[Politics] Brexit

[Pretty pink fairy]

don't forget all the red tape and bureacracy you voted to get rid of when you're applying for Visas, ID cards, insurance, healthcare etc

And you'll fall in line with all the regulations,time to end the sob storys there's a good chap
Regards
DF

 

[Randy McNob]

The emperor’s new clothes: the UK ‘sovereignty’ illusion
World View: British voters have been sold a dream, in the same way Trump peddled ‘Maga’ to the masses
Sat, Jan 2, 2021, 00:00

Last weekend as we watched Barnier and Co struggling through the Brexit talks’ final acts, once again tangled in fish nets, I remembered a story about the late Eamon Gallagher, former Irish diplomat and once the Commission’s Mr Fish. Many years ago Gallagher, I was told by former colleagues, in the early hours brokered a way through days and nights of deadlocked talks on divvying up North Atlantic stock by inventing a new fish species and then persuading the parties to distribute notional quotas in it, so placating the previously aggrieved. Deal done.

And, in truth, the Barnier team were demonstrating a similar creativity. Their task – successfully accomplished – to create the illusion that the EU was ceding something deeply precious to the UK, albeit deeply nebulous, a cloak like the Emperor’s new clothes that left its wearer barer than a newborn and as unprotected , “sovereignty”. A shibboleth, a word whose meaning conjures up romantic notions of independence, autonomy, robustness, and apartness, and of resistance against coercion, perhaps even tyranny . How can anyone be against sovereignty?


But, confused with “power”, British voters have been sold a pup, a dream, much in the way Trump did with his Make America Great Again (Maga). And they will begin to realise that the sovereign right to act autonomously is worth little without the power to do so. A power inevitably contingent in a world in which each nation’s security and economic wellbeing is inextricably connected to those of others.

The big lie is – the essence of Boris Johnson’s contention Britain will have its cake and eat it – that the sovereignty of the UK post-Brexit will be unconstrained. But unconstrained, in truth, only if the UK decides its fate lies in a North-Korean-style future, cut off from the rest of the world. “We have taken back control of laws and our destiny,” Johnson claims. “We have taken back control of every jot and tittle of our regulation in a way that is complete and unfettered.” Unfettered?

As former Irish diplomat Bobby McDonagh observed in these pages, “the UK can reach no meaningful trade deals that do not limit British sovereignty. National control over trade is a contradiction in terms. Absolute control over trade stops at Dover and Heathrow. There is only one way to achieve such control. Don’t export anything.”

Indeed the crunch final issues in the Brexit trade deal, the level playing field and fish, illustrate the point perfectly. Britain sought the right in the name of sovereignty to disregard changes in standards within the single market that every member state would be obliged to enforce, the right in effect to be treated not equally to EU members, but better. In fisheries it sought the right to cut back historic fishing rights of neighbours without any consequences in terms of access to the markets of the union. Unconstrained sovereignty.

Johnson had previously insisted no prime minister should ever sign a deal that involves the stipulation: that “If [the EU passes] a new law in the future with which we in this country do not comply” the EU would have the “automatic right” to impose tariffs. But eventual acknowledgment by the UK that in both cases it would accept there would be a price to pay, mediated if necessary through independent arbitration, enabled the deal to be signed without jeopardising the single market. And Johnson’s bluster notwithstanding.

The fetishising of sovereignty, code for going it alone and “we were once an empire”, is a cruel delusion for which the UK will pay a heavy price.

Commission president Ursula von der Leyen put it well – real sovereignty is not the right but the ability to act, which Brexit diminishes. “We should cut through the soundbites and ask ourselves what sovereignty actually means in the 21st century,” she told reporters after the talks. “For me, it is about being able to seamlessly do work, travel, study and do business in 27 countries. It is about pooling our strength and speaking together in a world full of great powers. And in a time of crisis, it is about pulling each other up instead of trying to get back to your feet, alone. And the European Union shows how this works in practice.”

As Eamon might have said: “Mr Johnson, can I interest you in a quota of this unusual fish?”

