But individual nations within the EU do
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
But individual nations within the EU do
Yeah, which is the point I have made several times, blame the countries and their government not the EU. Currently every country is responsible of his borders, every country is responsible of his police, they all have the right to check however they want wherever they want on their territory.
This whole Brexit fiasco is just depressing and embarrassing. Watching this from afar, and listening to the outside commentary from the US, and international organizations; you really fear for the future of the UK. It's certainly a massive reduction of international relevance, and it's only going to hurt business.
2016 has been a shocking year.
2016 has been a shocking year.
http://news.sky.com/story/second-legal-challenge-to-brexit-could-be-tabled-in-irish-courts-10689932
This is still the big one for me. If it does indeed become apparent that Article 50 can be reversed once triggered the exit negotiations with the EU will essentially turn into Cameron's 2014/2015 negotiations v2.
This is still the big one for me. If it does indeed become apparent that Article 50 can be reversed once triggered the exit negotiations with the EU will essentially turn into Cameron's 2014/2015 negotiations v2.
From all the texts available one of his questions is easy to answer, there is no terms for Brexit from the EU standpoint; when you leave, you leave and then you negotiate for new deals and treaties but the second part has nothing to do with Brexit.
In theory there is no deal that leads to Brexit, it's Brexit that eventually leads to deals.
I don't know if it's clear.
I got as far as 'Should Parliament control the terms on which we Brexit?'.
It just won't sink in will it JPR, the terms will only be negotiated after article 50, and not by parliament, but by the government.
Whatever the government manages to agree, that is what we will be stuck with, the voter's say is over, parliament's say is over, like it or lump it we're in the hands of Theresa May now. Best of luck to all of us.
It just won't sink in will it JPR, the terms will only be negotiated after article 50, and not by parliament, but by the government.
Whatever the government manages to agree, that is what we will be stuck with, the voter's say is over, parliament's say is over, like it or lump it we're in the hands of Theresa May now. Best of luck to all of us.
Do not agree.
I think they'll get a say on the deal negotiated, but what choice is it?
Accept a deal even if its shit (which it will be because the goverment is incompetent, the time scale is ridiculous, and the complexity is absurd), or reject it and leave with nobody knowing where they stand?
I don't know how the UK foreign policy works but in most EU countries the parliament has the last word on treaties and bilateral agreements. The problem here is that there is a timing confusion, when a country leaves the EU he is free to negotiate with the EU for future eventual treaties and deals, that part isn't an exit process, it's posterior to the exit and some people want to make it anterior to the exit.
But that's nonsensical and fairly dangerous, because if you allow something like that, you create a situation where a country could use article 50 as a bargaining tool. For example a country could trigger the article 50 at the end of a negotiation process with for example Australia and ask for a rebate or they exit which would make the negotiations with Australia nill.
Yeah, the difference is that normally if agreements fall down you are left with the status quo. In this case that is not an option, as article 50 is irrevocable and change will happen, so lack of agreement would be of no benefit to anybody.
Rejected > General Election > Brexit wins vast majority > Hard Brexit
Which is why the exit is only effective after two years, as long as both sides aren't greedy it should be easy.
Or more likely a general election where the economic consequences are apparent results in a soft or anti Brexit government.
A lot of people seem to forget the voters that swung the referendum do not usually concern themselves with voting, so that narrow 52-48 majority might disappear, even without accounting for the change in demographics.
And still it won't sink in, once article 50 is presented it doesn't matter whether we later have an anti-Brexit government or not - we will already and inevitably be on the road Out.
Xeno has a point, technically parliament could hold a vote of no confidence over any agreement (despite the meaningless fixed-term act) and leave us with a very hard Brexit, but as the whole objective of May's negotiation will be to gain something better than that then such an outcome wouldn't really make sense, although I don't deny it as a possibility.
Xeno has a point, technically parliament could hold a vote of no confidence over any agreement (despite the meaningless fixed-term act) and leave us with a very hard Brexit, but as the whole objective of May's negotiation will be to gain something better than that then such an outcome wouldn't really make sense, although I don't deny it as a possibility.
You guys need to let the various EU legal and constitutional experts of the land - currently debating so fiercely amongst themselves whether Article 50 is reversible - know that this topic is longer worth pursuing as you have found the answer then.
There's a study somewhere though saying that a good percentage of people would accept an economic catastrophe if that meant
I think there's a good deal more mileage in all these challenges, and coupled with Parliament heavily leaning Remain there will be a concerted spin process designed to make a soft Brexit more palatable. May doesn't want to be the PM who led us out of Europe into economic disaster, despite her posturing.
For me, your strongest argument was you not exercising your right to vote in the referendum, and then coming in this thread banging on about leave voters being "lemmings" etc.
