Brexit and its implications for British, HU and any other citizens

Town Hall Meeting at the Marriott Hotel for British Nationals:

See the notice for details:

British Embassy Town Hall Meeting Wednesday 9th January 2019 @ 1800h

A representative of the Hungarian government will attend so maybe those there could hear some official policy from the HU side.

fluffy2560 wrote:

A representative of the Hungarian government will attend so maybe those there could hear some official policy from the HU side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UWK8ta … mp;t=0m58s

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

A representative of the Hungarian government will attend so maybe those there could hear some official policy from the HU side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UWK8ta … mp;t=0m58s

Funny,
Looks like the meeting is only a couple hours long, hope people don't leave with more questions then answers.
I have a feeling that people may just have to register  with immigration services in Hungary like the rest of us schmucks  have to.
Not a big deal a minor hassle after all going through immigration services is yet another way for the gov. to make a few bucks or should I say bob?

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

A representative of the Hungarian government will attend so maybe those there could hear some official policy from the HU side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UWK8ta … mp;t=0m58s

Funny,
Looks like the meeting is only a couple hours long, hope people don't leave with more questions then answers.
I have a feeling that people may just have to register  with immigration services in Hungary like the rest of us schmucks  have to.
Not a big deal a minor hassle after all going through immigration services is yet another way for the gov. to make a few bucks or should I say bob?

More complicated than that I'm afraid in many weird and surprising ways.

If UK crashes out, even UK driving licenses will no longer valid in Europe and we'll need an IDP (International Driving Permit) but this won't cover Ireland, Malta, Cyprus or Spain. If we want to  drive here on 30th March, we'll need that IDP.  The UK government will take over post offices to issue them - we're talking millions of them.

My colleague in Belgium told me that he's been told by the government there that his payments into the state pension scheme there won't be honoured.  He's absolutely shocked as he's been there for years!  Nice bit of back stabbing!

Conversely, the UK will continue to recognise all EU licenses and commitments.

I don't think the Town Hall Meeting will provide any answers whatsoever.

BTW, the latest from the UK is the possibility that Brexit will be postponed or UK will remain in the EU. However, the UK PM may win the vote on her plan.  But, having read another option, known as Canada Plus Plus, this seems very attractive but no chance of that being on the table by end of March 2019.  Majority of MPs who want to reject the UK PM's plan reject it because the EU will continue - without an end date - to make UK trade policy.

There's also a thing going on called CANZUK which would be a free movement regime for Canada, USA, New Zealand and the UK.   It's apparently got some traction as well but cannot even be seriously discussed until the UK is out. 

My own opinion is they should suspend the process for 2 years so they can negotiate it properly and iron out all the kinks.

I'm sure you will be attending the Town Hall Meeting, keep us posted.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

I'm sure you will be attending the Town Hall Meeting, keep us posted.

Might do.  Might not.  I can always read the minutes afterwards.  No-one asking questions in Budapest has the power to change what will happen.

fluffy2560 wrote:

My own opinion is they should suspend the process for 2 years so they can negotiate it properly and iron out all the kinks.

My own opinion is this will add two years of uncertainty to the EU and may add to its already existing woes and cause it to crack even further. Businesses and people like some degree of certainty and another two years of uncertainty is wrong. Yes, there may be a "correction" on the continent with a hard Brexit this March, but it will be short. Shorter than two more years of this UK political BS of a country that can not get their national or political house in order being inflicted on all the other member state of the EU.

Sorry for UK citizens, but -- tough. The EU project should not suffer another two years because of UK internal issues and dysfunction.

All IMHO, of course.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

My own opinion is they should suspend the process for 2 years so they can negotiate it properly and iron out all the kinks.

My own opinion is this will add two years of uncertainty to the EU and may add to its already existing woes and cause it to crack even further. Businesses and people like some degree of certainty and another two years of uncertainty is wrong. Yes, there may be a "correction" on the continent with a hard Brexit this March, but it will be short. Shorter than two more years of this UK political BS of a country that can not get their national or political house in order being inflicted on all the other member state of the EU.

Sorry for UK citizens, but -- tough. The EU project should not suffer another two years because of UK internal issues and dysfunction.

All IMHO, of course.

Very provocative statements.   

