JJJ wrote:

No, Ireland is a broken country because of the UK, not the other way around. It took several risings and eventually a war to set themselves free of British domination and the Northern Irish question remains an unfinished issue which was buried under a few decades of peace and collaboration until, you guessed it, Brexit.

The history of Ireland is well established, with the NI turmoil is due to the fact that there are both unionists and nationalists in NI. The North had the opportunity to remain with the Irish free state in 1922 and choose to remain part of the UK. If it wasn’t Brexit there was always something that would have stirred up nationalists sentiment

JJJ wrote:

Ireland has thrived in the EU in ways they could have never achieved under the UK. They have a higher GDP per capita, less poverty, less debt, a budget surplus, etc. their bread is buttered somewhere else these days even when they'll be hit the hardest of all EU members.

They also place do not have the same commitments to help ensure peace and stability across the globe nor in-fact provide adequate defence over the island, you didn’t see the the republic spend millions on defence to help protect Europe during the Cold War nor have they spent the funds to protect sovereign airspace they rely on the UK to do that. If the UK stayed neutral during WWI/WWII and after and also saved all that coin I too think things will be better in the UK.

VSMUT wrote:

Err, what? Those particular examples prove the exact opposite. Those two sectors can and do attract investments from close European neighbors, but they will never be attractive far away.

So the foreign investment in factories built in China is not attractive because it far away, but that’s more to do with wages in China.

And are you saying Australia/ New Zealand is not competitive because it’s far away. Australia has an industry for export of live fresh and frozen into markets across the globe. They wouldn’t be exporting if they were not competitive and they are far far away

noviorbis77 wrote:

Wow you are an expert now on UK migration law.

None of what I've posted had anything to do with migration law!

noviorbis77 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Let's have a look at that:

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales aren't even consullted on how the "UK" is handling Brexit. Those decisions are made exclusively in No.10 in and by England alone and based primarily on english votes in the referendum (including english people currently living in Wales without whom Wales would have been a Remain region as well) and the colonies are just getting dragged out against their will and without even having a say in how it's being done.

Meanwhile, both Ireland and Spain had and continue to have vetoes on how Brexit would be conducted on the EU side, but it was a matter of course that neither of them even had to wield their vetoes because it was generally understood that Ireland in particular needed to be heard and its interests would need to be front and center to the negotiation mandate by the EU27, while Spain's interests regarding Gibraltar are also part of the new mandate now and all other member nations will also have their interests represented and they will continue to have their say about the negotiations. And when a meaningful deal will be found, all their national (and even some regional) parliaments will need to ratify that deal, so those parliaments all have vetoes on it, too!

The UK actually had the same position and the same level of benefits plus even a bunch of extra-special opt-outs and bonuses when it was a member, but you clearly never really knew what it actually was and meant what you had there.

Well, Brexit certainly is a great learning opportunity for you now!

“the English people living in Wales”.

Honestly Klaus, that’s one of the best things I’ve heard all day. You have me in stitches and it’s made for some brilliant Sunday night comedy.

Maybe he does not understand the word “could”.

But hey ho, we can all be experts after reading an article in the Guardian newspaper.

Some of these posts are absolutely hilarious

The statistical correlation is too strong to dismiss it out of hand like that.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

“the English people living in Wales”.

Honestly Klaus, that’s one of the best things I’ve heard all day. You have me in stitches and it’s made for some brilliant Sunday night comedy.

Maybe he does not understand the word “could”.

But hey ho, we can all be experts after reading an article in the Guardian newspaper.

Some of these posts are absolutely hilarious

The statistical correlation is too strong to dismiss it out of hand like that.

But you have automatically accepted it.

Listen to the chap from Wales. He knows more about Wales and Welsh current affairs than you.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Wow you are an expert now on UK migration law.

None of what I've posted had anything to do with migration law!

These are your words

“The UK doesn't have a problem with a "huge influx of migration", if anything it has problems with its own crappy and obsolete citizenship system”.

Please enlighten us all with your expertise and knowledge on UK citizenship and migration law. Even though I have nearly 20 years working for the UK Immigration Service, I am sure you know far more about UK immigration matters than me. Naturalisation, asylum, deportation work, visas etc, all my experience in these areas, and you know more.

Please teach me.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The statistical correlation is too strong to dismiss it out of hand like that.

But you have automatically accepted it.

As plausible, given the evidence, not as proof!

Listen to the chap from Wales. He knows more about Wales and Welsh current affairs than you.

Clearly not, as his claim is diametrically opposed by an actual survey with statistical analysis.

I know certain things about where I live, but I have no statistically valid sample just from a few people I happen to personally know. I'd still have to rely on actual surveys for that.

