Brexit Thread 2

[Garth]

twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1009007598790676481

[Errkal]

I dread to think at what level of hell it needs to reach before the leave lot actually go "naa not worth it, lets not do this".

[Rax]

Youre working under the assumption these people are looking at facts and considering their opinion based on information. Theyre not, theyre just basing their decision on racism and emootion, they want out of the EU cos of all the immigrants the Brussels taking all their money.

[Hexx]

I dread to think at what level of hell it needs to reach before the leave lot actually go "naa not worth it, lets not do this".

I've said for years (and still struggle to deal with) - you're not getting a moment for schadenfreude. You're never going to get the majority of them to have the realisation of what they've caused. They're incapable. It'll all be someone else's fault. The EU. Or may for "not getting Brexit right". Or Remoaners undermining the attempts to deliver Unicorns. There's no reason to suspect the majority posses the emotional or intellectual capacity to recognise the mistake they've made.

[Moggy]

Barnier says no UK access to EU-only police databases after Brexit, UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant, UK will lose 'benefits of cooperation':

The UK has decided to leave the EU, its institutions, structures and safeguards. It will be a third country outside Schengen and outside the EU's legal order. This is a fact.

Facts have consequences.

The UK's recent paper on security, law enforcement and criminal justice expresses a desire to keep the benefits of EU membership.

This is understandable when you look at what we have achieved together as a Union in internal security.

- Together, on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant, we extradite wanted criminals or suspects – including own nationals – from one Member State to another.
- Together, we set up Europol to support Member States law enforcement authorities. Europol pools information from across the EU and helps fight cross-border crime.
- Together, with our Schengen partners such as Norway and Switzerland, we operate the Schengen Information System. It was consulted over 5 billion times last year to monitor who is crossing Schengen borders. It helped to capture dangerous criminals and terrorists. It also helped to retrieve not only stolen cars, but also missing people and missing children.
- Together, under the European Investigation Order, we collect evidence from each other and exchange it swiftly in order to bring criminals to justice.
- Together, we execute each other's judicial decisions in real time, for instance by confiscating criminals' property or freezing their assets.

Such achievements can today seem obvious to us Europeans.

But are they really?

- Is there another region in the world where sovereign states rely on each other to create such intense cooperation for internal security?
- Is there another region where sovereign states build together a common area without internal border controls? Where citizens enjoy free movement and security, and can avail of shared institutions to ensure their fundamental rights are protected?

This cooperation is both unique and unprecedented. And it is made possible by the trust between Member States.

This trust does not fall from the sky! There is no magic wand.

As I set out in a recent speech in Lisbon in front of the International Federation of European Law, this trust is founded on an "ecosystem" based on common rules and safeguards, shared decisions, joint supervision and implementation and a common Court of Justice.

If you leave this "ecosystem", you lose the benefits of this cooperation. You are a third country because you have decided to be so. And you need to build a new relationship.

To negotiate an ambitious new relationship with the UK, which we all want, we need more realism on what is possible and what is not when a country is outside of the EU's area of justice, freedom and security and outside of Schengen.

A few words also on extradition as it has attracted a lot of public attention recently:

Let me explain the facts.

The European Arrest Warrant is linked to the free movement of people. It works well because it is based on mutual trust between Member States.

This trust is underpinned by:

- shared respect for fundamental rights as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- by certainty that other Member States enforce and apply the rules the same way, under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice;
- and by the concept of EU citizenship, which allows Member States to lift the constitutional ban on the extradition of their own nationals.

Yet today we know that the UK is not ready to accept the free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the Court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights – for the Charter, this was confirmed last week by the House of Commons.

This means that the UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant.

This does not mean that we cannot work together on extradition.

This is our offer. While we are constrained by the UK's red lines, it is a fair offer. It reflects our strong commitment to address our common challenges.

Some in the UK would like to go further.