I could take the other view, i.e. the EU is playing silly games trying to muscle in on the sovereignty of a still member state and to disenchant other wobbling states.  If they took a more casual relaxed view on it, then the population of the UK will be less inclined to complain about the folks in Brussels or use phrases, "yes, I told you so" (meaning yes, they are trying to be a superstate etc).    On the other hand, there's a lot of posturing going on on both sides.  It will settle down as it must.  And it doesn't have to be uncertain. It just has to be agreed to remove any uncertainty.

This doesn't just affect UK citizens living on the EU mainland. It affects 3 million EU citizens living in the UK.

SimCityAT wrote:

This doesn't just affect UK citizens living on the EU mainland. It affects 3 million EU citizens living in the UK.

You are definitely right there. 

I wonder how Mrs Fluffy will fare travelling into the UK.  I think mostly, it won't affect her at all as we don't live there. 

We waited with some anticipation for HU to join the EU and the hassles to stop at the borders for her.   There were hassles. For example, if she was driving our (at the time British registered) car they were always asking her a load of boring and unnecessary jobsworth (US: see link) questions and just slowing us down and interfering.

Then we've got the issues of HU car insurance continuing to be recognised in the UK as I think that's mutual recognition from EU regulations. 

We sometimes drive to the UK in our HU cars and I don't even know if I can continue to drive it there either.  Sure the licenses should be OK in the UK but I really don't know about the insurance.   

Makes me wonder how hard and fast rules will be applied when an EU citizen turns up at the UK border.  I wonder if they should continue with the EU corridor AND have a British corridor too.

I edited Fluffy soon after. I'm on my phone and predicted text is a pain lol

I don't think she will have trouble. Unless you stay longer than 90 days.

Those that wish to stay have to apply for a visa £65 any or may not be successful. There is info on the UK Government website.

SimCityAT wrote:

I edited Fluffy soon after. I'm on my phone and predicted text is a pain lol

I know all about that system.  Horrible. Doesn't work very well if you use mixed up languages.

But it's surprisingly strange to see words getting added to my dictionary automatically from the provider scanning my e-mails.

There are so many unanswered questions which has left us all on both sides in Limbo.

The meeting on the 9th might be pointless as the officials don't know any more than we do.

SimCityAT wrote:

There are so many unanswered questions which has left us all on both sides in Limbo.

The meeting on the 9th might be pointless as the officials don't know any more than we do.

Amen to that brother!

I think it'll be absolutely useless unless they can provide some revelation we cannot read ourselves.  British Embassy has issued some awkward videos which provide no information at all.

SimCityAT wrote:

I don't think she will have trouble. Unless you stay longer than 90 days.

Those that wish to stay have to apply for a visa £65 any or may not be successful. There is info on the UK Government website.

I cannot see us staying longer than about a week but we will have no free and easy option however we want.  But it'll be  border hassle and queueing. What are you doing? Why are you here?  Your kids can come in but you cannot? 

We had it all in 2004 and then we didn't and now we will again. And it'll be the same for relatives coming here as well from this side.  £65 is a total rip off.  Should be free or not required but that's not policy for a "hostile environment". 

BTW, I remember the Austrians sticking the boot in on HU persons visiting AT prior to AT joining the EU.  They had these ridiculous posters up about buying cigarettes and you could only have 1 packet.  I crossed the border from Germany into Austria on the day after they joined the EU.  They seemed to have a hard time understanding the idea of free movement of goods and people.  We used to get stopped every time in my UK car going into Austria.  They were always looking for cigarettes and perfume - we don't smoke and we naturally smell nice. It was truly pathetic.

They are still laughably "inspecting" cars on the Budapest-Vienna motorway.  They have a tent set up to have a look at drivers passing through. I bet they haven't caught anyone by standing about trying to look all threatening tough and hard with their guns.  99.99% of people crossing are EU.  Bonkers waste of posturing.

It's half price for under 16 years olds.....

Complete rip off

With Simons absence, maybe he is regretting his vote for Brent?

SimCityAT wrote:

It's half price for under 16 years olds.....

Complete rip off

Is that based on kids being 1/2 the amount by height or weight or volume or experience? 

UK government typical con job.  Same as rip off on passport prices. Utterly shameful.