Klaus wrote:

Spelling it out more clearly for you: All EU member countries have a say (and in important matters even a veto!) in all decisions of the EU while the UK's regions have effectively no say in UK matters beyond a few devolved regional issues and in all important matters the UK regions basically just get told what England has decided it wants done and they just have to live with it, and there's even an unelected House of Lords on top.

N-Irish, Scottish, Welsh devolved assembly didn't give consent to ratify the WA but UK engaged anyway.
Enough to demonstrate there is no democracy lesson to be learn from their side of the channel.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Wow you are an expert now on UK migration law.

None of what I've posted had anything to do with migration law!

These are your words

“The UK doesn't have a problem with a "huge influx of migration", if anything it has problems with its own crappy and obsolete citizenship system”.

Please enlighten us all with your expertise and knowledge on UK citizenship and migration law. Even though I have nearly 20 years working for the UK Immigration Service, I am sure you know far more about UK immigration matters than me. Naturalisation, asylum, deportation work, visas etc, all my experience in these areas, and you know more.

Please teach me.

Here you go:

The UK has no citizenship registry and no personal ID, which is one of the main attractions for illegal immigrants because UK citizens don't have an ID either, so there is nothing to check and it is much easier to remain undetected.

This is also the cause of the absolutely horrid situation many very much legal but equally undocumented long-term immigrants from the EU find themselves in who in many cases have a horrible time actually proving that they have been in the UK legally, which is a problem in getting their settled status recognized by the UK government but which also leads to increasing discrimination regarding housing and employment because landlords and employers have no idea what the status of the applicants actually is while the UK government is increasingly pushing to make them responsible for any problems arising from status issues, so "accidentally" they find it easier to not lease to or not to employ EU foreigners in the first place "just to be on the safe side".

The other european countries don't have those kinds of problems because they have proper citizenship registries and it is trivially easy to prove one's status at any time, but it is also much more difficult to live there as an undocumented immigrant without being found out which limits the attraction to illegal immigrants.

This is yet another one of the many homemade problems in the UK whose consequences have never been addressed but which have just summarily been blamed on the EU as a catch-all scapegoat, which is just completely ludicrous and utterly false.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

None of what I've posted had anything to do with migration law!

These are your words

“The UK doesn't have a problem with a "huge influx of migration", if anything it has problems with its own crappy and obsolete citizenship system”.

Please enlighten us all with your expertise and knowledge on UK citizenship and migration law. Even though I have nearly 20 years working for the UK Immigration Service, I am sure you know far more about UK immigration matters than me. Naturalisation, asylum, deportation work, visas etc, all my experience in these areas, and you know more.

Please teach me.

Here you go:

The UK has no citizenship registry and no personal ID, which is one of the main attractions for illegal immigrants because UK citizens don't have an ID either, so there is nothing to check and it is much easier to remain undetected.

This is also the cause of the absolutely horrid situation many very much legal but equally undocumented long-term immigrants from the EU find themselves in who in many cases have a horrible time actually proving that they have been in the UK legally, which is a problem in getting their settled status recognized by the UK government but which also leads to increasing discrimination regarding housing and employment because landlords and employers have no idea what the status of the applicants actually is while the UK government is increasingly pushing to make them responsible for any problems arising from status issues, so "accidentally" they find it easier to not lease to or not to employ EU foreigners in the first place "just to be on the safe side".

The other european countries don't have those kinds of problems because they have proper citizenship registries and it is trivially easy to prove one's status at any time, but it is also much more difficult to live there as an undocumented immigrant without being found out which limits the attraction to illegal immigrants.

This is yet another one of the many homemade problems in the UK whose consequences have never been addressed but which have just summarily been blamed on the EU as a catch-all scapegoat, which is just completely ludicrous and utterly false.

I actually agree. We should have ID cards.

But the onus on the applicant providing evidence is fair and reasonable.

Klaus wrote:

Huh? No, not at all. Your point ist still completely wrong and that is borne out by any trade statistic: Whenever possible and not artificially impeded, every country trades the most with its immediate neighbours since that is most efficient on every level.

If that was the case I know of some industry in Australia that moved from making in house to setting up production off shore because it was cheaper even with the additional transport costs. Transport costs are only a fraction of the cost if you are efficient in production costs down

Klaus wrote:

Your assumption would only work if transport from thousands of kilometers away was a) instantaneous and b) at no additional cost but both of these assumptions are simply not true at all.
Also add to that the increasing price of CO2 pollution which acts as another implied tariff on top.

And it's not even just the cost of transport either: All products spending weeks on some cargo ship are dead capital with an extra attached risk – when you're selling to the other side of the world you need a lot of additional capital just to make up for the product being fully produced and on its way but the bill not coming due before it actually arrives at its destination. And for perishables in particular there is a substantial and increasing risk of spoilage, too.

