101–110 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are currently such controls for the EU, actually, and done on the French side of the channel. Those may go as well.
Only at Calais are they on the French side. They're on the UK side elsewhere.
With the exception of the Eurotunnel route, customs checks remain unaffected by juxtaposed immigration controls and continue to take place upon arrival after disembarkation.
Shame if this happens (Amazon.co.uk has been good; Amazon.de doesn't speak English), but UK must do what they think what's good for them. Doing customs declarations in Finland has turned into a hassle since the convenience of EU trade.
Just FYI, Amazon.de introduced English interface and customer support some while back (most product listings are still only German of course).
I think, regardless of where she intends to end up, she always had to start from the perspective of the UK being completely out of the EU. Showing that the UK is prepared to stand on its own two feet. If not prepared to do so, negotiations would be very one sided. It'll certainly be interesting to see how the negotiations play out.
Agreed. Look at what happened with the recent Canadian EU deal, which was nearly derailed by Wallonia, the French speaking half of Belgium [1]. A UK EU trade deal will require unanimity from the EU 27. Given the current political climate, that just won't happen. So "hard Brexit" is inevitable. Theresa May is just making a virtue of a necessity. She does have one very powerful negotiating lever: London is Europe's fin…
But May won't do that, because she's decided it's the unanimous will of the people that we storm out and slam the doors closed behind us and then barricade them and lay some mines just for good measure.
"It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer. Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than…
"I want my money back!" Margret Thatcher at the European Union summit in Dublin in 1980 "That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain, with her traditional strengths and global destiny, should ever have been part of it will appear a political error of historic magn…
Thatcher was thoroughly against the centralisation of power and monetary policy in Europe, but all for free trade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for anyone not familiar with what's likely going on behind the scenes: it's about lowering the corporation tax in the UK. I don't know whether this is a new idea or not, but it would give the UK the leverage it needs in negotiations; will persuade many multinational corporations to stay and will even attract new ones. However, there will be a lot of pain for ordinary people in the interim. Not for corporations th…
> will persuade many multinational corporations to stay and will even attract new ones No. To have access to the EU single market, your company MUST have its main base of operation be in a EU member state.
Furthermore, 'main base of operation' is pretty vague, and I don't believe it accurately reflects EU requirements. A subsidiary can be based in an EU country and provide you with all the access you would like. This isn't an option for smaller companies, but for larger ones its just an extra cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
I am yet to understand how the EU makes it easier for bigger countries to step on the small ones. Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that? The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decide…
Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does.
>The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it.
Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my concern. We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her. I don't want th…
For anyone not familiar with British political etiquette, the phrase: "the UK cannot remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean not leaving the EU at all" can be interpreted as: "I told them they better give us a special exception for single market access and no immigration and they laughed at me".
Which is funny because if the EU is to survive, immigration controls will have to be put in place. Many countries are already demanding to control their borders. So when that happens, the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose. They could've just waited.
All because people think 3.5% of the population (immigrants) is 20% of the population. No one - no matter what they may claim today - voted for this. At the time they were saying "we'll get access to the single market because we're special". I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be a thousand times mor…
I don't understand how a slender majority in favour of leaving ended up with a government of people who are supposed to look out for our best interests going full-on for just about the worst possible outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
> heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones. The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured. Additionally, the voting process in the European council is structured so that bigger countries cannot just impose…
All sides can lament, but the numbers speak for themselves.