered.
I remember being on a bid for eBorders ages before Brexit was a word, let alone a thing. (We lost.) The contractors running the bidding process were, not very good. They would change the requirements, and re-number them so that all of our documentation had to be changed, they insisted that "UK RESTRICTED" mean that information was to be kept within the UK, and not transferred overseas, whereas the standard use in NATO of "UK RESTRICTED" meant that the information was "RESTRICTED" and originated in the UK. Our main problem was that the bid managers got the wrong idea of how the client wanted to pay for it, so the whole thing had to be re-written about one month before the deadline after two years' working to wrong assumptions. Oh and they also seemed to want things that did not actually exist at the time, as far as I recall.
Oh well, another successful government procurement (I bet the Directors got paid).
They fu€&@ed up a multi year project so bad in France in the late 90’s that it resulted in me moving from California to France, “for a week or two”, to work out how to fix it. Many years later I was still there, decided to stay!
Best result from an outsourcing engagement in my entire life.
Or someone down the pub who spent a few minutes with any one of the many (ex-)ministers in the Hall of Shame. Or the odious Baroness Mone, the nation's leading provider of dodgy and overpriced PPE. Or any of the chancers who bung ministers with backhanders or fix them up with "loans".
Try to look on the bright side though. The contract didn't go to Crapita or Fujitsu And Dildo Harding isn't in charge - at least not yet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
