Brexit: Now What? Part II

[McHrozni]

Didn't you know it was happening ?
You take steps against it firstly, by scrapping Schengen.

Returning to passport checks and preventing people who have past convictions for major criminal offences and links to organised crime from coming through.

Yeah, that totally works better than massive cooperation between police forces to arrest and extradite suspects who attempt to hide in another country.

You probably thought Shengen was simply scrapping border posts, right? As usual, you're completely ignorant on the subject you pretend to be a master at. This is getting really repetitive. Don't you feel bad you need to be schooled at just about everything?

Because takeoff runs vary from plane to plane and an airfield that was only built with consideration for short takeoff jet fighters or STOL transports isn't going to be big enough.

Go on, why do you need a dedicated airfield for refugee camps?

It may be necessary to use 747s or Airbus A380's as the numbers of refugees are very large.

The typical takeoff runs of Boeing 747's and Airbus A380's with a full passenger compliment can be over 3km so a long runway is necessary and so, unless one is available, we should consider the construction of such runways.

And also, any such air strip needs to be smooth.

Airliners are not tolerant of debris on runways.

In comparison Hercules C130J transports can be operated from rough airfields but their passenger compliment is 92 people.

A Boeing 747 has a normal compliment of 416 passengers.

The Airbus A380 has a normal compliment of 644 seats in a 2 class configuration.
Both aircraft are certified to be able to carry more passengers if seating configurations are changed. The A380 is certified for a maximum of 868.

So unless there is a suitable top notch airfield to hand, construction of one has to be a consideration.

Safety has to be #1 priority.

Yeah, let's totally use dedicated long distance planes as opposed to a larger number of short distance planes, because we have to move a lot of people. That totally makes sense.

Compared to the rest of your 'arguments', anyway. It's stupid, but not as stupid as the rest of them, because it has a grain of truth in it.

As it turns out it's a very, very, very small grain of truth, easily trumped by other obvious considerations, but even such pathetic argument is better than your average argument that contains no truth whatsoever.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Didn't you know it was happening ?
You take steps against it firstly, by scrapping Schengen.

Returning to passport checks and preventing people who have past convictions for major criminal offences and links to organised crime from coming through.



Because takeoff runs vary from plane to plane and an airfield that was only built with consideration for short takeoff jet fighters or STOL transports isn't going to be big enough.

It may be necessary to use 747s or Airbus A380's as the numbers of refugees are very large.

The typical takeoff runs of Boeing 747's and Airbus A380's with a full passenger compliment can be over 3km so a long runway is necessary and so, unless one is available, we should consider the construction of such runways.

And also, any such air strip needs to be smooth.

Airliners are not tolerant of debris on runways.

In comparison Hercules C130J transports can be operated from rough airfields but their passenger compliment is 92 people.

A Boeing 747 has a normal compliment of 416 passengers.

The Airbus A380 has a normal compliment of 644 seats in a 2 class configuration.
Both aircraft are certified to be able to carry more passengers if seating configurations are changed. The A380 is certified for a maximum of 868.

So unless there is a suitable top notch airfield to hand, construction of one has to be a consideration.

Safety has to be #1 priority.

Then it stands to reason that under those circumstances, airliners are not appropriate and instead planes with better short/rough field performance should be used instead. The airfields would be east targets so as well as the expense of a state of the art airfield (and air traffic control) you'll also need state of the art air defences.

The numbers of people we are talking about however makes none of this feasible and I still don't see how any of this is the EU's fault and how a UK where, post-Brexit, race hate crimes are at a high level will be more welcoming to refugees but of course that's Brexit all over - when examined it makes no logical sense.

 

[McHrozni]

Then it stands to reason that under those circumstances, airliners are not appropriate and instead planes with better short/rough field performance should be used instead. The airfields would be east targets so as well as the expense of a state of the art airfield (and air traffic control) you'll also need state of the art air defences.

Or just, you know, buses to the nearest existing airfield with appropriate facilities.

But that's too mainstream. EU is too expensive, so the logical thing is to invest tens of billions of euros/pounds/dollars construct a number of airfields and unneeded airliners, in order to stem the refugee flow that would otherwise cost us hundreds of millions in those same currencies if we don't.

This particular comment by Airfix is an epitome of all 'arguments' in favor of Brexit.

McHrozni

 

[abaddon]

Didn't you know it was happening ?
You take steps against it firstly, by scrapping Schengen.

Returning to passport checks and preventing people who have past convictions for major criminal offences and links to organised crime from coming through.

Red herring. Schengen has nothing at all to do with Brexit, nor does it have anything to do with UK border controls for the simple reason that the UK was never part of it.

