I'm glad I don't sit at the negotiation table- They have a hard work in front of them.

Markus

It is about ownership of sovereignty and having the choice to determine how it is implemented, not dictated to by a foreign entity.

That is precisely what would most likely happen.

"Dictated by a foreign entity?" This is from 2016:

"Unlike most other EU member states—and some countries outside the EU—the UK is not part of the Schengen passport-free area because it hasn’t signed the Schengen agreement. This means it can retain border controls.
[...]
Controls at the UK border
The British government retains full control over its own border controls. Travellers who hold EU passports can’t cross the UK border without having their passport or identity checked, and the same applies for travellers from non-EU countries.

The exception is people travelling over the Northern Ireland-Ireland border where there are no border checks.

The UK can, and does, perform passport and identity checks at its borders and refuses entry to travellers who do not travel with valid identity documents even if they are from another EU member state."

- https://fullfact.org/europe/border-security-eu/

"The fact is that we do already control our borders: we monitor our sea crossings, airports, the Channel Tunnel and that we impose passport controls on arrivals from every other country (except Ireland)"
- If you think we need to 'take back control' of our borders, you don't understand what that actually means

And this all was BEFORE brexit.
The UK has always controlled its borders, and it always kept its sovereignty.
If you want to make "deals" or treaties with other nations and people, all sides have to agree to some degree to be able to trade. If you call this "giving away sovereignty" you have to reread what that means, especially when the WTO rules over you.

So can you tell me where and when the UK did not have control before brexit and whether it now wants to extend its border controls/sovereignty to the irish borders, or doesn't it all remain as it is and was since decades?
Because this border in Ireland was and is the only free border, in the UK.

Ach, Catfish... :timeout: Rhetorical prestidigations. Think of enforced mas smigration. Enforced free access to labour market. Enforced EU-wide call for bids. After that column has drivne through, not much of your borders and sovereignty is left.

Meanwhile, in another part of the tiny universe, Die Welt writes:

The transfer of wealth by the ECB and the EU contrary to the treaty will not save Europe -

Although the EU treaties prohibit its own indebtedness, the Commission is in the process of doing just that. Parliaments and courts provide protection in circumventing and defending European law. That will backfire. -

After the Second World War, the project of the unification of Europe was the wise answer to the revenge of the victors over the conquered after the First World War, crystallized in the Treaty of Versailles. The execution of vengeance led to the next war, the project of unification for a peaceful and prosperous Europe. -

French politicians were decisive for both development paths: Raymond Poincaré for the first and Charles de Gaulle for the second. But French European policy has always been dominated by the desire to take the lead on the continent. -

While peace and prosperity were created through the legally anchored free movement of goods, services, capital and people while respecting the sovereignty of the nation states, the French claim to leadership demanded political centralization. A single currency, wrested from the French President Mitterrand from the German Chancellor Kohl during the turbulent times of German reunification, was intended to serve as a means of achieving this. -

But the pressure exerted by the single currency to centralize elementary areas of national sovereignty is countered by the legal framework created for freedom and prosperity. The logical consequence would be to let the peoples of the European Union vote on the replacement of the existing legal framework by a European federal state. -

However, since this would not find a majority among the citizens of the nation states, the political elites are trying to achieve their goal of centralization by circumventing and bending European law. In doing so, docile courts of law provide them with support. We are experiencing how this works right here and now. -

Although the European Treaties prohibit the Union from borrowing itself, the European Commission is in the process of doing just that. From July onwards, money will mainly flow into the coffers of states whose citizens could otherwise question the benefits of the EU. This includes countries such as Italy and France, but also Spain, Poland and Hungary. -

And although the ECB is expressly forbidden to create new money for the states, it continues unmoved with its large-volume purchases of government bonds. Parliaments and courts accept explanations for these Orwellian “double-talk” -style purchases as instruments of monetary policy. For any economist with common sense, however, they are clearly recognizable as the financing of over-indebted states. -

Political centralization, enforced against the will of the citizens and the infraction of European law will ultimately lead to the disintegration of the Union. “Brexit” was the first step on this path. Instead of seeing the UK's exit as the answer to their disastrous policies, European leaders have belittled it. Possibly they believe in the Babylonian captivity of the other big net payer, Germany, in the EU. -

But disaster threatens from another side. In France, Marine Le Pen could move into the Elysée Palace next year, and in Italy, Giorgia Meloni is waiting for the right moment to conquer Palazzo Chigi. Would more money help convince the women of further EU membership? And whether Federal Chancellor Laschet would continue to provide backing for the ECB's money printing machine and a handle in the pocket of the German taxpayer?

I guess your main source of information must be The Sun or the UK Express, not the NZZ. Did you happen to read the links i posted in those 30 seconds?
"MASS MIGRATION", "ENFORCED", Britain is being RAPED, FOREIGNERS, you sound like Farage's Nazi placard :)

I do think that there should perhaps be a separate EU thread. No offence to Catfish or Skybird but their arguments about what the EU is or isn't is derailing what is meant to be a thread about British politics.

There is quite a lot going on here but since it's mainly Jim, Moonlight and me (sporadically) that's posting I'd hazard a guess that most of the UK SubSim members aren't terribly bothered about what our political representatives are up to.

Maybe pop this thread on "furlough" for a bit?