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-emperor-s-new-clothes-the-uk-sovereignty-illusion-1.4447514

 

[vegster]

Sun 3 Jan 2021 07.00 GMT

The UK’s new trade agreement with Turkey, signed last week, ignores the Turkish government’s continuing human rights abuses, boosts its dangerous president, and undermines ministerial pledges that “global Britain” will uphold international laws and values. The deal took effect on 1 January without even rudimentary parliamentary scrutiny. Here, stripped of lies and bombast, is the dawning reality of Boris Johnson’s scruple-free post-Brexit world.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s “strongman” leader, is pleased as punch. He’s the new, biggest fan of Britain’s international trade secretary, Liz Truss, whose shabby work this is. Erdoğan hailed the deal as the start of a “new era” and a landmark for Turkey. After years of disastrous economic mismanagement and fierce rows with the US and EU over Turkish policy towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Greece and Cyprus, Erdoğan badly needed a win. Hapless Truss delivered.

The fact that Johnson used the spectre of Turkish migrants to frighten Leave voters in 2016 appears forgotten now. His government has created a favourable bilateral trade framework, and promised bespoke “upgrades”, to a leader who frequently mocks the EU and faces possible European trade sanctions. How does that square with Johnson’s vow to be “the best friend and ally the EU could have”? The level playing field is already tipping.


This rushed deal rides roughshod over widely shared human rights concerns. It may be naive to think that the agreement, which replicates existing EU-Turkey arrangements, would allow matters of principle to imperil £18.6bn in two-way trade. Yet Britain is Turkey’s second-largest export market. Ankara was desperate to maintain tariff-free access. This gave Johnson and Truss leverage. It was a sovereign moment. But they failed to demand that Erdoğan change his ways.

Britain is now unquestioningly tucked up in bed with a government that routinely persecutes its critics, manipulates elections, and suborns judges. Independent lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists are jailed or exiled in their hundreds. Selahattin Demirtaş, former leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic party, languishes in jail despite an order to free him – from the European court of human rights.

Alive to these and similar problems relating to other post-Brexit trade partners, the House of Lords amended the government’s Trade Bill last month to require human rights risk assessments when making agreements – to ensure compliance with the UK’s international treaties and obligations. But the government is expected to scrap the amendment when the bill returns to the Commons. The Turkey deal contains no such safeguards.

In its scramble to replace lapsed EU arrangements, Johnson’s government has so far “rolled over” about 30 existing trade deals. Like the Turkey deal, they have not faced thorough parliamentary scrutiny. The list includes other countries or entities with contentious human rights records, such as Egypt, Tunisia, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Bilateral deals with notorious rights abusers such as China and Saudi Arabia have not been attempted – yet.

A blanket halt to trade with Turkey or any other country over human rights concerns is not generally a course of action that appeals to British governments. An exception was the former foreign secretary Robin Cook, who championed an “ethical foreign policy”. But trading ties can be used to advance wider objectives, such as respect for democracy and individual freedoms. This element is wholly absent from Johnson’s cash-and-carry approach.

For example, a large chunk of Turkey-UK trade in previous years has comprised military sales to Ankara. According to Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Britain has exported £1.3bn worth of arms to Turkey since the 2013 Gezi Park popular uprising. In the period following a failed coup in 2016, when Erdoğan began a series of brutal crackdowns, arms export licences worth £806m were granted. New licences were halted in 2019 but existing ones remained valid.

This lucrative business, or the prospect of losing it, may help explain the haste in finalising the Turkey deal. Yet the fact that Erdoğan stands accused of using British-made equipment and technology to repress domestic opponents, attack Syria’s Kurds, intervene in Libya’s civil war, and stoke the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict should have given serious pause. These actions run contrary to British interests, as does Erdoğan’s trouble-making in the eastern Mediterranean. Yet Johnson’s government, ever mindful of its Brexit needs, has kept its head down.

Full and timely parliamentary scrutiny of post-Brexit trade deals would help bring such omissions and contradictions to light – but is sadly lacking, as Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow trade secretary, said in November. She accused the government of “sheer bumbling incompetence” after Greg Hands, the trade minister, admitted there was not enough time for MPs to scrutinise trade deals before the 31 December deadline. So much for a sovereign parliament “taking back control” of Britain’s destiny and laws.

