Jump to content

The Latest Lunacy from the Insane Asylum in Bruxelle!


Gluestick
 Share

Recommended Posts

The lunatics are now demanding all visitors to Euroland Disneyworld must have a new form of temporary visa, costing £10 per trip.

Neatly ignoring, of course, in their delusional myopia, how many foreign visitors visit France, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy et al each year; and that same tourists have already been hard-hit, by the forex market...

British visitors to France, for example, have not needed a visa since 1946.

See Here:

Well prior to Schengen, I travelled all around Europe with no visa needed.

These fools are behaving rather like jilted lovers.

[:P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those heading the madness in Brussels are definitely not friends of Britain and have never been, and they are keen to make an example to try and stop the EU breaking up any further.

Let us not panic yet however; I am more worried by the Briti-fanatics who seem to want to sever all connection with Europe at any cost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness all they have said is that they are considering a visa system between the EU and non Schengen countries as a way of improving the security of their borders and in response to the current refugee crisis. Other places have mischievously speculated that this could include the UK once the UK leaves the EU. I mean why wouldn't it? Or do you then work out a list of countries that are considered 'safe' and waive the need for a visa? (My guess is this will all be part of the negotiations that can start after article 50 is declared..visa free travel from EU countries to Uk = visa free travel from the UK to EU countries). Can't see how that is unreasonable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schengen is simply an artificial construct, which by all the empirical evidence has failed.

Dreadfully.

Namely since it has allowed terrorists to carry arms and munitions into the EU without let of hindrance and worse, has allowed tens of thousands of illegal migrants to filter thru Europe into France, in particular.

The core Schengen principal was based upon "intelligence": which has again itself, failed, miserably.

What is being conveniently forgotten, here, are the multitude of previous treaties and agreements, pre-EEC and EU and Schengen.

More critically, such childish actions invite reciprocity: think Soviet Union expelling UK and US diplomats and the UK and US engaging in a tit-for-tat.

Think further: on the sheer volume of EU registered trucks entering Britain each year: will they all need upgraded documents, visas, carnets etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think further: on the sheer volume of EU registered trucks entering Britain each year: will they all need upgraded documents, visas, carnets etc?

I would have thought that in the absence of free movement of goods , it was self-evident that some of the procedures and documentation that you mention will be imposed. It all depends on exactly what Brexit eventually turns out to mean.

As for the preexisting agreements many of them were superceded by EU treaties , so we can start with the infamous blank canvas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well before the EU, the EEC allowed customs-free movement of goods between member states.

and the customs tariffs between the UK and the rest of the core EEC members were gradually phased out from 1973 during the run-in period. I studied the Brussels Nomenclature back in 1976 and and am still recovering!

Additionally, the TIR system is still extant.

Superseded does not necessarily mean repealed or abandoned.

For example, does the existence of the EU mean the Treaty of Vienna is obsolete? Far from it...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindal1000 wrote:

'In fairness all they have said is that they are considering a visa system between the EU and non Schengen countries as a way of improving the security of their borders and in response to the current refugee crisis.'

Got it - so instead of the refugees entering illegally they apply for a visa, get turned down and do not come. Problem solved, so simple. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what would you suggest then Paul T. People have been complaining that they don't control who comes in and out, and when something is suggested that no, will not solve the problem entirely , but is at least a start, then people complain about that, especially if it might make it more difficult to go on holiday. As mention earlier..with out free movement and free trade going to and from mainland Europe is going to get a whole lot more difficult regardless of any security measures the EU may introduce. "Control' was what people voted for and they are going to get it, but it works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PaulT

Nice idea...................but...

The "Refugees", read Economic Migrants, are meant to apply for asylum the moment they hit a "safe" country; i.e. Spain, Italy, or Greece.

Alternatively, people who seek to migrate, legally, to another nation state are required to register for a temporary visa at the consular office or embassy of their own nation state and once they have received permission and the necessary documents can then make their way.

Another nice idea! [:D]

Unfortunately, people smugglers have brainwashed them into believing that the streets of the UK Germany et al are paved with gold.

Thanks to BLiar and his chums, Britain operated a sort of "Open Door" policy, as revealed by one of the architects of NuLab's notorious and highly illegal and undemocratic social engineering experiment (Andrew Neather) which was aimed at simply "Breaking the power of the right for all time!".

See here:

Today, no one, (least of all the Home Office!), knows quite how many illegals sneaked into Britain: estimated at between 1 to 2+ million.

The Sainted EU has failed utterly to adequately police Schengen, which is precisely how and why illegals have been wandering around Greece, Italy and France for so long.