If you have so much to say, why didn't you vote? After all, there are thousands like you who couldn't be bothered to vote because they moved abroad and didn't vote because they thought it won't affect them.
And you sit there, spouting your opinions about something you had a small chance to change, yet did nothing.
You have a lot to say in this thread, but, actions speak louder than words and you chose to do nothing when the votes mattered. Hence, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
I voted from abroad. I reserve my right to tell people to stick their opinions up their asses.
Why that tone, did I disrespect or insult you? And what I wrote comes from various EU constitutional experts and it also happens to be the opinion of the Royal court of justice.
I didn't vote because I don't live there any more and never will.
That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on something - because people comment on all kinds of things even just on this site that they are not directly connected to or affected by - I see free speech is another constraint to be imposed by the Leave brigade.
My strongest argument is not about whether I voted or not, it's about the UK doing the most idiotic thing possible in the last 80 years.
If you don't want to read my comments, don't, but you won't shut me up.
Last edited:
Honestly, not even that would prevent it. In my profession I work with the German border control from time to time and know a few of their officer quite well. I talked about this topic with an very experienced veteran officer, who served in the three big stages of border control ("iron curtain", pre Schengen borders, post Schengen borders). On my question if harsher control could have prevented what happened in Berlin, he simply answered: "If a terorrist wants to enter a country, he will get in."
Open borders do influence certain crimes like for example car theft in border region, but in terms of terrorism it basically makes no difference.
The terrorists nearly always have help from inside the country and the globalisation has made communication and organisation inbetween them way easier than in the past. If they face full border control they either prepare for it or circumvent it.
The only way to significantly lower the likelihood would be full fledged surveillance everywhere (basically a police state), which would not only be problematic in terms of individual rights but also unrealistic according to the beforementioned officer. The necessary manpower to pull it of in a country of the size of Germany would be immense.
Ironically, according to him, the current surprise controls are even more effective than the standartised controls pre Schengen as the open borders can tend to make them more careless than they otherwise would have been.
Never say never!...
They'd have to drag me back kicking and screaming
Our world-view changes every few years. You may fall in love, you may find a job you can't refuse, ... the possibilities are endless...
("our opinions" means mine, yours, anyone's...)
Do I think what has anything to do with the eu?You think this has anything to do with the EU?
I've just retired so no job is going to tempt me, I've been married to a French lady for a very long time, my kids and grandkids live in France and it took me over 30 years to be able to live in the country I wanted to live in since I was a teenager. Never does mean never in my case.
"So we just make it a bit easier for them by not checking anything, see that guy over there with the bomb making equipment? he's not going to kill anyone, honest"
Every country can check whoever they want, the EU can't though.
Maybe devoting our finite resources on the bomb making equipment and the communication lines of terrorist organisations rather than delaying, demeaning and dehumanising all travelers would be a better approach. When was the last time the 1 hour + immigration debacle at Heathrow stopped a terrorist? When was the last time it partially inspired one?
Oh I'm just a web designer, I'd leave that to the experts in that field. Any suggestions I could make would be based on next to no direct evidence to back them up and you seem to have that market cornered.
Nice way to twist the words of someone who can be considered an expert of the field. It is also simply false that there are no checks at all.
It is even more hilarious, when I know that the border control and state police of Germany (a country with many different open borders) has one of the best track records when it comes to preventing direct terror acts (e.g. bomb threats) and is seen as exemplary by other countries. The problem in Berlin was that it was a truck that was used as deadly weapon, not a bomb or something obvious like that.
How do you want to prevent that? Search every truck driving through the country? That is simply not possible.
feck nose but my point isnt that
He travelled unchecked through multiple countries with open borders, stopping only to buy a payg sim card in nijmegen. The dutch are horrified by this but thats ok, principles and all that
I thought i read the total opposite about German security forces the other day. Will check that
But what's your point, exactly? The dutch are horrified that their police didn't do a job that they are entitled to do?
No one has ever burgled my house, i should be easily alright if i leave all the doors open tonight
You dont get the point. Ok
Which is why, I asked you a question.
You are free to do so, but then again there is also been written a lot of rubbish these days. If the state police (and I mean specially this branch of the police) would be as poor as it is presented sometimes, Germany as poster child for Western liberalism, key member of NATO (participant in the Afghanistan war) and second strongest economy of the Western world would have been critically hit a long time before Berlin. There are also more threats prevented as the ones making it to the public like the bomb threats at Frankfurt´s center station and the football stadium in Hanover.
My profession (I´m part of a team that manages embassies throughout Europe) puts me in contact with many different national polices and Germany´s is the frontrunner in many different projects and enjoys a very good reputation within Interpol.