The Turkey deal illustrates a bigger, fundamental hypocrisy. Extolling a future “global Britain” in 2019, foreign secretary Dominic Raab promised that “once we’ve left the EU … human rights abusers anywhere in the world will face consequences for their actions”. In January 2020, Raab assured the Commons that “a truly global Britain is about more than just international trade and investment … Global Britain is also about continuing to uphold our values of liberal democracy and our heartfelt commitment to the international rule of law.”

Raab seems to mean well, but ne’er-do-wells such as Erdoğan are laughing fit to burst. Raab’s recent imposition of sanctions on individual rights abusers in Russia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere does not affect the bigger picture. It is of a British government hellbent on cutting hasty, ill-considered deals with all manner of undesirable customers around the world, without proper regard for the political, legal, strategic and human consequences. And to think Tory aristocrats used to look down on trade

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/03/global-britain-is-willing-to-trade-away-everything-including-scruples

 

[nicko31]

The emperor’s new clothes: the UK ‘sovereignty’ illusion
World View: British voters have been sold a dream, in the same way Trump peddled ‘Maga’ to the masses
Sat, Jan 2, 2021, 00:00

Last weekend as we watched Barnier and Co struggling through the Brexit talks’ final acts, once again tangled in fish nets, I remembered a story about the late Eamon Gallagher, former Irish diplomat and once the Commission’s Mr Fish. Many years ago Gallagher, I was told by former colleagues, in the early hours brokered a way through days and nights of deadlocked talks on divvying up North Atlantic stock by inventing a new fish species and then persuading the parties to distribute notional quotas in it, so placating the previously aggrieved. Deal done.

And, in truth, the Barnier team were demonstrating a similar creativity. Their task – successfully accomplished – to create the illusion that the EU was ceding something deeply precious to the UK, albeit deeply nebulous, a cloak like the Emperor’s new clothes that left its wearer barer than a newborn and as unprotected , “sovereignty”. A shibboleth, a word whose meaning conjures up romantic notions of independence, autonomy, robustness, and apartness, and of resistance against coercion, perhaps even tyranny . How can anyone be against sovereignty?


But, confused with “power”, British voters have been sold a pup, a dream, much in the way Trump did with his Make America Great Again (Maga). And they will begin to realise that the sovereign right to act autonomously is worth little without the power to do so. A power inevitably contingent in a world in which each nation’s security and economic wellbeing is inextricably connected to those of others.

The big lie is – the essence of Boris Johnson’s contention Britain will have its cake and eat it – that the sovereignty of the UK post-Brexit will be unconstrained. But unconstrained, in truth, only if the UK decides its fate lies in a North-Korean-style future, cut off from the rest of the world. “We have taken back control of laws and our destiny,” Johnson claims. “We have taken back control of every jot and tittle of our regulation in a way that is complete and unfettered.” Unfettered?

As former Irish diplomat Bobby McDonagh observed in these pages, “the UK can reach no meaningful trade deals that do not limit British sovereignty. National control over trade is a contradiction in terms. Absolute control over trade stops at Dover and Heathrow. There is only one way to achieve such control. Don’t export anything.”

Indeed the crunch final issues in the Brexit trade deal, the level playing field and fish, illustrate the point perfectly. Britain sought the right in the name of sovereignty to disregard changes in standards within the single market that every member state would be obliged to enforce, the right in effect to be treated not equally to EU members, but better. In fisheries it sought the right to cut back historic fishing rights of neighbours without any consequences in terms of access to the markets of the union. Unconstrained sovereignty.

Johnson had previously insisted no prime minister should ever sign a deal that involves the stipulation: that “If [the EU passes] a new law in the future with which we in this country do not comply” the EU would have the “automatic right” to impose tariffs. But eventual acknowledgment by the UK that in both cases it would accept there would be a price to pay, mediated if necessary through independent arbitration, enabled the deal to be signed without jeopardising the single market. And Johnson’s bluster notwithstanding.

The fetishising of sovereignty, code for going it alone and “we were once an empire”, is a cruel delusion for which the UK will pay a heavy price.