For services the picture is similar: Providing services usually requires sending employees to customers, and the cost of that (both in terms of aggregate travel cost and things like jetlag downtime) are anything but trivial either.

No one has instantaneous transport unless it’s going around the corner. On transportation that all depends on the model used for production if the product you are sourcing has a transportation timeframe you model production to suit and depending on scale. Australia regularly has live fresh seafood transport around the world daily and into markets within 24 hrs of catch.

Klaus wrote:

All these factors do indeed reduce the chances of some faraway country undercutting and unfairly competing with the home market, so an FTA can be more lenient with them without causing undue risks which the exact same FTA with a neighbouring country would immediately raise because all those extra costs of business would fall away there.

Free enterprise knows what’s sustainable and what’s not, it’s the market and competitiveness dictates were it sources it’s product from that could be 30mi or 30000mi away

Klaus wrote:

And that's why the UK most certainly won't be able to just copy the canadian or south korean FTAs with the EU.

Of course it won’t be just copy and paste CETA to the UK, but we also do not want to be disadvantaged trading with the EU as a third country compared to other third countries trading with the EU

AeroVega wrote:

There are other arrangements than a full-blown Canada-style FTA that would be better for the UK (and the EU) than no-deal. The EU is ready and willing to negotiate such a deal if the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith, along a mutually agreed time table.

Due to the time frame I’m not expecting a comprehensive trade agreement by December

AeroVega wrote:

I hope the penny soon drops that UK will only get a Canada-style FTA if it agrees to play on a level playing field. This is what you voted for when you voted Brexit.

Well no we voted to leave the EU and realign our sovereign control within our legislative and judiciary requirements and have an independent trade arrangements, not to just trade one for the other with agreement that for all intents and purposes is a a BRINO

A101 wrote:

So the foreign investment in factories built in China is not attractive because it far away, but that’s more to do with wages in China.

And are you saying Australia/ New Zealand is not competitive because it’s far away. Australia has an industry for export of live fresh and frozen into markets across the globe. They wouldn’t be exporting if they were not competitive and they are far far away

China attracts investment because it has extremely cheap labour often working under slave-like conditions, and is a massive market with a population of over a billion consumers. You know, both things the UK lack.

Australia can remain competitive in agriculture through sheer economy of scale. They have endless amounts of land to utilize, something you can't do in the UK. You will also find that most of it goes to relatively close Asian countries. Of the top 10 importers of Australian agriculture, 8 are Asian. The other two are the US and New Zealand.

Dutchy wrote:

On a related note, the war on the media continue by number 10.

No 10 could scrap BBC licence fee in favour of a subscription model

That would be a dangerous move for UK free press and thus freedom in general. Another sign that populists aren't up to the task of government.

How would it be dangerous for the free press, the free press in the UK today do not have forced subscriptions on the population, they actually have to produce a product the population are willing to consume at a price.
The BBC is not free, because the population are forced to pay for their services whether they like the product or not, the content is not monitored by reality.
Hopefully, with the UK leaving the EU this is another opt out that goes bye bye, I don't imagine the competition authorities in the EU are / were happy with the BBC being government funded while the competition received nothing, no level playing field.

Klaus wrote:

So you're not aware of the European Arrest Warrant, apparently, which is one of the things the UK is throwing away with Brexit.

Yes I am awere of the European Arrest Warrant scheme

Klaus wrote:

That's pretty much also how the EAW works

No: it does not give the right for another nations constabulary to enter another nation and arrest somebody unless accompanied by that nations police force, it still relies on the receiving nation to enforce it, unlike in the UK the constabulary has the power to arrest within all four cross border locations in the UK

Grizzly410 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Spelling it out more clearly for you: All EU member countries have a say (and in important matters even a veto!) in all decisions of the EU while the UK's regions have effectively no say in UK matters beyond a few devolved regional issues and in all important matters the UK regions basically just get told what England has decided it wants done and they just have to live with it, and there's even an unelected House of Lords on top.

N-Irish, Scottish, Welsh devolved assembly didn't give consent to ratify the WA but UK engaged anyway.
Enough to demonstrate there is no democracy lesson to be learn from their side of the channel.

That’s because it’s not within there devolved competence to do so, that why they have elected officials within the Parliment of Westminster, remember that little thing called the Act of the Union 1707 in which both Scottish and English Parliaments ceased to exist and became the Parliment of Great Britain.

VSMUT wrote:

China attracts investment because it has extremely cheap labour often working under slave-like conditions, and is a massive market with a population of over a billion consumers. You know, both things the UK lack.

Still doesn’t stop the EU from trading or investing with China

VSMUT wrote:

Australia can remain competitive in agriculture through sheer economy of scale. They have endless amounts of land to utilize, something you can't do in the UK. You will also find that most of it goes to relatively close Asian countries. Of the top 10 importers of Australian agriculture, 8 are Asian. The other two are the US and New Zealand.