Interestingly, just prior to Mrs Gluey and I returning to Blighty for a short spell, the ports and Eurotunnel were blockaded by routiers and local residents, who formed a human  (plus tracteur) chain across the A16 autoroute to prevent access.

The truck drivers have had enough of the danger and the residents, enough of the crime and violence in Calais; which includes garden shed being broken into and tools stolen. Local traders have watched their revenues drop, significantly, particularly, restaurateurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick wrote:

Schengen is simply an artificial construct, which by all the empirical evidence has failed.

Dreadfully.

Namely since it has allowed terrorists to carry arms and munitions into the EU without let of hindrance and worse, has allowed tens of thousands of illegal migrants to filter thru Europe into France, in particular.

No No No

Schengen (and it has lots of faults) has not allowed any terrorist to carry anything into the EU nor allowed any migrant to arrive in Europe. It is individual country's border controls - or lack thereof - that have allowed terrorists and their paraphernalia into the EU. It is their lack of resource (and it has to be said a welcome mat from Germany) that has allowed migrants to arrive and not be returned (where appropriate). Schengen simply provides easy access across the EU from one country to the next - but only once you are inside.

Gluestick also wrote:

Well before the EU, the EEC allowed customs-free movement of goods between member states.

and the customs tariffs between the UK and the rest of the core EEC members were gradually phased out from 1973 during the run-in period. I studied the Brussels Nomenclature back in 1976 and and am still recovering!

Additionally, the TIR system is still extant.

TIR is indeed still extant, but I fear you do not understand what it does. TIR is a transit (I stress transit) arrangement that simplifies border controls while passing though (again stress on passing through) Intermediate countries.

Critically this means if the UK is the final destination of goods TIR arrangements stop at the exit of the EU and entry to the UK. Similarly a UK export to an EU country - or others covered by free movement ( CH, N, et al) is not and cannot be covered by TIR. TIR is designed for exports from the UK to for example Serbia, Turkey, Iraq and beyond.

Simply put TIR cannot apply to imports to the UK and TIR cannot apply to exports from the UK to the EU.

Once Brexit is in place TIR will apply to Irish exports to the EU via the UK (and vice versa).

Unless we negotiate a free movement of goods arrangement, the border controls for goods into the UK (and to a lesser extent perhaps into the EU ferry ports) are going to be a real bu@@ers muddle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="andyh4"]

No No No Schengen (and it has lots of faults) has not

allowed any terrorist to carry anything into the EU nor allowed any migrant to

arrive in Europe. [/quote]

Really?

Schengen area: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

 Reference:

http://time.com/how-europes-terrorists-get-their-guns/

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11351855/How-did-the-Paris-terrorists-get-hold-of-their-weapons.html

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/following-the-path-of-the-paris-terror-weapons-a-1083461.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12006892/International-manhunt-underway-after-French-police-let-Paris-attacks-suspect-slip-through-their-fingers.html

One wonders why, if Schengen is so wonderful, what has

galvanized this Trusk statement...

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/09/09-tusk-meeting-lofven-stockholm/

Any container is only as strong as its constituent

parts and expecting ex Marxist collective states to exercise the same level of

border controls as the core group is ludicrous. As it has been with Italy and

Greece: two basket case nation states where resources lie between scarce to

non-existent and bribery is a natural part of their nature and expectation. Setting up a statutory system is fine: however, only

when and if good when administration and regulation and close control follow.
Otherwise it would be rather like a government passing

a law that states “As from next Monday, all crime is now illegal and banned!”

And thereafter sacking all the police officers...

The fat cats of the EU apparat have f0ollowed this

dismal path since the get go: lots of nice speeches and high-sounding rhetoric,

nice lunches and dinners; lovely salaries pensions and fat expense accounts,

however, when it comes to actually performing, then they fail, dismally. Time

and time again. 

[quote]Gluestick also wrote: Well before the EU, the

EEC allowed customs-free movement of goods between member states. and the

customs tariffs between the UK and the rest of the core EEC members were

gradually phased out from 1973 during the run-in period. I studied the Brussels

Nomenclature back in 1976 and and am still recovering! Additionally, the TIR

system is still extant.

 TIR is indeed still extant, but I fear you do not

understand what it does. [/quote]

 I fear I do rather!