Commission president Ursula von der Leyen put it well – real sovereignty is not the right but the ability to act, which Brexit diminishes. “We should cut through the soundbites and ask ourselves what sovereignty actually means in the 21st century,” she told reporters after the talks. “For me, it is about being able to seamlessly do work, travel, study and do business in 27 countries. It is about pooling our strength and speaking together in a world full of great powers. And in a time of crisis, it is about pulling each other up instead of trying to get back to your feet, alone. And the European Union shows how this works in practice.”

As Eamon might have said: “Mr Johnson, can I interest you in a quota of this unusual fish?”

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-emperor-s-new-clothes-the-uk-sovereignty-illusion-1.4447514

Irish Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Die Speigal, The New York Times............you have to take a world view to digest what has happened to Britain in the last 5 years. Its clear most of the UK media are failing us

The world is looking on and taking note, a country still struggling with its past obsessed with nostalgia and self destructing under its own exceptionalism

At least others are less likely now to repeat our errors

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I see it's copy-paste 'lengthy articles that agree with my view' day, so ..

The new UK/EU Treaty is needlessly long and turgid in its prose: this document was not drafted by people who think the law should be understood by all. Close inspection of the small print reveals that none of the details undermine sovereignty. It has been restored and the UK has the power to control its own laws.

To understand what’s happened, consider the last two big treaties. Under the Maastricht Treaty the EU’s ability to control UK law was extended on what came before but was confined to specific areas only. That was called 'spheres of competence'. The 2007 Lisbon Treaty vastly expanded the EU’s power and the idea of restricting EU writ to areas of its competence fell away. Marina Wheeler has written in The Spectator about the Lisbon power grab and its huge implications: it’s worth re-reading for a sense of what Lord Frost was up against. And what he has successfully uprooted.

The Brexit deal takes things back to where they were before Maastricht. The EU is limited now in any meddling to very specific areas indeed. It ends the oddity where because circa seven per cent of UK business trade with the EU, 100 per cent have their laws made by the EU (although that is a bit more blurred in supply chains).

In the small print of the deal, the remnants of failed EU attempts to fetter British sovereignty can be seen. Consider the ‘precautionary approach’. This slides in via footnote 49, disguising itself in footnote 52. But by the time it gets in as actual law (article 1.2 page 179) it’s clear that it has lost the battle; its words have no force. British negotiators seem to have seen to that. As long as one side has a plausible scientific argument, it may do as it likes. There are other failed EU power grabs in the text, none carrying force.

There are parts of the deal that mean that, should Britain wish to diverge, then UK committees will have to talk to EU committees. Requiring the UK to 'consult' on implementation and change of the agreement etc. But how this is done in practice is left free and thus pretty non-enforceable and limited in scope. It is diplomacy now, not law.

Throughout the deal, we see several declarations of sovereignty. The first clause contains this commitment to:

'peaceful relations based on cooperation, respectful of the Parties’ autonomy and sovereignty'

The treaty recognises the UK and EU are not harmonising their laws (making them the same). UK courts won’t bind the EU, EU courts won’t bind the UK. Neither UK/EU can make a law that would let anyone sue the other. So no campaign groups may form to sue the UK government under EU law for deviating from the treaty. The mechanism for doing so does not exist. Article COMPROV.13 makes it clear the UK and EU are equals under International Law. Whatever creature EU law is (this is still debated) it has gone from our legal system.

As for the 'dispute mechanism' – it mostly involves chatting. But wording suggests this is highly unlikely to be triggered. The Prime Minister gave an example: if Britain wants to increase standards on pig farms in a way that makes British bacon costlier relative to Danish, we could – in theory – trigger a dispute mechanism that could end in a UK tariff applied to imported bacon. But in practise: why bother? Why not let consumers choose?

This is just one example – public procurement rules look very technical. But in law you only have rights if you can enforce them. Given the likely divergences, there aren’t enough qualified arbitrators in the world to sit on all the potential disputes if these clauses are taken literally. You’d run out of lawyers if the EU and UK decide to throw the book at each other all the time. Anyone who thinks the EU/UK can fall out hundreds of times over small details or micro-manage the other, will run face first into that reality.

There are sections [Law Other 137, for example] involving ultimately pointless chest beating over the ECHR, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Pointless because these clauses will never be violated: neither the EU or UK are rogue states. We are friends, allies and equivalent partners trying to uphold democracy. The pantomime suggestions the UK would go rogue were, unhelpful, at best.

