Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

cogito

CKhalvashi wrote: »

For Albania, I have no idea.

I'm not saying stolen cars aren't present, but it's so easy for them to be checked now that it's IMO not worth doing.

I think the key word is 'now'. I don't know about Georgia but you used to be able to just show up at the border in Albania and drive in. They checked the driver but not the car.

Last time I went through from Montenegro on my way to Macedonia, all my papers were checked, recorded on computer and checked again on the way out. I suspect the same thing happened in other countries in the chaos that folowed the break up of the Soviet Union.

Incidentally, Georgia is on my radar for a visit and I look forward to going soon.

Arklight

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't think I've been quite as long as an hour any time I've travelled. It has been significantly longer than anywhere else, and certainly felt the most confrontational.

My record is 3 at O'Hare.

vivatifosi

gfplux wrote: »

If you are suggesting the ETIAS is a punitive move against Britain you are wrong. This has been on the EU drawing board for years, well before Brexit was dreamed of.
As I have suggested before with Britain leaving the EU we will certainly see the introduction of the UK-ESTA.
Will ETIAS, UK-ESTA or even the present USA-ESTA worry or effect the majority, no of course not. For many it will involve, as you say, some additional organising and for a minority will possible curtail some travel.
All of this is not tit for tat but a tightening of borders in answer to the dangers of the present world and of course the vocal minority who don't want too many or any foreigners in their country.

I understand that his is about terrorism, not about Brexit. What I don't understand and perhaps you can explain, is how it works within the Schengen zone.

Take some of the recent terror attacks in Europe. How do the proposals stop terrorists committing atrocities in France and driving to Belgium? Or in Germany then driving to Milan?

This strikes me as being where the problem lies. So in such situations will there now be border closures implemented immediately in the country where the atrocity happened?

always_sunny

vivatifosi wrote: »

I understand that his is about terrorism, not about Brexit. What I don't understand and perhaps you can explain, is how it works within the Schengen zone.

Take some of the recent terror attacks in Europe. How do the proposals stop terrorists committing atrocities in France and driving to Belgium? Or in Germany then driving to Milan?

This strikes me as being where the problem lies. So in such situations will there now be border closures implemented immediately in the country where the atrocity happened?

Take of the recent terror attacks in the UK. How do the proposals stop terrorists committing atrocities in Manchester and driving to London? Isn't kinda the same?

I guess if the UK (or Schengen) has strong borders in and out, then it can control what's inside.
How do you think the United States or Australia do with a similar land mass.

Private_Church

always_sunny wrote: »

Take of the recent terror attacks in the UK. How do the proposals stop terrorists committing atrocities in Manchester and driving to London? Isn't kinda the same?

I guess if the UK (or Schengen) has strong borders in and out, then it can control what's inside.
How do you think the United States or Australia do with a similar land mass.

We will never stop internal terrorism 100% but in general we do seem to have very good intelligence services.
The problem is the Schengen zons borders are Porus in so many areas.

We are lucky in the UK as we are an island however the Schengen zone isn't and thousands of Russians and Ukranians (Pre visa agreement) have travelled through Poland to get to the West. The porus borders are the reason why so many weapons, drugs etc have made their way through to Western Europe.

When new accession countries join the number 1 priority should be the new extended Schengen external border but it clearly isn't and that together with the fact that every new country is poor it makes it far easier to bribe border staff.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

always_sunny wrote: »

Take of the recent terror attacks in the UK. How do the proposals stop terrorists committing atrocities in Manchester and driving to London? Isn't kinda the same?

I guess if the UK (or Schengen) has strong borders in and out, then it can control what's inside.
How do you think the United States or Australia do with a similar land mass.

The UK is one country. (As BTW is the USA or Australia.)
How many countries (and languages) does Schengen encompass?
How much greater then is that haystack in which to hide a needle?



The Paris suspected attackers are thought to have fled to Syria.
Not mentioning those caught in Belgium, eventually.
The Berlin attacker crossed how much of mainland Europe before being caught in Milan?
Etc. etc. etc.
No matter how you try to persuade us otherwise, in such cases having open borders is a problem.
It has been a problem and will continue to be a problem.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

The EU seem to be ignoring international law in their sanctions regarding Siemens & Russia:

"Interference in a dispute between two business entities is a direct violation of international legal norms," the Russian Energy Ministry said in a statement. "The Russian Energy Ministry has no doubt that the EU took this decision based solely on political reasoning."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/05/new-eu-sanctions-over-siemens-turbines-violate-international-law-russian-energy-minister-says.html

vivatifosi

always_sunny wrote: »

Take of the recent terror attacks in the UK. How do the proposals stop terrorists committing atrocities in Manchester and driving to London? Isn't kinda the same?

I guess if the UK (or Schengen) has strong borders in and out, then it can control what's inside.
How do you think the United States or Australia do with a similar land mass.

No, it really isn't the same. In the UK the key structures are common. So if a terrorist is in the UK they will be monitored by the same GCHQ, the same Mi5, the same Ministry of Justice. The police forces will be different, but they have experience of working together.

Similarly although the US and Australia have States, they also have federal agencies overseeing security. The EU isn't structured like that. Agencies may share info, but it's not the same agency.

vivatifosi

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The EU seem to be ignoring international law in their sanctions regarding Siemens & Russia:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/05/new-eu-sanctions-over-siemens-turbines-violate-international-law-russian-energy-minister-says.html

Sorry Jock, but I'm with the EU on this one. If the turbines are for installation in Crimea, which is occupied territory, then they should expect sanctions. The EU position on Crimea is well known, as is that of the USA.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sorry Jock, but I'm with the EU on this one. If the turbines are for installation in Crimea, which is occupied territory, then they should expect sanctions. The EU position on Crimea is well known, as is that of the USA.

I absolutely agree.
However the EU should impose sanctions using legal means; the EU itself is not above the law.
BTW, I also question why EU trade with Russia has grown so much since the sanctions regarding the invasion of Crimea?