They want to maintain all the benefits of the current relationship, while leaving the EU regulatory, supervision, and application framework. And they try to blame us for the consequences of their choice.

Once again, we will not be drawn into this blame game. It would mean wasting time we don't have.

In this field of internal security, it is particularly hard to speak about what will no longer be possible. But we have, I have, to speak the truth.

The UK decided to leave the EU. We regret this decision but this is a democratic decision and we have to respect it and now we are working towards an orderly withdrawal.

If we want to build a new relationship, we need a basis of good will and confidence. We also need more realism about what is and what is not possible.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SP ... 213_en.htm

So if, hypothetically speaking, after Brexit somebody was to rob a bank and then flee to the Costa Del Sol, they might be able to avoid extradition back to the UK?

Asking for a friend.

[Moggy]

twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1009007598790676481

They would rather there not be a UK than there be in a UK inside the EU. They want their country back, just a much smaller version of it.

Crazy banana splits.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

Barnier says no UK access to EU-only police databases after Brexit, UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant, UK will lose 'benefits of cooperation':

The UK has decided to leave the EU, its institutions, structures and safeguards. It will be a third country outside Schengen and outside the EU's legal order. This is a fact.

Facts have consequences.

The UK's recent paper on security, law enforcement and criminal justice expresses a desire to keep the benefits of EU membership.

This is understandable when you look at what we have achieved together as a Union in internal security.

- Together, on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant, we extradite wanted criminals or suspects – including own nationals – from one Member State to another.
- Together, we set up Europol to support Member States law enforcement authorities. Europol pools information from across the EU and helps fight cross-border crime.
- Together, with our Schengen partners such as Norway and Switzerland, we operate the Schengen Information System. It was consulted over 5 billion times last year to monitor who is crossing Schengen borders. It helped to capture dangerous criminals and terrorists. It also helped to retrieve not only stolen cars, but also missing people and missing children.
- Together, under the European Investigation Order, we collect evidence from each other and exchange it swiftly in order to bring criminals to justice.
- Together, we execute each other's judicial decisions in real time, for instance by confiscating criminals' property or freezing their assets.

Such achievements can today seem obvious to us Europeans.

But are they really?

- Is there another region in the world where sovereign states rely on each other to create such intense cooperation for internal security?
- Is there another region where sovereign states build together a common area without internal border controls? Where citizens enjoy free movement and security, and can avail of shared institutions to ensure their fundamental rights are protected?

This cooperation is both unique and unprecedented. And it is made possible by the trust between Member States.

This trust does not fall from the sky! There is no magic wand.

As I set out in a recent speech in Lisbon in front of the International Federation of European Law, this trust is founded on an "ecosystem" based on common rules and safeguards, shared decisions, joint supervision and implementation and a common Court of Justice.

If you leave this "ecosystem", you lose the benefits of this cooperation. You are a third country because you have decided to be so. And you need to build a new relationship.

To negotiate an ambitious new relationship with the UK, which we all want, we need more realism on what is possible and what is not when a country is outside of the EU's area of justice, freedom and security and outside of Schengen.

A few words also on extradition as it has attracted a lot of public attention recently:

Let me explain the facts.

The European Arrest Warrant is linked to the free movement of people. It works well because it is based on mutual trust between Member States.

This trust is underpinned by:

- shared respect for fundamental rights as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- by certainty that other Member States enforce and apply the rules the same way, under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice;
- and by the concept of EU citizenship, which allows Member States to lift the constitutional ban on the extradition of their own nationals.

Yet today we know that the UK is not ready to accept the free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the Court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights – for the Charter, this was confirmed last week by the House of Commons.

This means that the UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant.

This does not mean that we cannot work together on extradition.

This is our offer. While we are constrained by the UK's red lines, it is a fair offer. It reflects our strong commitment to address our common challenges.

Some in the UK would like to go further.

