Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

prinzeugen wrote: »

Considering the amount of fresh food brought in by air these days.. Not much. Warehouses would be full at this time of year anyway. Its called Christmas!!

You're missing the point as to why the warehouses are full.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Where are the thirteen UK territories on the back of a €50 note? And the French territories are EU members. They use the Euro and EU citizens don't require a visa to visit them.

You should really check that one out..

I'm not sure why you think that depiction on the back of the €50 note is signficant.

The thirteen UK-related territories that have a relationship with the EU are: Gibraltar; Man; Channel Islands; Akrotiri and Dhekelia; Bermuda; Cayman Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands; British Virgin Islands; Anguilla; Montserrat; St Helena; Falkland Islands; Pitcairn Island.

The French: Polynésie française; Nouvelle-Calédonie; Wallace et Futuna; St-Barthélemy; St-Pierre-et-Miquelon; Terres australes et antarctiques françaises.

The Spanish: Ceuta y Mellila.

The territories depicted on the €50 note are not colonial or dependent territories or "French and Spanish colonies", as you claim. They are integral parts of EU member states. They are shown for the same reason as, e.g., Orkney and the Shetlands are shown.

prinzeugen wrote: »

I suggest you should read..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union

Sorry for upsetting the echo-chamber with facts.

"
According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, both primary and secondary European Union law applies automatically to these territories, with possible derogations to take account of their "structural social and economic situation (...) which is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, economic dependence on a few products, the permanence and combination of which severely restrain their development".[4] All form part of the European Union customs area, however some fall outside of the Schengen Area and the European Union Value Added Tax Area."

6 French, 1 Spanish, 2 Portuguese, Zero British.

Are not most of the British dependencies tax havens?

prinzeugen wrote: »

Lol!! And the majority here call pro britex people stupid! All the British ones have there own government. (Orkney and Shetland are part of the UK).

France has territory that is directly ruled by Paris, all over the planet.

You are scratching the bottom of the barrel if you are comparing Orkney with the wee part of France (and the EU) stuck next to Canada.

All the British ones have their own government which is why they are not part of the UK, and so not members of the EU, and so need a separate relationship with the EU.

Although they have their own government, they are not sovereign states. Their governments only have such limited powers as the UK graciously condescends to grant them. They are, in short, colonies, although I believe the modern eupehism is "British Overseas Territories". People born there have the status of "British Overseas Territories Citizens". BOTC Citizens mostly do not have a right of abode in the UK, and are not EU citizens. Fortunately for them, since 2002 the majority of them have also been offered British Citizenship which, unlike British Overseas Citizenship. (They couldn't be offered that before because so many of them were, well, not quite white. But that objection was removed when the largest British Overseas Territory, Hong Kong, was handed back to China, and its mostly Chinese denizens were stripped of BOTC status.)

France has its colonies too, but many fewer. Most of the territories you are thinking of are fully part of the French Republic, with exactly the same rights as any other part, voting in French and European elections, sending MPs to the French Parliament, etc. They are "ruled from Paris" in exactly the same way that the Isle of Wight is "ruled from London". Their denizens are French Citizens and, therefore, EU Citizens.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Google the UN definition of sovereign state.

nternational law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. British Overseas Territories are not sovereign states because they don't have the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereigns; foreign affairs is one of the powers that Westminster keeps for itself. None of the BOTC governments has a Department of Foreign Affairs, and none appoints or receives amabassadors. They lack any competence in this area. Their agreements with the EU (and everyone else) are all entered into on their behalf by the UK.

prinzeugen wrote: »

. Anything to try and make the British the baddies.

You introduced this topic in an attempt to have a go at the French, prinzeugen. If a comparison between the French départements et régions d’outre-mer and British Overseas Territories reflects poorly on the latter, I don't think you should be trying to deflect the blame onto others.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Isle of Wright?? Stop!! So the IOW is the same as a island in the middle of the South Pacific?.

Well, they're both island which are not independent and are not colonies, but are part of a larger country. I'm not sure why you find this so baffling.

prinzeugen wrote: »

Facts. You are being selective to suit an agenda.

I expect I will have some sort of card or ban in the morning. The ministry of truths will be sending me to room 101 to learn newspeak. "Change my ways"!!

Rather than attemtp to mount a factual defence of your own assertions, you're trying to create a smokescreen by claiming victim status based on cards and bans that have been neither suggested nor imposed.

Eugene, you're the one who raised the issue of external and remote territories. You're the one who iinvited us to compare respective numbers of territories associated wtih different member states. You're the one who suggested we look at the definition of sovereignty. Yet whenever people respond to the very issues that you have asked to be discussed you clutch at your pearls, gather up your skirts and flounce off. You invite comment, but never engage with it.

What are we supposed to make of this? That you're all guff and no substance? That may not be the impression you're trying to create but, if it were, you wouldn't be doing anything very different from what you're doing now.

The UK and US is close to agreeing a open skies deal after Brexit.

Brexit Britain close to agreeing open skies deal with US

The US and UK are close to finalising an open skies aviation agreement, which falls short of current EU arrangements but will protect British carriers from ownership problems after Brexit.