Keeping or rejecting Schengen is frankly none of the UKs business and never has been. Brexit will simply mean that any little influence or input the UK might
have had is irretrievably gone.

Because takeoff runs vary from plane to plane and an airfield that was only built with consideration for short takeoff jet fighters or STOL transports isn't going to be big enough.

So what? The EU can't simply build airports willy nilly at a whim on the sovereign territory of any member and if it tried to do so in North Africe it would constitues an act of war.

If you like, post Brexit the UK can try it.

It may be necessary to use 747s or Airbus A380's as the numbers of refugees are very large.

So to add to the enormous cost of enormous airports, internment camps in both Europe and North Africa along with the cost of all the ancillary services and vehicles, you want a fleet of multimillion dollar aircraft plus all of the personel required. And you think the EU should simply imposew it on everyone concerned. Meanwhile, you require that the EU should simply abandon the hapless refugees in the Med to watery graves, or else invade the sovereign territory of several North African sovereign states in order to impose blockades.

The typical takeoff runs of Boeing 747's and Airbus A380's with a full passenger compliment can be over 3km so a long runway is necessary and so, unless one is available, we should consider the construction of such runways.

You want them, you pay for them. Anyway that is another red herring coupled with irrelevant detail.

And also, any such air strip needs to be smooth.

Airliners are not tolerant of debris on runways.

Oops. More cost for the maintenance personel and equipment.

In comparison Hercules C130J transports can be operated from rough airfields but their passenger compliment is 92 people.

Military asset again. Constitutes an Act of War.

A Boeing 747 has a normal compliment of 416 passengers.

The Airbus A380 has a normal compliment of 644 seats in a 2 class configuration.
Both aircraft are certified to be able to carry more passengers if seating configurations are changed. The A380 is certified for a maximum of 868.

More irrelevant detail.

So unless there is a suitable top notch airfield to hand, construction of one has to be a consideration.

A consideration? Why? The idea is a total money pit of oblivion.

Safety has to be #1 priority.

Which is why you want to either abandon the refugees in the Med or alternately invade several North African states. Those don't sound like "safe" options to me.

In any event, this is all rather moot. The UK has no say anymore, even though Brexit has not formally occurred. The other 27 members no longer pay any heed to the UK opinion on anything much.

 

[Airfix]

Or just, you know, buses to the nearest existing airfield with appropriate facilities.

Do you know what "appropriate facilities" there are in each country that has large numbers of refugees ?

Lebanon's only civil airport is Rafic Hariri international and going by it's flight timetables it's very busy.

The other airfields are military.
Lebanon's military is not in a healthy state. Can you guarantee the runways are ?

I guess we could look at repairing those and enlarging runways when necessary, but it's still a construction job.

 

[Airfix]

First part of your post was waffle, but this:

Which is why you want to either abandon the refugees in the Med or alternately invade several North African states.

My answer to that is:
We already did abandon the refugees in the Med, thousands of them died.

Suppose we get a UNHCR team together and the permission of several North African States.
We can go in without us firing a shot.
We can get camps built, get the people who either don't want to be in their or they don't want in their countries countries safely transported out of their countries without drowning and put the traffickers out of business at the same time.

If you don't ASK what you can do, you don't find out and nothing changes.

 

[Airfix]

Yeah, that totally works better than massive cooperation between police forces to arrest and extradite suspects who attempt to hide in another country.

You can have massive cooperation between police forces without being a member of the EU.
You can have extradition treaties without membership.

An extradition is difficult however, if you don't actually know which country your criminal is in and Schengen makes it easy for bad people to 'disappear'.

 

[The Don]

Suppose we get a UNHCR team together and the permission of several North African States.
We can go in without us firing a shot.

That's a huge supposition, and it's also a big ask to find a North African country stable enough to site the "camps".

By all means ask away but finding a country or countries willing to be host to hundreds of thousands or millions or refugees stretches the bounds of credibility.

Let's say that, by some miracle, you actually manage to create a workable means by which African and Middle Eastern refugees and economic migrants can make their way safely to the developed world in their hundreds of thousands or millions, your next big challenge is persuading countries to take them. If the UK voted Brexit in order to stop tens of thousands of educated Europeans coming to the country, they're sure as hell not going to want hundreds of thousands of poorly educated Africans, and "potential terrorists" (e.g. people from the Middle East)


It's a fantasy and it makes not one jot of difference whether the UK is in the EU or out of the EU or whether the EU exists at all.

 

[Airfix]

Red herring. Schengen has nothing at all to do with Brexit, nor does it have anything to do with UK border controls for the simple reason that the UK was never part of it.

France is.
You only have to look over to Calais to see it's effect.