SimCityAT wrote:

With Simons absence, maybe he is regretting his vote for Brent?

Ah, your auto-correct again.   I'll run with it for a bit...

I wouldn't have voted for Brent

Now showing my age.

What was that comedy duo or act that was something like the People's Liberation Army of Brent or something.  It was on Radio 4 as satire.  Don't remember how funny it was.  Comedy was different then we had Yes Minister and Terry and June.  Now we've got May and Corbyn.

For very un-PC comedy or satire, try Frankie Boyle's Station of the Nation monologue.  I am sure it will have annoyed a lot of people but I couldn't help laughing.

The UK is fast approaching a place I don't recognise anymore. I could not live there again. Had 2 years to work things out and still nothing to show for it.

In Austria it just costs me €15 to get my permanent residence.

p.s. It was The National Theatre of Brent

SimCityAT wrote:

The UK is fast approaching a place I don't recognise anymore. I could not live there again. Had 2 years to work things out and still nothing to show for it.

I haven't really lived there since the late 1980s.  I'm still connected of course by family but I haven't worked there or lived there full time for so long I think when my parents are gone I will probably never visit.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Very provocative statements.

Hm.....

Not entirely my own. Other pundits have expressed similar.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I could take the other view, i.e. the EU is playing silly games trying to muscle in on the sovereignty of a still member state and to disenchant other wobbling states.

Merely a difference between a confederation and a federation. If a confederation, then sovereignty is more important. If a federation then sovereignty is not very important.

Does the EU want to be Switzerland/CSA, or Germany/USA. The problem, IMHO, is it does not know. Which also adds to uncertainty.

Personally, being a federalist, the entire "sovereignty" issue is silly and only used by self interested political groups and politicians. If one or a country agrees to be part of a larger whole, then some sovereignty must be relinquished for the benefits of being in the larger group, and the greater good (*cough,cough* -- that is I know idealistic, but sound in theory and eventually in practice over time -- but time, political or otherwise, is not what reactionary politicians want). If one does not like that, then leave. Brexit decided to leave. So leave. The EU does not need to make special concessions, or any concessions at all for that matter, for a unilateral decision by the UK to exit.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Very provocative statements.

Hm.....

Not entirely my own. Other pundits have expressed similar.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I could take the other view, i.e. the EU is playing silly games trying to muscle in on the sovereignty of a still member state and to disenchant other wobbling states.

Merely a difference between a confederation and a federation. If a confederation, then sovereignty is more important. If a federation then sovereignty is not very important.

Does the EU want to be Switzerland/CSA, or Germany/USA. The problem, IMHO, is it does not know. Which also adds to uncertainty.

Personally, being a federalist, the entire "sovereignty" issue is silly and only used by self interested political groups and politicians. If one or a country agrees to be part of a larger whole, then some sovereignty must be relinquished for the benefits of being in the larger group, and the greater good (*cough,cough* -- that is I know idealistic, but sound in theory and eventually in practice over time -- but time, political or otherwise, is not what reactionary politicians want). If one does not like that, then leave. Brexit decided to leave. So leave. The EU does not need to make special concessions, or any concessions at all for that matter, for a unilateral decision by the UK to exit.

I think the premise of that is not correct.

Sure, countries or if you want, states, join a federation and then accept something of a loss of sovereignty.  But that wasn't what the EU project was originally about.  It was partially a peace treaty as a result of WW1/2 and partially a trade zone with tariff free movement of goods - coal and steel in fact.

So it wasn't originally signing up to a federal state. But that's the way the axis (and it's a Franco-German one) has been going and that makes some people nervous.  The monetary union is just 20 years old this week actually.  And that's a clear step to a federation.  Nothing in the original treaties says "ever closer union" which kept appearing in the treaties.

The perception is (on the British side, true or false) that the European Commission is an unelected bureaucracy that interferes with the sovereign affairs of states - not only within the EU but elsewhere too (EU policy makers bully some countries). 

But the key point is that if we went back to the basis of the EU as a trade body and not this other political union track then that's not a concession, that's mutual benefit.   

That's where there's not a lot of movement on the EU side. But that's hardly surprising, it goes back to the old Hungarian thing of two people might agree but "three" might not.  In this case the "three" is 27 and that's always going to be sub-optimal. It can only agree if it is a federation with common foreign policy.   And that's where the alarm bells ring.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I think the premise of that is not correct.