And that was due to the UK joining the EEC and part of that conditions was limit the trade relations with commonwealth countries, as was explained a few pages ago even de Gaulle himself could not understand why the UK wanted to join when we had access to cheap agriculture products from around the world. But in hindsight for AU/NZ to reform its own trade policy.

As the UK was more entrenched into the EEC/EU Australia and New Zealand had more sovereignty than the UK. It could define its own interests and policy more easier than the UK. For the Australians it was a blessing in disguise.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Give me public safety over a bizarre fanatical utopia any day.

Unless you genuinely believe that only foreigners in the UK commit crimes, it’s pretty clear that even you put public safety behind many, many other considerations, including financial/social/economic ones. If you actually have a damn about public safety, you’d be advocating for border checks between the four nations of the union too.

A101 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

There are other arrangements than a full-blown Canada-style FTA that would be better for the UK (and the EU) than no-deal. The EU is ready and willing to negotiate such a deal if the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith, along a mutually agreed time table.

Due to the time frame I’m not expecting a comprehensive trade agreement by December

AeroVega wrote:

I hope the penny soon drops that UK will only get a Canada-style FTA if it agrees to play on a level playing field. This is what you voted for when you voted Brexit.

Well no we voted to leave the EU and realign our sovereign control within our legislative and judiciary requirements and have an independent trade arrangements, not to just trade one for the other with agreement that for all intents and purposes is a a BRINO

You voted for a Brexit in which the EU, not the UK, gets to decide to what extent and under what conditions the UK gains access to the EU single market. It should be no surprise, given the UK's red lines and close proximity to the EU, that those conditions are worse than CETA. If you don't like the conditions and don't want to remove any of your red lines then I suggest you forget about having a comprehensive FTA with the EU. Try to negotiate something else. It's not like the UK has no leverage at all. Something better than no-deal is certainly achievable.

AeroVega wrote:

A101 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

There are other arrangements than a full-blown Canada-style FTA that would be better for the UK (and the EU) than no-deal. The EU is ready and willing to negotiate such a deal if the UK is willing to negotiate in good faith, along a mutually agreed time table.

Due to the time frame I’m not expecting a comprehensive trade agreement by December

AeroVega wrote:

I hope the penny soon drops that UK will only get a Canada-style FTA if it agrees to play on a level playing field. This is what you voted for when you voted Brexit.

Well no we voted to leave the EU and realign our sovereign control within our legislative and judiciary requirements and have an independent trade arrangements, not to just trade one for the other with agreement that for all intents and purposes is a a BRINO

You voted for a Brexit in which the EU, not the UK, gets to decide to what extent and under what conditions the UK gains access to the EU single market. It should be no surprise, given the UK's red lines and close proximity to the EU, that those conditions are worse than CETA. If you don't like the conditions and don't want to remove any of your red lines then I suggest you forget about having a comprehensive FTA with the EU. Try to negotiate something else. It's not like the UK has no leverage at all. Something better than no-deal is certainly achievable.

Actually TM red lines at the times exactly meant a CETA type agreement as do BJ's. while its true that the EU will allows UK access to the EU market under what conditions in the FTA but its also true that the UK does not have to agree with it.

And yes, No deal is better than a bad deal with the EU

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Give me public safety over a bizarre fanatical utopia any day.

Unless you genuinely believe that only foreigners in the UK commit crimes, it’s pretty clear that even you put public safety behind many, many other considerations, including financial/social/economic ones. If you actually have a damn about public safety, you’d be advocating for border checks between the four nations of the union too.

The UK is one nation my friend.

noviorbis77 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Give me public safety over a bizarre fanatical utopia any day.

Unless you genuinely believe that only foreigners in the UK commit crimes, it’s pretty clear that even you put public safety behind many, many other considerations, including financial/social/economic ones. If you actually have a damn about public safety, you’d be advocating for border checks between the four nations of the union too.

The UK is one nation my friend.

True; the devolved Parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are akin to federation of Australia with its 6 States & 2 Territories then flows down to local government

Arion640 wrote:

With regards to Gibraltar, Spain have two Gibraltar type colonies in Morocco, so not much is going to happen there.

There is one big difference. Unlike Gibraltar that is still a de facto colony, Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain.

Bostrom wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

With regards to Gibraltar, Spain have two Gibraltar type colonies in Morocco, so not much is going to happen there.

There is one big difference. Unlike Gibraltar that is still a de facto colony, Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain.

Not sure how that makes a difference to the argument. Morocco claims Spain illegally occupies their territory and Spain claims the UK illegally occupies Gibraltar. Doesn’t make a difference to the status of the colony.


