Told ya so!: Why 5 Key UK Industries Are on the Brink After Brexit

What got lost in the Brexit "debate" was that it was all about free movement. Think if one of the largest US states pulled out and suddenly had a border with the other states. 

It's going to be even more fun if Britain decides to rejoin the EU since the EU made all sorts of concessions the first time around. My guess, is that won't be the case this time.

I guess I should be happy that Britain finally uses the Euro. Alas, the return of the real old blue passport was a total fantasy.

And the Passport Standard is set by the Airline Industry, not the EU!

26+6=32, but it was much less painlful under the EU

Or EU membership as the solution to Irish Unity.

 I would put in that the European Union was the solution to the "Irish problem" in the things I would have pointed out had anyone asked me department. People either didn't realise, or just forgot, that the Good Friday Agreement wouldn't have been possible if both sides hadn't been members of the EU.

What made it possible was the right of free movement, which is the thing I like most about the EU. That means that internal borders within the European Union went away. No hard border between the UK and the Republic during the EU period.

So, the Irish could be happily Irish if thy lived in either set of the 26 or 6 counties that make up Ireland's 32 counties. They could be citizens of the UK, Ireland, or Both.

Which led to some amusing situations once the reality of Brexit set in.

Especially since both sides during the "Troubles" hated the concept of the EU. Maybe because it would make their positions untenable once the borders went away.

So, the Democratic Unionists, the group who were the most glued to the United Kingdom, and Brexit supporters, were the biggest block to Brexit. Mostly because they realised the return of a hard border meant a return to the Troubles. The amusing bit is that Ian Paisley's son told his supporters to apply for an Irish Passport. Trust me, the irony isn't lost on me.

It may be an "EU Document", but it preserves your European Union rights.

So, while the rest of us who supported remaining are scrambling to get EU citizenship, the Ulster Irish can get their Irish Passports. And keep their UK passports. Sadly, Irish Citizenship only goes back to your grandparents (unlike Italy, which will give you citizenship no matter how far back your ancestor emigrated as long as it was post-Unification).

Anyway, I have been laughing my ass off about the current Irish Situation since one of the largest contingencies for Brexit is turning out to be one of the worst problem of leaving the European Union. I only hope it serves as a warning to the other countries who are trying to break out of the EU.

Another issue for the people who pushed for Brexit is that the United Kingdom had a pretty good situation when it was last in the EU (another thing no one asked me about). I hope that any return will not be as accommodating. Again, I want to see Brexit as a lesson that the EU is here to stay.

I just hope that a hard border in Ireland doesn't mean a return to bloodshed, but one of the reasons for the EU was to end wars by removing borders between member states.

Of course, Brexit is a failure

The best way to explain Brexit is to point out that  the European Union had the right of free movement. That is the Union allowed someone from one member state the ability to move from one member state to another. So, if someone was a UK citizen, they could move to any other member state. In addition, they would retain the benefits of their home country (sort of).

The UK retiree who wanted to move to France, Spain, or some other EU member state could do so with a minimum level of BS.  This is the same as someone who lived in Michigan could move to Florida or California.

Brexit removed Britain from the European Union, which took it out of the regime of free movement. In other words, it re-established the pre-EU membership border between the UK and the European Union member states. In terms of the US,(or another Federated State such as Canada or Australia) that would be the same as suddenly setting up a hard border between one state and the rest similar to what exists now between the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico. 

What was once a "quick commute" has returned to being a wait to be processed at the border. And this wait also goes for goods and services. Imagine how it would be if a hard border with customs and immigration bureaucracy appeared between US states. You sort of have the idea if you traveled between the US and Canada after the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which was introduced in 2004 by the U.S. government to strengthen U.S. border security and standardize travel documentation. Now, one requires a passport to travel between the two nations.

The tyranny of "Brussels", which is silly. Especially if you consider that UKIP leader Nigel Farage was a member of the European Parliament.  Additionally, one of the reason for the European Union "dictation" of laws was to make commerce flow easily by harmonising laws.

Sadly, I am European, not British, if I have to choose. And I will happily put up with any bureaucracy I have to to keep my European Citizenship. I would prefer the minimum level of bureaucracy, but that isn't my choice anymore.

Windows and Bridges

I am an unabashed fan of the Euro. I think it's the best thing about the European Union next to the right of free movement.

The coins are really cool with national designs that distinguish one nation's from another.