They want to maintain all the benefits of the current relationship, while leaving the EU regulatory, supervision, and application framework. And they try to blame us for the consequences of their choice.

Once again, we will not be drawn into this blame game. It would mean wasting time we don't have.

In this field of internal security, it is particularly hard to speak about what will no longer be possible. But we have, I have, to speak the truth.

The UK decided to leave the EU. We regret this decision but this is a democratic decision and we have to respect it and now we are working towards an orderly withdrawal.

If we want to build a new relationship, we need a basis of good will and confidence. We also need more realism about what is and what is not possible.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SP ... 213_en.htm

So if, hypothetically speaking, after Brexit somebody was to rob a bank and then flee to the Costa Del Sol, they might be able to avoid extradition back to the UK?

Asking for a friend.

I'm pretty annoyed by this stance (not your planned bank robbery). There is nothing in this that is tied to freedom of movement. It is simply about intelligence and record sharing. It is not in anyway related to the requirements of EU membership. He is playing hard ball but he will go through with it and not allow us to remain a member should we leave next year. I understand the disagreements over trade deals and that for the EU freedom of movement and observing their rules and legislation is necessary but this is not. If the EU wanted to allow Australia into the security deal then it could.

[Errkal]

They would rather there not be a UK than there be in a UK inside the EU. They want their country back, just a much smaller version of it.

Crazy banana splits.

I'm pretty sure post Brexit there would start to be "English independence" movements suggesting Scotland wants to leave anyway, they are holding back the UK from the brext dream we should get rid of them.

[Moggy]

Barnier says no UK access to EU-only police databases after Brexit, UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant, UK will lose 'benefits of cooperation':

The UK has decided to leave the EU, its institutions, structures and safeguards. It will be a third country outside Schengen and outside the EU's legal order. This is a fact.

Facts have consequences.

The UK's recent paper on security, law enforcement and criminal justice expresses a desire to keep the benefits of EU membership.

This is understandable when you look at what we have achieved together as a Union in internal security.

- Together, on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant, we extradite wanted criminals or suspects – including own nationals – from one Member State to another.
- Together, we set up Europol to support Member States law enforcement authorities. Europol pools information from across the EU and helps fight cross-border crime.
- Together, with our Schengen partners such as Norway and Switzerland, we operate the Schengen Information System. It was consulted over 5 billion times last year to monitor who is crossing Schengen borders. It helped to capture dangerous criminals and terrorists. It also helped to retrieve not only stolen cars, but also missing people and missing children.
- Together, under the European Investigation Order, we collect evidence from each other and exchange it swiftly in order to bring criminals to justice.
- Together, we execute each other's judicial decisions in real time, for instance by confiscating criminals' property or freezing their assets.

Such achievements can today seem obvious to us Europeans.

But are they really?

- Is there another region in the world where sovereign states rely on each other to create such intense cooperation for internal security?
- Is there another region where sovereign states build together a common area without internal border controls? Where citizens enjoy free movement and security, and can avail of shared institutions to ensure their fundamental rights are protected?

This cooperation is both unique and unprecedented. And it is made possible by the trust between Member States.

This trust does not fall from the sky! There is no magic wand.

As I set out in a recent speech in Lisbon in front of the International Federation of European Law, this trust is founded on an "ecosystem" based on common rules and safeguards, shared decisions, joint supervision and implementation and a common Court of Justice.

If you leave this "ecosystem", you lose the benefits of this cooperation. You are a third country because you have decided to be so. And you need to build a new relationship.

To negotiate an ambitious new relationship with the UK, which we all want, we need more realism on what is possible and what is not when a country is outside of the EU's area of justice, freedom and security and outside of Schengen.

A few words also on extradition as it has attracted a lot of public attention recently:

Let me explain the facts.

The European Arrest Warrant is linked to the free movement of people. It works well because it is based on mutual trust between Member States.