 

[The Don]

You can have massive cooperation between police forces without being a member of the EU.
You can have extradition treaties without membership.

An extradition is difficult however, if you don't actually know which country your criminal is in and Schengen makes it easy for bad people to 'disappear'.

Even within a country, it's easy for people to disappear. Are you suggesting that we all register daily with the authorities in case the police need to get hold of us ?

 

[abaddon]

France is.
You only have to look over to Calais to see it's effect.

[qimg]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13C5A/production/_87768908_calais_jungle_image_624.jpg[/qimg]

You keep insisting that we must all accept Brexit as a done deal and move on from there. Fine, but that makes whatever happens in Calais absolutely none of the UK's business, nor has the UK any say about the matter whatsoever.

Whatever happens in Calais, the UK can still control it's own border Brexit or no.

Should the UK fail to do that, it is none of the EU's problem since the UK is no longer a member.

Tough.

ETA: Calais is not part of the UK. Post Brexit, you will lose your border control post there too. After all, that is what you wanted from Brexit, right? To control your own borders? The only reason you even got the Calais border control post was through EU co-operation. Post Brexit that will all have to be done in Dover.

 

[Airfix]

Look, our politicians have encouraged them to come. The EU has encouraged them to come. But nothing is being done to make them safe and thousands have died.

So either we stop them coming completely, or we provide safe passage.

Doing what the EU is doing is not helping. It is not providing safe passage, it is not stopping them coming. It is dithering.
It's criminal negligence.

I am proposing getting a multinational operation going via the United Nations, with as many safe countries around the world as possible involved in taking in legitimate asylum seekers.

That is what I would propose if I were in the UK government, that is what I would propose if I was on the EU Commission.

We can either blockade, or aid (I would aid).
But we cannot sit on our hands.
People including children are dying because of trafficking and the dangerous sea crossings need to be stopped.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

First part of your post was waffle, but this:


My answer to that is:
We already did abandon the refugees in the Med, thousands of them died.

Suppose we get a UNHCR team together and the permission of several North African States.
We can go in without us firing a shot.
We can get camps built, get the people who either don't want to be in their or they don't want in their countries countries safely transported out of their countries without drowning and put the traffickers out of business at the same time.

If you don't ASK what you can do, you don't find out and nothing changes.

And Brexit helps how?

 

[Airfix]

Whatever happens in Calais, the UK can still control it's own border Brexit or no.

In theory.

In practice however:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-25986388

 

[The Don]

And Brexit helps how?

Exactly my question.

Indeed what if the EU had never existed - how would that help the refugee situation ?

 

[Airfix]

And Brexit helps how?

Because Brexit gives the EU Commission the kick up it's arse that it needed to start rethinking it's policies and practices and actually meaningfully reform.
And if they were to scrap Schengen, the trafficking of people across the continent would be harder.
The continent needs to become a less attractive destination for the trafficking industry.

 

[The Don]

In theory.

In practice however:
[qimg]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/72686000/jpg/_72686325_cockle_pickers.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-25986388

Please explain how this was the EU's fault that the UK's borders are so porous...

 

[abaddon]

Look, our politicians have encouraged them to come. The EU has encouraged them to come. But nothing is being done to make them safe and thousands have died.

Of course they did. They wanted the cheap labour pool.

So either we stop them coming completely, or we provide safe passage.

Brexit seeks the former. It's whole campaign was based around such things.

Doing what the EU is doing is not helping. It is not providing safe passage, it is not stopping them coming. It is dithering.
It's criminal negligence.

EU operations in the Med have saved tens of thousands. Where have you been hiding?

I am proposing getting a multinational operation going via the United Nations, with as many safe countries around the world as possible involved in taking in legitimate asylum seekers.

Sorry. In a post Brexit world, th UK does not have that level of influence. Tough.

That is what I would propose if I were in the UK government, that is what I would propose if I was on the EU Commission.

Super. Except you aren't anymore.

We can either blockade, or aid (I would aid).

The EU already is. You do realise that EU efforts have rescued tens of thousands, no?

But we cannot sit on our hands.

Which is why the EU isn't but the UK wants to.

People including children are dying because of trafficking and the dangerous sea crossings need to be stopped.

Which is what the EU is doing and the UK wants to stop doing. You will be able to do exactly that shortly.

 

[abaddon]

In theory.

In practice however:
[qimg]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/72686000/jpg/_72686325_cockle_pickers.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-25986388

Now your claim is that the UK is unable to control it's own borders anyway as things stand. That will change post Brexit exactly HOW?

 

[McHrozni]

You can have massive cooperation between police forces without being a member of the EU.

Yeah, if you subscribe to Shengen, like Norway did.

McHrozni