I wouldn’t say so much, but Gibraltar voted to remain part of Great Britain and it will continue to be so. Gibraltar would likely be a more integral part of the UK but it’s far away.

Brexit or no brexit. This video shows how much Gibraltar loves the Spanish.

https://youtu.be/yBZxuqYU5_o

Arion640 wrote:

Not sure how that makes a difference to the argument. Morocco claims Spain illegally occupies their territory and Spain claims the UK illegally occupies Gibraltar. Doesn’t make a difference to the status of the colony.

The difference is that colonies are not as popular today as they where 200 years ago, and are in general seen as a bad thing. And Ceuta and Melilla are not colonies, there are integral parts of Spain, just like Wales and Kent are integral parts of the UK.

Arion640 wrote:

I wouldn’t say so much, but Gibraltar voted to remain part of Great Britain and it will continue to be so. Gibraltar would likely be a more integral part of the UK but it’s far away.

Gibraltar voted no to shared sovereignty with Spain. But they have never been part of Great Britain (or United Kingdom) and hence did not vote to remain part of GB. As far as I know, they have never been offered to be part of UK.

Bostrom wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Not sure how that makes a difference to the argument. Morocco claims Spain illegally occupies their territory and Spain claims the UK illegally occupies Gibraltar. Doesn’t make a difference to the status of the colony.

The difference is that colonies are not as popular today as they where 200 years ago, and are in general seen as a bad thing. And Ceuta and Melilla are not colonies, there are integral parts of Spain, just like Wales and Kent are integral parts of the UK.

Arion640 wrote:

I wouldn’t say so much, but Gibraltar voted to remain part of Great Britain and it will continue to be so. Gibraltar would likely be a more integral part of the UK but it’s far away.

Gibraltar voted no to shared sovereignty with Spain. But they have never been part of Great Britain (or United Kingdom) and hence did not vote to remain part of GB. As far as I know, they have never been offered to be part of UK.

How Ceuta and Melilla are integrated with Spain doesn’t change the argument they are occupying part of someone else's country.

Gibraltar is British sovereign territory but you are right, not part of mainland United Kingdom. But of course they voted to remain part of GB, if they didn’t vote to be with Spain and didn’t vote for independence, what did they vote for!?

noviorbis77 wrote:

The UK is one nation my friend.

Only occasionally, when the idea happens to suit you; At other times, the UK is suddenly four individual nations.

And in reality it's neither of the two, really, but stuck in a dysfunctional halfway state with plenty of frictions caused by that incomplete state wich are then blamed on others instead of addressing the actual causes.

ElPistolero wrote:

The UK is already a rule taker by virtue of its membership in the WTO and UN and any number of international treaties. They all limit the UK’s sovereign right to do certain things, including on things as basic as citizenship. This is a longstanding reality.

Not all resolutions at the UN are binding on its members, and in regards to the WTO we have the option of opting out of the organisation not that the UK is likely to do so

ElPistolero wrote:

Standards” don’t exist in a vacuum. They’ve always been linked to regulatory regimes. Nor is the EU demand unprecedented; the US literally renegotiated NAFTA to ensure that Mexican labor regulations aligned with their own. This occurred despite the fact that Mexican products had been meeting US “standards” for decades.

No standards are the sovereign nations right to make there own policy on standards, it’s up to the individual nation on how it makes them, they can look inwards or outwards to create its own policy.

As to NAFTA it’s up to Mexico it it wants to adopt those measures but that does not mean it will filter thru all Mexico, those standards will only be applicable to goods destined to US/CA under NAFTA it does not mean policy on labour actully changes

ElPistolero wrote:

Under CETA, Canada has agreed to a a Canada-EU regulatory cooperation framework that explicitly seeks, among other things, to reduce regulatory “misalignment”*, going forward. By the sounds of it, this might be a step too far for the UK.

On goods destined for the EU, the domestic market still follows national policy on standards

ElPistolero wrote:

[CETA] is the first Canadian bilateral trade agreement with a stand-alone chapter on regulatory cooperation. The chapter establishes the Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) to facilitate and promote regulatory cooperation between Canada and the European Union (EU). To achieve this, the RCF will consider a broad range of regulatory measures in order to improve regulatory planning, promote transparency, and enhance the efficacy of regulations by seeking to reduce duplication and misalignment. These efforts will help lower trade barriers, make it easier for Canadians to do business in the EU, and improve choice for Canadian consumers.”

It’s an advisory body to help facilitate trade between the two

ElPistolero wrote:

They quite obviously apply to Canada, which, like Mexico, is 0 miles from the US. It’s a level playing field provision - forcing Mexico to align with regulatory standards consistent with US and Canadian regulations. Canada was already at or above those standards. Similar provisions don’t apply to, say, Jordan, which also has an FTA with the US. Why? Geography. This approach merely recognizes that a company (US or otherwise) that wants to sell products to the US is vastly more likely to set up a factory in Mexico, rather than Jordan purely because of geography - a reality so self-evident, one wonders why one has to point it out at all.