While there is a lot of hot air in the treaty, it does not go beyond that. Lord Frost and his team seem to have seen off the (no doubt many) attempts to get EU regulation in through the back door. The UK is leaving the European Union and the lunar orbit of its regulations. It depends on your politics whether you approve of concessions over fish and some aspects of trade. But the legal question – to take back control – has been accomplished.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article...is-s-brexit-deal-makes-for-reassuring-reading

 

[WATFORD zero]

Looks like we're finally getting to see what our 'good deal' consists of.

We have a tariff free trade deal as long as we stick to the EU non tariff barriers, rules and regulations (which we have no input to) and if not, we get arbitration and tariffs.

The EU are now checking all of these at their borders. However, we are not capable of doing the same. So we have a new 'light touch' border system where the UK borders are thrown open (but apparently only until 'the summer' when we might have the capability to actually make the checks).

For the services industry (80% of GDP) we have no deal and the EU say they will only agree a deal when they have a way of ensuring we stick to EU rules and regulations and can't de-regulate the industry (sounds familiar). Until then we can't trade financial services in the EU.

We have a five and a half year agreement to gradually lessen the EU fish quota by 25% but allowing British Fishing boats (which are over 50% EU owned) to catch more herring and mackerel. This, of course, represents a huge opportunity for the UK to eat far less cod and haddock and far more herring and mackerel. These quotas will then need re-negotiating in 5.5 years time.

We can no longer work or retire for more than a long holiday in the EU without significant investment. (You may be able to study in the EU when the new Turin educational system has been set up but with no indication of when, how much it will cost, how you apply, what institutions will take part etc, I'm afraid that if you didn't get an Erasmus place before we left, you may have a while to wait to find out)

Ongoing negotiations with the EU over everything where we decide to exercise our new found Sovereignty and try to change anything effecting the above.

And a border installed in the middle of the UK.

And there's a few other minor things

For holidays and the like, medical insurance, pets, driving, roaming charges etc
For financials, you can't have a British bank account in the EU, UK shareholders losing voting rights of companies that relocate, shares moving from British to EU based platforms etc

I'm sure more will become clearer over the next few days/months/years

But, of course it won't come as any surprise to the vast majority of Brexit supporters knew this was what they were voting for when they cast their vote 4.5 years ago

 

[vegster]

Looks like we're finally getting to see what our 'good deal' consists of.

We have a tariff free trade deal as long as we stick to the EU non tariff barriers, rules and regulations (which we have no input to) and if not, we get arbitration and tariffs.

The EU are now checking all of these at their borders. However, we are not capable of doing the same. So we have a new 'light touch' border system where the UK borders are thrown open (but apparently only until 'the summer' when we might have the capability to actually make the checks).

For the services industry (80% of GDP) we have no deal and the EU say they will only agree a deal when they have a way of ensuring we stick to EU rules and regulations and can't de-regulate the industry (sounds familiar). Until then we can't trade financial services in the EU.

We have a five and a half year agreement to gradually lessen the EU fish quota by 25% but allowing British Fishing boats (which are over 50% EU owned) to catch more herring and mackerel. This, of course, represents a huge opportunity for the UK to eat far less cod and haddock and far more herring and mackerel. These quotas will then need re-negotiating in 5.5 years time.

We can no longer work or retire for more than a long holiday in the EU without significant investment. (You may be able to study in the EU when the new Turin educational system has been set up but with no indication of when, how much it will cost, how you apply, what institutions will take part etc, I'm afraid that if you didn't get an Erasmus place before we left, you may have a while to wait to find out)

Ongoing negotiations with the EU over everything where we decide to exercise our new found Sovereignty and try to change anything effecting the above.

And a border installed in the middle of the UK.