Sure, countries or if you want, states, join a federation and then accept something of a loss of sovereignty.  But that wasn't what the EU project was originally about.

Irrelevant.

Toward a more integrated alliance is where the EU is heading.  What is original history is history. The future is the future. Who will stay or go will be an artifact of history.

And if the UK does not want to be part of that today, then leave. The UK voted to leave. Then leave. Get out. Don't expect concessions or special favors to UK benefit since the vote was unilateral. So Just leave. Unilaterally. Stop expecting "the other side" to bend over for the UK.

The UK had no problems entering many other nations and taking over under UK terms and half the world bending over for the UK ... a period known as colonization... so now the tables are turned. Oh well. Too bad. Tough. I guess others are tired of bending over for the UK. Or the USA. Etc.

So, just leave.

Seriously.

Just leave.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The perception is (on the British side, true or false) that the European Commission is an unelected bureaucracy that interferes with the sovereign affairs of states .

It is mostly the unelected bureaucrats, despite the frustration they cause the normal citizen, that keep emotionally and politically elected crazies and demagogues from becoming autocrats.

klsallee wrote:

....

fluffy2560 wrote:

The perception is (on the British side, true or false) that the European Commission is an unelected bureaucracy that interferes with the sovereign affairs of states .

It is mostly the unelected bureaucrats, despite the frustration they cause the normal citizen, that keep emotionally and politically elected crazies and demagogues from becoming autocrats.

Do you really believe that?   

Ever heard of agency theory and moral hazard?

You might be right to some degree in a democracy but if you look at  autocrats, that's one way they wield power.  Keep everyone on edge, never knowing where the arrows are coming from, have an efficient informant system etc.  If a country moves to autocracy, some people are going to enthusiastically join in on subjugating others.  How else could Stalin or Hitler or Papa Doc or or Pol Pot maintain power?

Anyways, what would you say if California decided to leave the Union?

fluffy2560 wrote:

Do you really believe that?

Yes. Because I have worked in this system. So I have direct experience.

For example, Is that not what "Yes Minister" explores? The real world issues between the civil permanent service and the elected official? That is, the civil service maintains the "consistency" and prevents the "popluar" elected official from going off key and on stupid tangents that cause a lot of damage (i.e. the POTUS and Twitter changed the game, and look at all the damage that has caused).

In other words, without real, competent, career bureaucrats who have been around and in the game longer than most of the goofballs who need not be any more competent or have credentials than "I won a popularity contest last week" (AKA an election), we will get what we may now expect in the USA with the resignation of the last sane person in the cabinet.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You might be right to some degree in a democracy but if you look at  autocrats, that's one way they wield power.  Keep everyone on edge, never knowing where the arrows are coming from, have an efficient informant system etc.  If a country moves to autocracy, some people are going to enthusiastically join in on subjugating others.  How else could Stalin or Hitler or Papa Doc or or Pol Pot maintain power?

It is the destruction of stable civil bureaucracies (e.g. Courts, civil worker independence, etc) that lead to autocracy. Such has happened in Hungary. Not the other way around. You have it backwards.

I worked as a civil employee in the USA for both state and Federal agencies. We would do all the due diligence, create a fact based report without political bias, only to have it then 100% ignored by some political appointee with an agenda. Facts do not matter to politicians or their politically appointed flunkies. Yet, to people who get sick because of environmental issues ignored by those same appointees who ignored the fact based unbiased and non-political reports, it matters a hell of a lot. But those people don't have a Twitter account with millions of subscribers.

So, I am not anti-liberal democracy. The complete opposite. But I maintain that liberal democracy requires also a "smoothing out" structure to government. Else you get exactly what you have today -- populism. And all the crazy, random swings from politicians only interested in staying in power at any cost and without controls by sane career civil servants who are suppose to be beyond politics and thus have the nation at heart, not just staying in power and the next election cycle.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Anyways, what would you say if California decided to leave the Union?

Bad example. Read the US Constitution. That is why there was a civil war, because it was one legal opinion that the states in the union could not form a separate confederation. But if it were unambiguously allowed under agreed law, sure, then CA would have the right to succeed.