 [quote]TIR is a transit (I stress transit) arrangement

that simplifies border controls while passing though (again stress on passing

through) Intermediate countries. Critically this means if the UK is the final

destination of goods TIR arrangements stop at the exit of the EU and entry to

the UK. Similarly a UK export to an EU country - or others covered by free

movement ( CH, N, et al) is not and cannot be covered by TIR. TIR is designed for

exports from the UK to for example Serbia, Turkey, Iraq and beyond. Simply put

TIR cannot apply to imports to the UK and TIR cannot apply to exports from the

UK to the EU. Once Brexit is in place TIR will apply to Irish exports to the EU

via the UK (and vice versa). Unless we negotiate a free movement of goods

arrangement, the border controls for goods into the UK (and to a lesser extent

perhaps into the EU ferry ports) are going to be a real bu@@ers muddle.[/quote]

 Quote: “The TIR Convention establishes an international customs

transit system with maximum facility to move goods:

  • in sealed vehicles or containers;
  • from a customs office of

    departure in one country to a customs office of destination in another

    country;
  • without requiring extensive

    and time-consuming border checks at intermediate borders;
  • while, at the same time,

    providing customs authorities with the required security and guarantees.

The TIR system not only covers customs transit by road but a combination is

possible with other modes of transport (e.g., rail, inland waterway,

and even maritime transport), as long as at least one

part of the total transport is made by road.”

Now; if goods leave the UK by RoRo, destined for say Germany , then they must

travel thru France, Belgium and Holland, before they reach the consignee in Germany.

One might believe they are “Cleared” in France; in which case they would be,

in EU parlance , “Goods in Free Circulation”. Any customs duty and VAT must be

paid (TVA).

However, the consignee would have to claim back the TVA suffered; a long,

tortuous and clumsy bureaucratic process. And then charge German VAT when sold

on.

Far simpler to consign the goods under carnet whereupon they can be cleared

into Germany, at an ICD (Inland Clearing Depot) which saves port congestion. And

this, in itself, is going to be one mother of a problem!

The other problem, of course, is the differential VAT between member states.

Brings to mind the words of Traitor Heath, when he announced VAT; “One

simple tax; one low rate!”

Yeah right...........

VAT Rates Pan Europe

http://www.vatlive.com/vat-rates/european-vat-rates/eu-vat-rates/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very nasty element in the UK at the moment of people who voted Brexit and can't justify it in any way shape or form but getting quite militant about their right to be wrong.

Another distraction as the Tories suck the last of the marrow from public service and kick the cold corpse of a once united kingdom.

Cameron's legacy is the destruction of a Country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mac:

The economic metrics, thus far, would indicate no justification is needed.

The doom and gloom of "Project Fear" has proven not to have actually happened...

OK the pound sterling has dropped; however, this is the result of pure currency speculation, since if one examines and drills-down into the core stats, the Eurozone has serious deficit problems, Italian banks are bankrupt, technically, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain et al are economic and fiscal basket cases; and France has recently announced their intention to dispense with the annual budget cap on public debt borrowing and spending!

Germany - the economic and monetary powerhouse - is now struggling to deal with Mad Mutti Merkel's folly de grandjeure over migrants, in terms of holistic fiscal costs......

Etc.

Thus I fail to see the rationale of your comment?

[8-)]

Steve (Power Diesel) is absolutely correct. It was a democratic vote: the remainers lost. They must accept this, until and unless they can find a parliamentary or statutory justification to legally and from precedent challenge the conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="powerdesal"]People who voted to leave the EU do not need to justify their vote. Neither do the remainers need to justify their vote .

Suffice to say more people voted out than voted in - democracy rules.[/quote]Popular policies are not always the correct ones. For example Chamberlain's appeasement policy in the 1930s was supported by a very large percentage of the population. With hindsight we can see that it was flawed.

That is why I am not in favour of referenda even when they give the result I want. Many issues are too complex to be broken down into a simple yes/no. However I do think the government should respect the result when a referendum has been called. What is important now is to get the best possible outcome for the final deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On referenda, I'll share an amusing story...

Quite a few years

back, I happened to have been elected chair of the national executive

council, of one of my then professional bodies. Every year we enjoyed an

annual luncheon, at the House of Lords.

Travelling up to town,

suited and booted, new pin stripe suit, silk tie and top pocket hanky,

the whole fig ('cos I had to host and respond to a VIP guest speaker,

the late Lord Wetherall, ex speaker of the Commons), I alighted from the

railway station, hailed a cab and asked the driver to take me to the

Lords.

He assumed I was a Lord and became excessively polite: "Member's entrance, Sir?" he asked.

"No, the side entrance, please; I have a boring luncheon today."

Anyway, naughty man that I am, I decided to play along with the gag.....

"Anyway, Sir, "the driver asked me, "What do you think of this idea for a referendum on Europe?"

"Complete

waste of time and money!" I responded; "Mainly since the vast majority

of voters haven't a simple clue concerning precisely what they are

voting about!"

He went almost ballistic and I was convinced we were going to crash into something!

Not a happy bunny...

Worth, perhaps, remembering the words of Churchill.

The best argument against democracy, is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Spencer Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...