This trust is underpinned by:

- shared respect for fundamental rights as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- by certainty that other Member States enforce and apply the rules the same way, under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice;
- and by the concept of EU citizenship, which allows Member States to lift the constitutional ban on the extradition of their own nationals.

Yet today we know that the UK is not ready to accept the free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the Court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights – for the Charter, this was confirmed last week by the House of Commons.

This means that the UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant.

This does not mean that we cannot work together on extradition.

This is our offer. While we are constrained by the UK's red lines, it is a fair offer. It reflects our strong commitment to address our common challenges.

Some in the UK would like to go further.

They want to maintain all the benefits of the current relationship, while leaving the EU regulatory, supervision, and application framework. And they try to blame us for the consequences of their choice.

Once again, we will not be drawn into this blame game. It would mean wasting time we don't have.

In this field of internal security, it is particularly hard to speak about what will no longer be possible. But we have, I have, to speak the truth.

The UK decided to leave the EU. We regret this decision but this is a democratic decision and we have to respect it and now we are working towards an orderly withdrawal.

If we want to build a new relationship, we need a basis of good will and confidence. We also need more realism about what is and what is not possible.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SP ... 213_en.htm

So if, hypothetically speaking, after Brexit somebody was to rob a bank and then flee to the Costa Del Sol, they might be able to avoid extradition back to the UK?

Asking for a friend.

I'm pretty annoyed by this stance (not your planned bank robbery). There is nothing in this that is tied to freedom of movement. It is simply about intelligence and record sharing. It is not in anyway related to the requirements of EU membership. He is playing hard ball but he will go through with it and not allow us to remain a member should we leave next year. I understand the disagreements over trade deals and that for the EU freedom of movement and observing their rules and legislation is necessary but this is not. If the EU wanted to allow Australia into the security deal then it could.

Except it is all linked to EU membership or having agreements (like Schengen). The blame for this doesn’t lie with the EU, it lies with those who lied to people about how wonderful leaving the EU would be and how we could have our cake and eat it.

I doubt there is anything to stop us signing extradition orders or signing up for intelligence sharing in the future, but we will lose those benefits when we leave, because we are leaving.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

Barnier says no UK access to EU-only police databases after Brexit, UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant, UK will lose 'benefits of cooperation':

The UK has decided to leave the EU, its institutions, structures and safeguards. It will be a third country outside Schengen and outside the EU's legal order. This is a fact.

Facts have consequences.

The UK's recent paper on security, law enforcement and criminal justice expresses a desire to keep the benefits of EU membership.

This is understandable when you look at what we have achieved together as a Union in internal security.

- Together, on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant, we extradite wanted criminals or suspects – including own nationals – from one Member State to another.
- Together, we set up Europol to support Member States law enforcement authorities. Europol pools information from across the EU and helps fight cross-border crime.
- Together, with our Schengen partners such as Norway and Switzerland, we operate the Schengen Information System. It was consulted over 5 billion times last year to monitor who is crossing Schengen borders. It helped to capture dangerous criminals and terrorists. It also helped to retrieve not only stolen cars, but also missing people and missing children.
- Together, under the European Investigation Order, we collect evidence from each other and exchange it swiftly in order to bring criminals to justice.
- Together, we execute each other's judicial decisions in real time, for instance by confiscating criminals' property or freezing their assets.

Such achievements can today seem obvious to us Europeans.

But are they really?

- Is there another region in the world where sovereign states rely on each other to create such intense cooperation for internal security?
- Is there another region where sovereign states build together a common area without internal border controls? Where citizens enjoy free movement and security, and can avail of shared institutions to ensure their fundamental rights are protected?

This cooperation is both unique and unprecedented. And it is made possible by the trust between Member States.

This trust does not fall from the sky! There is no magic wand.

As I set out in a recent speech in Lisbon in front of the International Federation of European Law, this trust is founded on an "ecosystem" based on common rules and safeguards, shared decisions, joint supervision and implementation and a common Court of Justice.