I would rather say that Scotland or Wales have a better argument for succession from the UK, Which I also would support.

But.... my original point is this, however, so let us not drift from it:

It is not about the right to leave, but the attitude taken by leaving.

That is, the UK unilaterally decided to leave the EU. Yet wants "concessions" from the EU on its rights to leave. Nonsense. That is like a spouse saying they want out of a marriage to have their "freedom", but then asks the divorce court to give that person the house, the cars, alimony, the children and the dog.

Seriously... If you want freedom, then just leave. The UK should spare all the rest of us the political drama and political arrogance*. Just leave.

*And sorry for UK expats, but C'est la vie.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Do you really believe that?

Yes. Because I have worked in this system. So I have direct experience.

For example, Is that not what "Yes Minister" explores? The real world issues between the civil permanent service and the elected official? That is, the civil service maintains the "consistency" and prevents the "popluar" elected official from going off key and on stupid tangents that cause a lot of damage (i.e. the POTUS and Twitter changed the game, and look at all the damage that has caused).

In other words, without real, competent, career bureaucrats who have been around and in the game longer than most of the goofballs who need not be any more competent or have credentials than "I won a popularity contest last week" (AKA an election), we will get what we may now expect in the USA with the resignation of the last sane person in the cabinet.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You might be right to some degree in a democracy but if you look at  autocrats, that's one way they wield power.  Keep everyone on edge, never knowing where the arrows are coming from, have an efficient informant system etc.  If a country moves to autocracy, some people are going to enthusiastically join in on subjugating others.  How else could Stalin or Hitler or Papa Doc or or Pol Pot maintain power?

It is the destruction of stable civil bureaucracies (e.g. Courts, civil worker independence, etc) that lead to autocracy. Such has happened in Hungary. Not the other way around. You have it backwards.

I worked as a civil employee in the USA for both state and Federal agencies. We would do all the due diligence, create a fact based report without political bias, only to have it then 100% ignored by some political appointee with an agenda. Facts do not matter to politicians or their politically appointed flunkies. Yet, to people who get sick because of environmental issues ignored by those same appointees who ignored the fact based unbiased and non-political reports, it matters a hell of a lot. But those people don't have a Twitter account with millions of subscribers.

So, I am not anti-liberal democracy. The complete opposite. But I maintain that liberal democracy requires also a "smoothing out" structure to government. Else you get exactly what you have today -- populism. And all the crazy, random swings from politicians only interested in staying in power at any cost and without controls by sane career civil servants who are suppose to be beyond politics and thus have the nation at heart, not just staying in power and the next election cycle.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Anyways, what would you say if California decided to leave the Union?

Bad example. Read the US Constitution. That is why there was a civil war, because it was one legal opinion that the states in the union could not form a separate confederation. But if it were unambiguously allowed under agreed law, sure, then CA would have the right to succeed.

I would rather say that Scotland or Wales have a better argument for succession from the UK, Which I also would support.

But.... my original point is this, however, so let us not drift from it:

It is not about the right to leave, but the attitude taken by leaving.

That is, the UK unilaterally decided to leave the EU. Yet wants "concessions" from the EU on its rights to leave. Nonsense. That is like a spouse saying they want out of a marriage to have their "freedom", but then asks the divorce court to give that person the house, the cars, alimony, the children and the dog.

Seriously... If you want freedom, then just leave. The UK should spare all the rest of us the political drama and political arrogance*. Just leave.

*And sorry for UK expats, but C'est la vie.

Nah, your assumption is that the civil service is an independent body that can be trusted, whereas Hungary, a case in point is not at all. I think you missed the point entirely yourself.   

Political appointees bring in their own advisors and shape their own policies as they must.  The civil service carries it out but how they carry out is not cast in stone.  When the government changes - in Hungary for sure - branches of government change personnel particularly at the senior civil service level.  That's how it works in HU because that's how they stop subversion. 

In the UK, we have supposedly the type of civil service you described and probably you'd say the same about the USA.  But that's not the same everywhere, including in the EU as an institution and in the countries as members.

I think the marriage analogy doesn't work well across the board.  You are confusing the decision to leave with the mechanism to leave.  What you are advocating is some kind of guerrilla warfare with emotional and attitude based snipers on both sides whereas what this divorce needs is level heads and  discussion.     