And there's a few other minor things

For holidays and the like, medical insurance, pets, driving, roaming charges etc
For financials, you can't have a British bank account in the EU, UK shareholders losing voting rights of companies that relocate, shares moving from British to EU based platforms etc

I'm sure more will become clearer over the next few days/months/years

But, of course it won't come as any surprise to the vast majority of Brexit supporters knew this was what they were voting for when they cast their vote 4.5 years ago

Sadly there is little market in the UK for Herring and Mackerel anyway. I like both fish but Mackerel spoil quite quickly and are very oily which puts people off, besides, I will still catch my own Mackerel anyway..... As for Herring, for many years they were a staple food in the UK, cheap, nutritious and plentiful but tastes change and our finicky modern day consumers don't like fish with bones and believe me, Herrings are chocka with bones !

Time was there was a large local fishery for Herring and they still appear close inshore in Sussex from late October through to about now to spawn. This fishery is available to local boats but you will rarely see them for sale on the beaches or the local fish markets as quite simply, the people who used to live off Herring have virtually all died ! So, we have really been given the rights to something we don't want and isn't very valuable and would only go for export anyway !

 

[Lever]

Looks like we're finally getting to see what our 'good deal' consists of.

We have a tariff free trade deal as long as we stick to the EU non tariff barriers, rules and regulations (which we have no input to) and if not, we get arbitration and tariffs.

The EU are now checking all of these at their borders. However, we are not capable of doing the same. So we have a new 'light touch' border system where the UK borders are thrown open (but apparently only until 'the summer' when we might have the capability to actually make the checks).

For the services industry (80% of GDP) we have no deal and the EU say they will only agree a deal when they have a way of ensuring we stick to EU rules and regulations and can't de-regulate the industry (sounds familiar). Until then we can't trade financial services in the EU.

We have a five and a half year agreement to gradually lessen the EU fish quota by 25% but allowing British Fishing boats (which are over 50% EU owned) to catch more herring and mackerel. This, of course, represents a huge opportunity for the UK to eat far less cod and haddock and far more herring and mackerel. These quotas will then need re-negotiating in 5.5 years time.

We can no longer work or retire for more than a long holiday in the EU without significant investment. (You may be able to study in the EU when the new Turin educational system has been set up but with no indication of when, how much it will cost, how you apply, what institutions will take part etc, I'm afraid that if you didn't get an Erasmus place before we left, you may have a while to wait to find out)

Ongoing negotiations with the EU over everything where we decide to exercise our new found Sovereignty and try to change anything effecting the above.

And a border installed in the middle of the UK.

And there's a few other minor things

For holidays and the like, medical insurance, pets, driving, roaming charges etc
For financials, you can't have a British bank account in the EU, UK shareholders losing voting rights of companies that relocate, shares moving from British to EU based platforms etc

I'm sure more will become clearer over the next few days/months/years

But, of course it won't come as any surprise to the vast majority of Brexit supporters knew this was what they were voting for when they cast their vote 4.5 years ago

Deals to make you feel proud of our negotiators.....



......not.

 

[nicko31]

Looks like we're finally getting to see what our 'good deal' consists of.

We have a tariff free trade deal as long as we stick to the EU non tariff barriers, rules and regulations (which we have no input to) and if not, we get arbitration and tariffs.

The EU are now checking all of these at their borders. However, we are not capable of doing the same. So we have a new 'light touch' border system where the UK borders are thrown open (but apparently only until 'the summer' when we might have the capability to actually make the checks).

For the services industry (80% of GDP) we have no deal and the EU say they will only agree a deal when they have a way of ensuring we stick to EU rules and regulations and can't de-regulate the industry (sounds familiar). Until then we can't trade financial services in the EU.

We have a five and a half year agreement to gradually lessen the EU fish quota by 25% but allowing British Fishing boats (which are over 50% EU owned) to catch more herring and mackerel. This, of course, represents a huge opportunity for the UK to eat far less cod and haddock and far more herring and mackerel. These quotas will then need re-negotiating in 5.5 years time.

We can no longer work or retire for more than a long holiday in the EU without significant investment. (You may be able to study in the EU when the new Turin educational system has been set up but with no indication of when, how much it will cost, how you apply, what institutions will take part etc, I'm afraid that if you didn't get an Erasmus place before we left, you may have a while to wait to find out)

Ongoing negotiations with the EU over everything where we decide to exercise our new found Sovereignty and try to change anything effecting the above.

And a border installed in the middle of the UK.