The function of an FTA unless a nation does not have one with the nation is to make ones own nation competitive in trade. It’s not in ones interest to use a proxy for trade.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

So you're not aware of the European Arrest Warrant, apparently, which is one of the things the UK is throwing away with Brexit.

Yes I am awere of the European Arrest Warrant scheme

Doesn't look like it.

Klaus wrote:

That's pretty much also how the EAW works

No: it does not give the right for another nations constabulary to enter another nation and arrest somebody unless accompanied by that nations police force, it still relies on the receiving nation to enforce it, unlike in the UK the constabulary has the power to arrest within all four cross border locations in the UK

Now it's getting silly: The arrest being made by local police isn't good enough for you either, just again because those police are "foreigners" in your view?

Even within the same nation state (of nontrivial size) it usually makes more sense to let local police execute arrests instead of waiting for colleagues arriving from another region, and it's the same with the EAW.

The UK will now fall back on having to go the much lengthier and much less certain route of official extradition requests.

It's all so pointless!

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

So you're not aware of the European Arrest Warrant, apparently, which is one of the things the UK is throwing away with Brexit.

Yes I am awere of the European Arrest Warrant scheme

Doesn't look like it.

Klaus wrote:

That's pretty much also how the EAW works

No: it does not give the right for another nations constabulary to enter another nation and arrest somebody unless accompanied by that nations police force, it still relies on the receiving nation to enforce it, unlike in the UK the constabulary has the power to arrest within all four cross border locations in the UK

Now it's getting silly: The arrest being made by local police isn't good enough for you either, just again because those police are "foreigners" in your view?

Even within the same nation state (of nontrivial size) it usually makes more sense to let local police execute arrests instead of waiting for colleagues arriving from another region, and it's the same with the EAW.

The UK will now fall back on having to go the much lengthier and much less certain route of official extradition requests.

It's all so pointless!

No you claimed that being in the Schengen Area made it easier for cross border policing , all I’m showing is that it’s not the case at all. It’s actully easier in the UK a police officer in Wales can make arrest in Scotland

For instance local police officers in Victoria Australia cannot make an arrest in New South Wales. They even have to put in an extradition request within the states of Australia

A101 wrote:

No you claimed that being in the Schengen Area made it easier for cross border policing , all I’m showing is that it’s not the case at all.

Yes, it absolutely is!

It’s actully easier in the UK a police officer in Wales can make arrest in Scotland

It is mostly irrelevant who's making the arrest as long as the intended effect is achieved and all laws and personal rights are observed correctly. And across national borders that is only possible through intense cooperation and harmonization of all necessary laws and regulations, which is what the EU is all about.

For instance local police officers in Victoria Australia cannot make an arrest in New South Wales. They even have to put in an extradition request within the states of Australia

That is pretty far on the other side of the spectrum with not even direct police cooperation within the same nation state, but it has nothing to do with the EU.

A101 wrote:

Not all resolutions at the UN are binding on its members, and in regards to the WTO we have the option of opting out of the organisation not that the UK is likely to do so

Resolutions? I’m not referring to resolutions - especially not GA resolutions. The UN Charter sits above all of that. Given that the UK sees itself as a champion of the rules-based system, it’s a bit odd that you haven’t figured out that this system actively restricts nations’ rights to undertake certain types of sovereign actions. Like, for example, stripping citizenship from a terrorist if that renders the terrorist stateless (quite literally putting an international convention above the sovereign prerogatives of public safety/national security). Nobody cares about GA resolutions.

A101 wrote:

No standards are the sovereign nations right to make there own policy on standards, it’s up to the individual nation on how it makes them, they can look inwards or outwards to create its own policy.

I don’t know what that means or how it relates to the fact that Mexican car makers now have to be paid a certain wage to produce a car that already met US standards long before wages became an issue.

A101 wrote:

As to NAFTA it’s up to Mexico it it wants to adopt those measures but that does not mean it will filter thru all Mexico, those standards will only be applicable to goods destined to US/CA under NAFTA it does not mean policy on labour actully changes

You sure about that? Labour regulations concerning unions will apply across the Mexican economy.

A101 wrote:

On goods destined for the EU, the domestic market still follows national policy on standards

Not to be pedantic, but it quite clearly says regulatory “misalignment” between Canadian and EU regulations. If it was just about respecting EU regulations for a subset of goods produced for export, the issue of “misalignment” would not arise.

A101 wrote:

It’s an advisory body to help facilitate trade between the two

A body mandated by a trade agreement to address issues such as misalignment between EU and Canadian regulations. Or, to be precise, a body aimed at facilitating regulatory alignment.