To carry on your analogy, there's communal property to be divided since both gave "equally" to its development.  Who gets to keep the dog and what the arrangements for access to the children still has to be discussed.  The alimony has already been decided is a one off payment of $51 billion.   It should be when the end comes,  a no-fault divorce. 

The problem I see it is that each side has a different idea of what the divorce is about - UK it's about sovereignty and trade  whereas the EU thinks something else - what I don't know.  That's despite Juncker making asinine comments.

I have always understood there have been many secessionist attempts for California and other places too.  From what I know of it they never won a simple majority in recent times.  But if they did with enough support in a vote at the state and federal congress level.  Another example more recently is Catalonia.  There it seems impossible for a modern country to bring claims of sedition against any elected officials to any kind of court. 

For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - it would be a simple majority vote in a referendum and then an act of parliament.  Easy to do IF the arguments are persuasive enough which we know in Scotland were not good enough.

But in any case, the drama is temporary thing.  It will settle down as it must.  But for those on the ground with a dog in the race, want to know what's going to happen. But others less so and they don't have to listen.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Nah, your assumption is that the civil service is an independent body that can be trusted

The civil service is mostly career professionals. Like your doctor. Your accountant. Etc. Do you trust your doctor about health less then you trust an elected official who simply won a popularity contest? Who did not graduate from high school? Or thinks the world is flat? Or global warming is a hoax? Or is against public health? I personally trust a career professional myself over a politician in most case. But that is just me, of course.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I think you missed the point entirely yourself.

Meh. Whatever....

fluffy2560 wrote:

Political appointees bring in their own advisors and shape their own policies as they must.  The civil service carries it out but how they carry out is not cast in stone.

Under normal rule of law, the civil service in a liberal democracy has a lot of power to "correct" insane political agenda. I can see from your comments you have never worked in the civil service or really know how it works.

fluffy2560 wrote:

In the UK, we have supposedly the type of civil service you described and probably you'd say the same about the USA.  But that's not the same everywhere, including in the EU as an institution and in the countries as members.

Correct. Because the western world after the "wall fell" over used, over pressed the "D" word: "Democracy", without bothering to educate people what it actually meant (one really needs to read someone like Thomas Paine or others to understand, or even simply attend local government meetings today and be an actual participant in government, but few do). Without explaining or educating others about being an active citizen of government (the required informed populous) such as the need for minority rights, etc., then democracy will fail. So no wonder why some people in Africa "voted" to stone a person to death and were then confused when they were condemned by the US and EU and were upset and turned away from "democracy". Voting is just a tool. Is it not the end point. And why? Because they, after all, were only told the "D" word. Because the "D" word was easy and politically expedient. It required no messy issues that included having to deal with local cultures. It required no generations of education and effort. It is easily manipulated by propaganda especially in the short term (which can lead to long term declines in human rights and an increase in autocracy). A great deal of arrogance in all of that as well. Which are just some of the reasons why "liberal democracy" is currently failing. Badly.

The Brexit referendum was just such an example of the "D" word. I doubt many of the populous who voted really knew then, or knows now, what really awaits them because of their vote, and spent the time to be really educated of the facts. Too much "Facebook" or "The Guardian" BS out there they listened to instead. Sad.

And, no, this is not a UK only issue. My "go to" example of the consequences of an uninterested, not involved electorate is still Bell California.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I think the marriage analogy doesn't work well across the board.  You are confusing the decision to leave with the mechanism to leave.  What you are advocating is some kind of guerrilla warfare with emotional and attitude based snipers on both sides whereas what this divorce needs is level heads and  discussion.

Meh. Whatever. I am not advocating anything. I am observing and reporting. Such as 57% of Tory want a no deal Brexit over what May and the EU have provided.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/worl … tives.html

fluffy2560 wrote:

The problem I see it is that each side has a different idea of what the divorce is about - UK it's about sovereignty and trade  whereas the EU thinks something else - what I don't know.  That's despite Juncker making asinine comments.