And there's a few other minor things

For holidays and the like, medical insurance, pets, driving, roaming charges etc
For financials, you can't have a British bank account in the EU, UK shareholders losing voting rights of companies that relocate, shares moving from British to EU based platforms etc

I'm sure more will become clearer over the next few days/months/years

But, of course it won't come as any surprise to the vast majority of Brexit supporters knew this was what they were voting for when they cast their vote 4.5 years ago

Maybe they knew what they were voting for until they realised they got groomed...

Item 6 probably the only promised honoured, I give them 1.5 / 10

 

[WATFORD zero]

Maybe they knew what they were voting for until they realised they got groomed...

Item 6 probably the only promised honoured, I give them 1.5 / 10

As I said in my earlier post, there's a few other minor things.

On item 6 for instance, Neil Basu (Head of UK counter-terror policing), said that none of the UK replacements for lost European tools are as good as the security protocols we have within the EU. He said that just before we lost them.

The Police were still rushing requests through under the European Arrest Warrant system last week before we lost it on Friday.

We also lost use of the Schengen Information System II (SIS II) database, which used to be searched automatically alongside the Police National Computer.

We also had to delete all alerts from EU countries from UK systems, and apparently the Police have been trying to save the data by encouraging other nations to upload them to a replacement Interpol database over the past few months.

Now I don't wish to appear picky but you may want to re-consider that mark

 

[Randy McNob]

I see it's copy-paste 'lengthy articles that agree with my view' day, so ..

The difference being, your viewpoint is aligned with a publication owned by the Barclay Brothers, billionaires who own the Ritz and the Telegraph. It will be bias reporting in support of the Tories (who they are big donors) and Brexit to influence opinion which favours people like them, the tax dodging super rich.

as pointed out by Nicko, You have to go outside the UK for journalistic balance

 

[nicko31]

The difference being, your viewpoint is aligned with a publication owned by the Barclay Brothers, billionaires who own the Ritz and the Telegraph. It will be bias reporting in support of the Tories (who they are big donors) and Brexit to influence opinion which favours people like them, the tax dodging super rich.

as pointed out by Nicko, You have to go outside the UK for journalistic balance

He's getting opinion confused with facts and evidence again, it will be something from Guido next. That aside I'm told the Telegraph still does have a very good crossword....

 

[nicko31]

As I said in my earlier post, there's a few other minor things.

On item 6 for instance, Neil Basu (Head of UK counter-terror policing), said that none of the UK replacements for lost European tools are as good as the security protocols we have within the EU. He said that just before we lost them.

The Police were still rushing requests through under the European Arrest Warrant system last week before we lost it on Friday.

We also lost use of the Schengen Information System II (SIS II) database, which used to be searched automatically alongside the Police National Computer.

We also had to delete all alerts from EU countries from UK systems, and apparently the Police have been trying to save the data by encouraging other nations to upload them to a replacement Interpol database over the past few months.

Now I don't wish to appear picky but you may want to re-consider that mark

Oh, got that one wrong...

BTW, what happened about the Dublin Agreement by the way, guess it was rolled over?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Oh, got that one wrong...

BTW, what happened about the Dublin Agreement by the way, guess it was rolled over?

I know it was specifically rolled over for the transition period but can't find anything about the situation as from Friday. I would guess it's just another thing that we will find out about over time.

Unless a Brexit voter could put us right and tell us what they voted for

*edit* Apparently not

Brexit: the end of the Dublin III Regulation in the UK

The Dublin III Regulation enabled the UK to return some asylum seekers to EU Member States without considering their asylum claims. The Regulation will no longer apply in the UK from the end of this year.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I know it was specifically rolled over for the transition period but can't find anything about the situation as from Friday. I would guess it's just another thing that we will find out about over time.

Unless a Brexit voter could put us right and tell us what they voted for

*edit* Apparently not

Brexit: the end of the Dublin III Regulation in the UK

The Dublin III Regulation enabled the UK to return some asylum seekers to EU Member States without considering their asylum claims. The Regulation will no longer apply in the UK from the end of this year.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/

I'm very much a WZ fanboy but when I read this (and similar) a disturbing image came to my mind. Do you remember, like I do, many years - decades even - after the war was over, they would come across a Japanese soldier on some far-flung Pacific island still apparently waiting to fight the US invaders? No offence intended!