If you leave this "ecosystem", you lose the benefits of this cooperation. You are a third country because you have decided to be so. And you need to build a new relationship.

To negotiate an ambitious new relationship with the UK, which we all want, we need more realism on what is possible and what is not when a country is outside of the EU's area of justice, freedom and security and outside of Schengen.

A few words also on extradition as it has attracted a lot of public attention recently:

Let me explain the facts.

The European Arrest Warrant is linked to the free movement of people. It works well because it is based on mutual trust between Member States.

This trust is underpinned by:

- shared respect for fundamental rights as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- by certainty that other Member States enforce and apply the rules the same way, under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice;
- and by the concept of EU citizenship, which allows Member States to lift the constitutional ban on the extradition of their own nationals.

Yet today we know that the UK is not ready to accept the free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the Court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights – for the Charter, this was confirmed last week by the House of Commons.

This means that the UK cannot take part in the European Arrest Warrant.

This does not mean that we cannot work together on extradition.

This is our offer. While we are constrained by the UK's red lines, it is a fair offer. It reflects our strong commitment to address our common challenges.

Some in the UK would like to go further.

They want to maintain all the benefits of the current relationship, while leaving the EU regulatory, supervision, and application framework. And they try to blame us for the consequences of their choice.

Once again, we will not be drawn into this blame game. It would mean wasting time we don't have.

In this field of internal security, it is particularly hard to speak about what will no longer be possible. But we have, I have, to speak the truth.

The UK decided to leave the EU. We regret this decision but this is a democratic decision and we have to respect it and now we are working towards an orderly withdrawal.

If we want to build a new relationship, we need a basis of good will and confidence. We also need more realism about what is and what is not possible.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SP ... 213_en.htm

So if, hypothetically speaking, after Brexit somebody was to rob a bank and then flee to the Costa Del Sol, they might be able to avoid extradition back to the UK?

Asking for a friend.

I'm pretty annoyed by this stance (not your planned bank robbery). There is nothing in this that is tied to freedom of movement. It is simply about intelligence and record sharing. It is not in anyway related to the requirements of EU membership. He is playing hard ball but he will go through with it and not allow us to remain a member should we leave next year. I understand the disagreements over trade deals and that for the EU freedom of movement and observing their rules and legislation is necessary but this is not. If the EU wanted to allow Australia into the security deal then it could.

Except it is all linked to EU membership or having agreements (like Schengen). The blame for this doesn’t lie with the EU, it lies with those who lied to people about how wonderful leaving the EU would be and how we could have our cake and eat it.

I doubt there is anything to stop us signing extradition orders or signing up for intelligence sharing in the future, but we will lose those benefits when we leave, because we are leaving.

It's only currently linked to EU membership or Schengen because currently all it's members belong in one or the other. But it doesn't have to be. The fundamentals of how the system works doesn't require these memberships. It's just that the EU as an institution choose to have that requirement.

The UK and Nigeria for example could turn around tomorrow and form exactly the same information sharing agreements in regards to intel and warrants and it wouldn't have to make any difference to the current trade relationships or freedom of movement between the two countries.

I would like to think that we can come to some sort of arrangement on security when we leave but i'm not hopeful if this really is there supported stance.

Yes we chose to leave, but the EU have accepted that decision and want us to 'get on with it'. Well we can't get on with it without their support. I understand their stance on trade but not on security and intel. It's political hardball that will only hurt both sides and potentially other countries around the world.

[Moggy]

It's only currently linked to EU membership or Schengen because currently all it's members belong in one or the other. But it doesn't have to be. The fundamentals of how the system works doesn't require these memberships. It's just that the EU as an institution choose to have that requirement.

True, but that goes for any international agreements. Things work on the rules of the institutions or the governments that operate them. If somebody wants to walk away, then they shouldn’t expect things to carry on as they were.