The Brexit vote was 100% a UK decision. A Tory decision. For political purposes. It backfired for those like you who will suffer under their ideologies. And yet, the UK May government is trying to clean up that mess by being a little bit less egocentric (good luck) but not enough. So, IMHO, there were no "different sides" there. It was a 100% UK action. So deal with it on that level. Yet, surprise ... UK citizens expect everyone else to deal with it on there UK terms.... Hm.... Neo-colonialism? Operation Ajax 2.0??    (Even if the Mickey Mouse version. Yes, I am just joking... sort of.... ).

So, again, IMHO, right there your argument fails. There need be no "different sides" now. And is entirely my point. The UK wanted to make a unilateral decision then and should "man up" enough to deal with the unilateral consequences. Even during the campaign the "leave" camp suggested it could get a either a great deal from the EU or go it alone. Well, guess what? The EU did not bend over. Any perceived UK suzerainty over Europe is over. You won't get a UK beneficial deal. Deal with it. Get over it. They lied. The electorate fell for it. So much for direct democracy (and why most liberal "democracies" are actually republics -- yes, it matters).

Take home message: Life ain't perfect. So, stop being arrogant and expect more. So just go. Go it alone. Or revote to stay.

Northern Ireland hard border scenario - 1000 riot police:

1000 Riot Police for NI in case of No Deal Brexit

fluffy2560 wrote:

Northern Ireland hard border scenario - 1000 riot police:

1000 Riot Police for NI in case of No Deal Brexit

They have the army on standby in the UK mainland as well.

SimCityAT wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Northern Ireland hard border scenario - 1000 riot police:

1000 Riot Police for NI in case of No Deal Brexit

They have the army on standby in the UK mainland as well.

Yes they do but perhaps it's not in the same way. Apparently the NI riot police will be drawn from elsewhere in the country.  That'll diminish other forces' capacity.  Makes the police cuts HMG have been making over the years look somewhat mistaken.  Hence the Army. 

Having been in the military and had some training for Northern Ireland in that Troubles period, an anti-terrorism operation is rather different to quelling riots.

According to this (click here) there's a separate service for British nationals at the BMBAH:

Please be informed that the Budapest and Pest County Regional Directorate of the Immigration and Asylum Office provides separate client service for British nationals with a residence in Budapest and Pest County  every Wednesday from 10.00 until 12.00 at 1117 Budapest, Budafoki Street 60, (second entrance from Sztegova köz)

Doesn't actually say more about what they are doing about it or what happens when you get there or what guarantees the HU state is providing.   I didn't see anything written down or published.  What we'd surely like to see is the HU government providing like for like equality with the open offer the UK government has extended to all EU nationals until the end of 2020.  This is what I believe other countries like Spain, Czech Republic and Poland have legislated for.

In other news, the extension  to Brexit vote is on the 14th March.  If extended, it'd probably be only until June 2019.  Doesn't give any time to fix anything properly.

Additionally, French Customs are on a work to rule at Calais causing huge queues at the port.  They want more money because of Brexit workloads.  Interestingly, HMRC (UK tax office) has more or less said Customs will wave through trucks destined for the UK without inspections.   Perfect opportunity for smugglers of all descriptions! 

Some other interesting items I saw:  import of personal goods into the UK rumoured to be set at a value of $800 per trip, supposedly same as USA.  That's different to the  EU which is EUR 450 for adults and EUR 150 for children over 15.   Tariffs on some goods into the EU like machinery is about 3% now and likely to continue at the UK border with EU goods.

Mrs May has taken up rap music:

Mrs May's Rap Music

She also mega-lost the latest vote.  Alternatives: No-Deal or Extension.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Mrs May ...

She also mega-lost the latest vote.  Alternatives: No-Deal or Extension.

An extension would require all EU national leaders to agree. What are the odds of that? I would bet at least one hold out and say no. I think the EU is a bit tired of Brexit and would want to cut their looses sooner than later. Especially given the discombobulated nature of the UK Parliament and government on this issue, and also since Juncker said Britain should leave before the EU elections this month, else the UK "could" argue to be part of that election if the UK was not "out". Interesting details.

That lot you know as British MPs would have serious difficulties organising a drunken party in a brewery.

It hardly matters what your opinion of Brexit is, that bunch of useless farts have messed up Britains chances either way.

A bunch of pathetic losers, the lot of them are far more interested in their bank accounts to worry about the people they're supposed to represent.