 

[Lever]

I'm very much a WZ fanboy but when I read this (and similar) a disturbing image came to my mind. Do you remember, like I do, many years - decades even - after the war was over, they would come across a Japanese soldier on some far-flung Pacific island still apparently waiting to fight the US invaders? No offence intended!

With respect it is perfectly legitimate and practical for anyone to forensically assess the fall out of this choice, both good and bad. There are those who might wish we would all stop doing that, but that is because they have their own agenda, not because it is pointless.
People should learn what is happening.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

With respect it is perfectly legitimate and practical for anyone to forensically assess the fall out of this choice, both good and bad. There are those who might wish we would all stop doing that, but that is because they have their own agenda, not because it is pointless.
People should learn what is happening.

Couldn't put it better myself. And I shall keep doing the same. It's a kind of 'won the argument, lost the war' situation.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm very much a WZ fanboy but when I read this (and similar) a disturbing image came to my mind. Do you remember, like I do, many years - decades even - after the war was over, they would come across a Japanese soldier on some far-flung Pacific island still apparently waiting to fight the US invaders? No offence intended!

No offence taken. It did get me to wonder how I first got involved in this thread when I hadn't bothered for the first 6 months of it. Apparently my first post was triggered when NSC's most ardent Champagne Marxist had spent a few pages telling everyone that this was the chance for the 'working classes' to fight back.

Then the "intelligentsia" deserve what (hopefully) is coming, because they have been the tail wagging the dog.

Rather than blame the working class for their desire to give the establishment a bloody nose you should look at the political conduct of the establishment.

It is telling now that even those in the remain camp are advocating reform of freedom of movement, proof if it was needed that politicians cannot be trusted to act in the people's interest.........they have to be dragged and forced.

They are reaping what they sowed..

I'm not blaming the working class for wanting to give the establishment a bloody nose, so do I. However, i'm not sure punching ourselves in the face is going to achieve that

And trust me, whatever the result, it won't be them that are reaping

'the establishment' that got replaced by Boris Johnson

After that, apart from the odd post, I didn't get involved again until a large number of posters started claiming there would be a 'technology' solution to the Irish Border. Having spent a whole working career in technology, I really felt I was well qualified to correct that lie.

As a result of that, each time something was stated that was factually incorrect I simply corrected it. Although sometimes I would have to explain a number of times in ever simpler terms, this was often confused as 'being condescending' or 'I know better then you attitude' when it was only ever my intention to help educate, inform and bring harmony

And as it becomes clearer what we have actually got, I'll continue to do that, particularly when posters who voted for this complete clusterf*** then start moaning about what they voted for. (But that would never happen would it ).

After all someone has to stand up until the end for Truth, Justice and the British way of life

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

No offence taken. It did get me to wonder how I first got involved in this thread when I hadn't bothered for the first 6 months of it. Apparently my first post was triggered when NSC's most ardent Champagne Marxist had spent a few pages telling everyone that this was the chance for the 'working classes' to fight back.



'the establishment' that got replaced by Boris Johnson

After that, apart from the odd post, I didn't get involved again until a large number of posters started claiming there would be a 'technology' solution to the Irish Border. Having spent a whole working career in technology, I really felt I was well qualified to correct that lie.

As a result of that, each time something was stated that was factually incorrect I simply corrected it. Although sometimes I would have to explain a number of times in ever simpler terms, this was often confused as 'being condescending' or 'I know better then you attitude' when it was only ever my intention to help educate, inform and bring harmony

And as it becomes clear what we have got, I'll continue to do that, particularly when posters who voted for this complete clusterf*** then start moaning about what they voted for. (But that would never happen would it ).

After all someone has to stand up until the end for Truth, Justice and the British way of life

View attachment 132022

I think we all disappeared - like Alice? - down this rabbit-hole at some point. The main thing is having some sanity intact when we finally emerge blinking into the sunlight.

BTW I think you're wrong though in one major respect: isn't JCFG the bringer of truth?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

It's like a Zombie apocalypse on this thread
Talk about the dawn of the Dead
Regards
DF