A101 wrote:

The function of an FTA unless a nation does not have one with the nation is to make ones own nation competitive in trade. It’s not in ones interest to use a proxy for trade.

It isn’t? That’ll come as news to Ford and GM and any number of US and non-US/non-Mexican companies, with their factories in Mexico churning out products to sell in the US. When the US was renegotiating NAFTA, it was trying to address the movement of manufacturing away from the US (to Mexico) because of NAFTA. To be honest, this type of stuff is fairly obvious to anyone who knows anything about international trade.

Also, FTAs are aimed at improving market access.

A101 wrote:

Free enterprise knows what’s sustainable and what’s not, it’s the market and competitiveness dictates were it sources it’s product from that could be 30mi or 30000mi away

[/quote]

Another weird statement. I guess you genuinely believe that geography didn’t factor into all those US and non-US (Sony, Toyota) companies’ decision to set up manufacturing plants in Mexico, rather than in US FTA partners in the eastern hemisphere, to serve the US market.

noviorbis77 wrote:

The UK is one nation my friend.

If you say so. Guess the Queen must have been wrong when she said this in October 2019:

“The integrity and prosperity of the union that binds the four nations of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance to my Government.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... peech-2019

Got to say, exchanges with Brexiteers are always enlightening.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

No you claimed that being in the Schengen Area made it easier for cross border policing , all I’m showing is that it’s not the case at all.

Yes, it absolutely is!

It’s actully easier in the UK a police officer in Wales can make arrest in Scotland

It is mostly irrelevant who's making the arrest as long as the intended effect is achieved and all laws and personal rights are observed correctly. And across national borders that is only possible through intense cooperation and harmonization of all necessary laws and regulations, which is what the EU is all about.

For instance local police officers in Victoria Australia cannot make an arrest in New South Wales. They even have to put in an extradition request within the states of Australia

That is pretty far on the other side of the spectrum with not even direct police cooperation within the same nation state, but it has nothing to do with the EU.

Good grief this is going off track, but the original point being was about border controls restricting criminal activity, which it does, the Schengen Area on the other hand makes it easier for criminal activity to evade arrest by crossing into another's jurisdiction in which the constabulary will have to stop at the border as it has no power of arrest across the border, were as the police officer from Scotland can cross the border into England and make the arrest. that is the point of cross border police powers.The EAW on the other hand simplifies the procedure for one jurisdiction to arrest and extradite a criminal suspect into another, nothing more nothing less

The analogy from Australia shows how effective the cross-border police action in the UK differ within a nation state and more so in the EU because of national borders.

The people of the UK voted to leave and it should mean to leave completely. So a relationship like Australia seems perfect.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

No, Ireland is a broken country because of the UK, not the other way around. It took several risings and eventually a war to set themselves free of British domination and the Northern Irish question remains an unfinished issue which was buried under a few decades of peace and collaboration until, you guessed it, Brexit.

The history of Ireland is well established, with the NI turmoil is due to the fact that there are both unionists and nationalists in NI. The North had the opportunity to remain with the Irish free state in 1922 and choose to remain part of the UK. If it wasn’t Brexit there was always something that would have stirred up nationalists sentiment

It's almost like if someone planted them there right?

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Ireland has thrived in the EU in ways they could have never achieved under the UK. They have a higher GDP per capita, less poverty, less debt, a budget surplus, etc. their bread is buttered somewhere else these days even when they'll be hit the hardest of all EU members.

They also place do not have the same commitments to help ensure peace and stability across the globe nor in-fact provide adequate defence over the island, you didn’t see the the republic spend millions on defence to help protect Europe during the Cold War nor have they spent the funds to protect sovereign airspace they rely on the UK to do that. If the UK stayed neutral during WWI/WWII and after and also saved all that coin I too think things will be better in the UK.

Ireland success has little to do with how much they spend on defence. More like being able to attract investment thanks to a well-educated, English-speaking workforce with interesting taxation packages at the core of the EU.

Our British friends forget that any FTA needs to be approved by all 27 menner states + a few regional governments. If you look at the current opposition towards CETA, the only conclusion can be that without regulators alignment, no FTA is possible. If CETA cannot be approved due to uncertainty about regulatory alignement, any FTA with the UK will not be possible without it.

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

The UK is one nation my friend.

If you say so. Guess the Queen must have been wrong when she said this in October 2019:

“The integrity and prosperity of the union that binds the four nations of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance to my Government.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... peech-2019

Got to say, exchanges with Brexiteers are always enlightening.

She could of said states instead of nations, and it would of had the same meaning...

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Spelling it out more clearly for you: All EU member countries have a say (and in important matters even a veto!) in all decisions of the EU while the UK's regions have effectively no say in UK matters beyond a few devolved regional issues and in all important matters the UK regions basically just get told what England has decided it wants done and they just have to live with it, and there's even an unelected House of Lords on top.