Mike.:hmmm:

^I second that, :up: Perhaps we should banish those two to the German thread if they don't want to create a new EU thread.
Reading all the nonsense Catfish posts about the EU and Brexit anyone would think he hasn't got anything better to do, it's France vs Germany tonight Catfish, do us a favour and bloody watch it will you. :O:

You can tell us who were the biggest prats after the game. :D

Both points taken but having looked back over this thread it appears obvious that Brexit has been an almost constant theme throughout the thread.

There is nothing to stop anyone from adding different topics in this thread provided there is a UK connection and currently the EU in general is certainly that.

I think the bickering between Catfish and me, focussing on the eU and its relaiton to the UK, and may attitude toiwards the UK and the eU, both are hgard to realyl be seen comeoltely unrelated to UK topics. Like it or not, but the things I and Catfish bring up, touch upon UK realities for better or worse. Thats why I post it here. In fact some other EU stuff I post in the German thread, the economy thread, or elsewise.


I agree however that with Catfish and the EU I have become a runner in circles, like he has with the UK and Jim and me, too.



Very passionate disagreements from all participating debators here, we cannot help it.

^ I agree, for once :03:

However i only mentioned the buzzword "sovereignty" and "brexit", and what i asked has not much to do with the EU. And I would prefer if Jim or someone from the UK directly answered or debated e.g. this post, instead of Skybird answering and diluting direct questions :D

But it's all good, and no harm intended :salute:

That link to that post of yours is what's gone wrong with this thread, you and Skybird are forever nit picking about things we leave to the politicians, that's why they get paid the big bucks and an even bigger expenses account. If you want to write a letter to Bozo and Priti I'm sure they'll give you the Winston Churchill salute while they tuck into their £300 halibut and chips. :haha:

Perhaps you can answer a question about migrants instead Catfish.
"Why does the EU allow migrants from Africa to travel through 3 to 5 different countries without stopping them travelling by small boats across the English Channel, it's a proven fact that France's coastguard actively help them do precisely that"

Is it no wonder that we believe we are well rid of the EU and everything it stands for. :haha:

Right, because none of you want to answer it, because you can't. But when you call your sovereignty "problems" nitpicking, well i agree.
"we leave it to the politicians" = bring your politicians into an unsolvable situation so you can complain about them. Or the EU. Or whatever, but never about yourself. Having an excuse to complain and blame others seems to be the only reason for all this tosh.
On the other hand this is perfect human behaviour and (if mildly) amusing :D

Re France helping MIGRANTS to INVADE BRITAIN i bet you got this either from The Sun, UK Express or maybe Breitbart. You will not find this anywhere else :shucks:

I knew you'd swerve that question Catfish just like our left wing EU loving media does, you're both as slippery as an eel. :haha:

RECORD NUMBERS Over 5,000 migrants have made the perilous journey across Channel this year
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/152885...s-priti-patel/

Have you seen the headline above Catfish, our MP's might be as bent as a butchers hook but yours are bent and they're also bloody criminals as well, aiding the transportation of migrants into the UK is a crime in the UK, apparently that's not the case in the EU.

If at all i'm slippery like a catfish, not an eel ..

For the rest: Afaik there are around 1000 immigrants a month getting over the channel to England/UK, which makes the number of 5000 in june this year in your link too low, but then june is not over yet so Priti P. can still hope for more.

But please look at the details, what i wrote and doubt (and what in my humblest of opinion The Sun and the other populist yellow press lie about) is that the french coast guard intentionally "help migrants to enter the UK".

That's the trouble with you Euro nut jobs, you look but you don't see.

Here is an article from one of our worst left wing Euro newspapers who thinks the same as you do, even they couldn't deny the fact that the French were actively aiding and abetting illegal smuggling activities.

Desperate migrants helped to Britain by the French Navy amid horrific camp conditions
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/desper...rench-22188151

It is possible, this happened in june 13th 2020? Technically the UK had not left the EU at that time, but no idea what this means to migration laws. This french type of ship is usually used to save people from drowning. I do not find anything about such an event in other media, but ok.

For my part I'm rather fed up with the never ending merry-go-round that is Brexit. Being where I am in the UK I also have to put up with the never ending merry-go-round that is the Scottish Independence question.

One's bad enough, but two at the the same time.....:doh:

Mike.

I blame it all on the EU :O:

You'll never have full control of your own sovereignty if by using just one example....the UK Supreme Court can be overruled by an EU court.

no doubt :D
Not by the EU :hmmm: "... both the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights exist separately from the European Union. Therefore, the situation has not changed by the UK’s exit from the European Union."

"The relationship between the UK Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (which sits in Luxembourg) has, however, changed.
The Supreme Court can depart from decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union taken before 11pm on 31 December 2020. This means that the Supreme Court (and other relevant UK appellate courts) will depart from a previous decision of the Luxembourg Court where it appears right to do so.

Secondly, from 11pm on 31 December 2020, all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are no longer able or required to refer certain questions of European Union law to the Court of Justice (through what is known as "preliminary reference procedure"). There are some limited exceptions to this. For example, the UK courts, including the Supreme Court, continue to be able to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union about the interpretation of the citizens' rights provisions in Part 2 of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement."

Not that i completely understand what the last two paragraphs include :03:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/faqs.html