Negotiators for the two sides are meeting on Wednesday in Washington for what they expect to be the final round of talks on the wide-ranging air services agreement, according to two people briefed on the talks.

If confirmed, the deal would provide continuity for UK and US-based carriers when Britain leaves the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, which underpins the busy transatlantic flight corridor.

But the draft terms are inferior to the rights the UK enjoys as an EU member, with tighter restrictions on ownership, tougher terms for new entrants and no special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees.

So the article asserts that a new deal will be signed but it will not be as good as the one the UK currently participates in with the EU. Basically all airlines will be able to fly between the US and UK that currently fly routes even if they are not majority owned by either a UK or US national.

This could have been a problem for the likes of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic seeing that they have substantial ownership from outside the UK. But they have been given a pass on this, but with any negotiation if you get something you want you have to give up something in return. Any airline that wants to establish a new route between the UK and US will have to comply by the rules set out in the agreement and US authorities will need to give the green light if the airline meets the requirements.

So that could make it very difficult for Ryanair and Easyjet from launching services between the UK and US. The reason for this is because the EU requires airlines to be 50% owned by EU nationals to have a operating certificate for flights in the EU.

The UK has taken back control by ceding authority to the US on a new open skies agreement. I am sure I saw that written in small print on the bus stating they should rather send the money to the NHS.

Calina wrote: »

TBF I would prefer Schengen to the CTA and no one in the UK appears to care about the border anyway.

In all honesty isnt Scheingen usless to us since were an island and our only links to the continent are air and sea routes?

Infini wrote: »

In all honesty isnt Scheingen usless to us since were an island and our only links to the continent are air and sea routes?

Nope. Actually not having to clear passport control would make a big difference to me.

Enzokk wrote: »

Why would it be useless? There would be no checks on passports or IDs on either end of the flights by immigration officials. Removing checks is a positive, even if it only saves a few seconds. There could be a residual advantage from people applying to Schengen visas to visit the continent and including Ireland for a visit as well if they didn't need to apply for another visa.

And in many cases if would save far more than a few seconds.

Well, all of this is true but, in fairness, saving time at airports probably isn't the biggest issue here, in the scheme of things. Countries in the Schengen area operate a common visa policy with respect to third countries, and so if we joined we could no longer operate an independent visa policy for third countries, as we do at present. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's almost certainly a more significant thing than the impact on processing times at airports.

But I think the discussion is academic. Ireland has an opt-out from Schengen (as does the UK) so that it can continue to operate the Common Travel Area with the UK. The EU is supportive of this, and has reiterated its support in the context of Brexit. Ireland wishes to maintain the Common Travel Area. Given this, the only circumstance that could bring about a change is if the UK acted so as to undermine or terminate the CTA arrangements, and this seems unlikely; their stated policy is also to maintain the CTA, and this is written into the Joint Report and the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

So, prinzeugen's prediction that Ireland will be required to join the Schengen Area seems about as well-grounded and well-reasoned as most of his other prognistications. None of the three entities involved - Ireland, the UK, the Union - wish to end the CTA or extend Schengen. Of the three, at the moment the UK is perhaps the most unstable, irrational and unpredictable but, even so, it would be a fairly remarkable volte-face for them to change their minds on this. So I don't see any reason for thinking as prinzeugen does (and, as is customary, he hasn't offered any reason).

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, all of this is true but, in fairness, saving time at airports probably isn't the biggest issue here, in the scheme of things. Countries in the Schengen area operate a common visa policy with respect to third countries, and so if we joined we could no longer operate an independent visa policy for third countries, as we do at present. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's almost certainly a more significant thing than the impact on processing times at airports.

But I think the discussion is academic. Ireland has an opt-out from Schengen (as does the UK) so that it can continue to operate the Common Travel Area with the UK. The EU is supportive of this, and has reiterated its support in the context of Brexit. Ireland wishes to maintain the Common Travel Area. Given this, the only circumstance that could bring about a change is if the UK acted so as to undermine or terminate the CTA arrangements, and this seems unlikely; their stated policy is also to maintain the CTA, and this is written into the Joint Report and the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

So, prinzeugen's prediction that Ireland will be required to join the Schengen Area seems about as well-grounded and well-reasoned as most of his other prognistications. None of the three entities involved - Ireland, the UK, the Union - wish to end the CTA or extend Schengen. Of the three, at the moment the UK is perhaps the most unstable, irrational and unpredictable but, even so, it would be a fairly remarkable volte-face for them to change their minds on this. So I don't see any reason for thinking as prinzeugen does (and, as is customary, he hasn't offered any reason).

The example of airport visa queues was to illustrate a very simple and obvious benefit but yes, there are other implications - mostly also beneficial.

Schengen is incompatible with a CTA with a non Schengen member; that has been the case while the UK was in the EU and will obviously be the case after it leaves.

The only circumstances in which Ireland can join Schengen are the end of the CTA. That won't be our doing and would be regrettable but if the CTA ends we should join Schengen the next day.