N-Irish, Scottish, Welsh devolved assembly didn't give consent to ratify the WA but UK engaged anyway.
Enough to demonstrate there is no democracy lesson to be learn from their side of the channel.

That’s because it’s not within there devolved competence to do so, that why they have elected officials within the Parliment of Westminster, remember that little thing called the Act of the Union 1707 in which both Scottish and English Parliaments ceased to exist and became the Parliment of Great Britain.

It's not because something is legal that it makes it right.
Klaus said NI and Scotland have been dragged out EU against their will and that's absolutely the case as demonstrated by the devolved assembly denegating their consent to the WA.
With you, when westminster holds the wheel and decides the direction without passenger consent that doesn't seems to be a sovereignty issue for the passenger. But at the same time sovereignty pooling is an issue with EU even though no political desision of the Brexit magnitude can be taken without each member state consent. Doesn't make much sense.

seahawk wrote:

The people of the UK voted to leave and it should mean to leave completely. So a relationship like Australia seems perfect.

Bangs head against a brick wall. The UK is not Australia. It's economy is not Australia. It is not located geographically right next door to Asia (although that never stopped Germany, but hey they are only in the EU too, and Brexiteers tell me we can do more trade with China when out of the EU).

The UK is one nation, the EU is a supernational and uncontrolled institution run by bureaucrats.

seahawk wrote:

The UK is one nation, the EU is a supernational and uncontrolled institution run by bureaucrats.

How long can you go without the sarcasm? I think you should get an award

Reinhardt wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The UK is one nation, the EU is a supernational and uncontrolled institution run by bureaucrats.

How long can you go without the sarcasm? I think you should get an award

The whole story is only bearable with sarcasm. I personally think it is a very modern version of British humour. Maybe, Black Knight politics would describe it perfectly.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

That's actually you're bias showing through

No, the arguments you guys have been bringing for why no borders across the UK are great but no borders across the EU are horrible have just turned out to be nothing more than flimsy pretenses to obscure the real reason: Plain and simple xenophobia, nothing more.

That is absolute nonsense. It is all about public safety as I have been explaining to
everyone on this thread who lack knowledge and experience of the subject matter.

You cannot get into the UK or Ireland without a passport or ID check.

Give me public safety over a bizarre fanatical utopia any day.

You cannot get into the UK from the EU without those checks either.... so if it's good enough for UK/Ireland/NI what's your problem with the same between UK/EU as an non-schengen EU member?

'Public safety' = brexiteering xenophiobic nonsense.

Oh btw, those 'nasty eu criminals' will still be able to enter the country after December. Except after that date, we won't know who they are since you voted to kybosh the intelligence sharing/police records & co-operation between the EU members. A rather significant degradation in your claimed public safety argument. Which in itself was nonsense to start with; the UK could bar entry to those undesirables if it wished.
The UK's failure to do so, was it's own incompetence at identifying them or an unwillingness to do so. (Ditto for most, if not all brexiteering anti-EU claims)

LJ wrote:

Our British friends forget that any FTA needs to be approved by all 27 menner states + a few regional governments. .

I find it hard to believe that for 40+ years the UK has been deeply involved in the European project and did not know that simple fact.

par13del wrote:

LJ wrote:

Our British friends forget that any FTA needs to be approved by all 27 menner states + a few regional governments. .

I find it hard to believe that for 40+ years the UK has been deeply involved in the European project and did not know that simple fact.

You can't fix stupidity. Facts, figures & reality will not deter the extremist or the gullible.

Arion640 wrote:

She could of said states instead of nations, and it would of had the same meaning...

I don’t know what “could of said” and “would of had” mean. They certainly doesn’t mean anything in english.

However, if you’re suggesting that the words “nation” and “state” are interchangeable, you would be wrong.

par13del wrote:

LJ wrote:

Our British friends forget that any FTA needs to be approved by all 27 menner states + a few regional governments. .

I find it hard to believe that for 40+ years the UK has been deeply involved in the European project and did not know that simple fact.

They may understand it, what they don’t see (or want to see) is that the EU is just voicing the opinion regarding regulatory alignment of an increasing of number of Europeans.
Moreover, they point to a type of agreement (CETA) which isn’t ratified yet. Then again , there is still a chance that the UK will say something different in the actual negotiations compared to what they currently say in the papers.

seahawk wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The UK is one nation, the EU is a supernational and uncontrolled institution run by bureaucrats.

How long can you go without the sarcasm? I think you should get an award

The whole story is only bearable with sarcasm. I personally think it is a very modern version of British humour. Maybe, Black Knight politics would describe it perfectly.

Brexit... 'tis but a scratch!