The UK and Nigeria for example could turn around tomorrow and form exactly the same information sharing agreements in regards to intel and warrants and it wouldn't have to make any difference to the current trade relationships or freedom of movement between the two countries.

I would like to think that we can come to some sort of arrangement on security when we leave but i'm not hopeful if this really is there supported stance.

Of course they could. And so might the UK and EU in the future. But it will not happen automatically and the UK will not get the benefits of being an EU member based on the current red lines set out by the Prime Minister.

Yes we chose to leave, but the EU have accepted that decision and want us to 'get on with it'. Well we can't get on with it without their support. I understand their stance on trade but not on security and intel. It's political hardball that will only hurt both sides and potentially other countries around the world.

We can’t even decide what we want from Brexit. Just the Tory party alone has no idea what it wants. So how can the EU support us, when we don’t have a clue what we actually want?

It will probably hurt both sides, but the fault lies with the lying bastards that got us into this mess.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

It's only currently linked to EU membership or Schengen because currently all it's members belong in one or the other. But it doesn't have to be. The fundamentals of how the system works doesn't require these memberships. It's just that the EU as an institution choose to have that requirement.

True, but that goes for any international agreements. Things work on the rules of the institutions or the governments that operate them. If somebody wants to walk away, then they shouldn’t expect things to carry on as they were.

The UK and Nigeria for example could turn around tomorrow and form exactly the same information sharing agreements in regards to intel and warrants and it wouldn't have to make any difference to the current trade relationships or freedom of movement between the two countries.

I would like to think that we can come to some sort of arrangement on security when we leave but i'm not hopeful if this really is there supported stance.

Of course they could. And so might the UK and EU in the future. But it will not happen automatically and the UK will not get the benefits of being an EU member based on the current red lines set out by the Prime Minister.

Yes we chose to leave, but the EU have accepted that decision and want us to 'get on with it'. Well we can't get on with it without their support. I understand their stance on trade but not on security and intel. It's political hardball that will only hurt both sides and potentially other countries around the world.

We can’t even decide what we want from Brexit. Just the Tory party alone has no idea what it wants. So how can the EU support us, when we don’t have a clue what we actually want?

It will probably hurt both sides, but the fault lies with the lying bastards that got us into this mess.

Oh i completely agree on that. As I've said before i don't really blame some for being taken in by the lies but what i don't understand is how some still can't see that they were lied to and are still taken in by one liners and soundbites.

[Hypes]

twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1009010788080799745

[Lagamorph]

The Grieve amendment coming back to the commons tomorrow is going to be interesting.
If it fails then we end up with it going back to the Lords and probably being passed and sent back yet again and no progress gets made.
If it passes then there's almost certainly going to be some cabinet resignations and a very real possibility of a No Confidence vote against May. If she loses that then the government essentially collapses and all negotiations get put on hold, and we run the risk of David Davis, Boris or JRM making a leadership bid.

[Garth]

If it does result in a leadership contest I could see Gove and Javid throwing their hats in the ring.

[Lagamorph]

The biggest issue with a leadership contest isn't even the halting of negotiations whilst it goes on. There's a very big risk of any of those likely competitors completely scrapping what little progress we've already made by pulling a Trump and saying that they never agreed to that, it was the other guy, so they're cancelling that agreement since they can get a better one.

[Squinty]

Javid would be interesting. He seems to be pushing through lots of changes in his short time with the home office. Seems like the least offensive of all the names mentioned.

[Rex Kramer]

Can you imagine the resulting gammopocalypse that would result from a (perceived) muslim PM.

[Hexx]

If it does result in a leadership contest I could see Gove and Javid throwing their hats in the ring.

Yeah those are the two I'd expect. I think Davis Johnson and Mogg might all consider it too

[Lex-Man]

I'm well up for the drama of another Tory leadership contest. I have a feeling that the Brexit lobby will stage one as it'd be a good way of crippling the UK's negotiations and ensuring a hard Brexit.