On the other hand, the notes are pretty boring. They are architectural designs of windows and bridges. But there is a reason for this: one nation's important person might piss off another's. Who do you put on the note so that everyone will like it?

Nobody!

Instead the architectural motif, which is OK since most people use other methods than currency to pay for things. Let the drug dealers use the notes.

Hey, I live near that bridge!

The reason I mention this is that there is a battle over the US $20 Note. Current personality is Andrew Jackson, a person who makes Donald Trump seem palatable: even for the people who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Some people want to replace Andy with Harriet Tubman, who has a picture that looks like Don Warrington in drag.

The big issue here is racism. Jackson sold and owned slaves. Tubman was a slave who helped some of them escape to Canada and Freedom. Some people have issues with both personalities. I would just like a different picture of Tubman if you're going to use her.

The Euro has a solution to this problem: scratch the people and use something inanimate. There's a point to being boring.

BTW, More on Andrew Jackson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHRdZGauyDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-RAfQJYlWE

Navigating the disaster that is Brexit

Brexit and Donald Trump have one thing in common: They were intended to be alternatives which were so repugnant that no one would vote for either one.

I should be making a fortune off of this since my legal studies were geared toward the European Union. I was expecting to get hired to help someone navigate the European Union, and now navigating the disaster that is Brexit.

And Brexit is far more of a disaster than Donald Trump since no one expected to really have it happen. I could have told anyone who would have listened that it was going to be a disaster: especially since no one worked out what would happen when it happened.

Take the US Civil War: only make it non-violent with a lot of negotiation.

It was a bad idea to separate a nation which functions: no matter how poorly one may see it functioning. It's even worse when the party that wants to separate has less party than the what they are separating from.  The bad divorce analogy sounds really good.

Only most divorces try to be equitable: this one has no need to be equitable.

This one can have you pay for their education and support them. Then when the person who was supporting decides to leave has to pay twice the amount of support to leave.

Not only that the party separating finds that they can only sleep in the doghouse...

If they take the agreement.

And they are totally fucked if they don't take the agreement.

Unfortunately, there is the "prestige point" factor that says, "we can't go back since we have already gone too far to reconcile." Or so the person thinks.

Yes, Britain could, and should, have a second referendum since now they understand what exactly leaving the European Union means. They have been getting a preview and not liking it since the process began.

But the other thing that Brexit and Trump have in common is that the people have to live with the decision until they decide to elect them out.

Brexit v DACA

EU citizens have a Fundamental RIGHT to free movement between member nations.[1] Prior to Brexit, a citizen of Holland could live in the UK or a Citizen of the UK could live in Belgium. You would still have to comply with local registration laws (e.g., Belgium), but they couldn't deport an EU citizen.

Brexit changed that and removed a right guaranteed by Treaties.

With Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, the people in question are "unlawfully present", which means they are non-compliant with immigration procedures. Deferred action:

is a discretionary, limited immigration benefit by DHS. It can be granted to individuals who are in removal proceedings, who have final orders of removal, or who have never been in removal proceedings. Individuals who have deferred action status can apply for employment authorization and are in the U.S. under color of law. However, there is no direct path from deferred action to lawful permanent residence or to citizenship.  And, it can be revoked at any time.

Deferred action doesn't really grant any right or permanent residency status.  In other words, people were still in danger of deportation under DACA. 

I want to add that most nations will deport a non-citizen who is not compliant with immigration procedures.

Deportation in and of itself can create consequences for international travel/movement.
But, there is a big difference between having a right to reside in a nation taken away from you and being deported because you DO NOT HAVE a right to be in the nation.

While it may create a sad tale, most nations do not show the same consideration the US has in trying to normalise people who have been "unlawfully present". There is no right for people to be unlawfully present to become citizens.

It is not racism, it is international law.

Footnotes:
[1] Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); Titles IV and V TFEU; Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

They get it in the EU...

From Deutsche Welle

Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem has said the EU can "no longer watch on without acting" as 1,000 Europeans are killed in gun violence each year. She is proposing unified, stricter rules for the whole bloc.

A little comparison here, the EU Comprises 28 nations and has a 2012 population of 507,890,191 whereas the US has a population of 316,915,000. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, killers used guns to murder 11,000 people in 2010 in the U.S., the latest year for which statistics are available. Twenty-thousand others used guns to commit suicides that year, and another 73,000 people were rushed to hospital emergency rooms for gunshot wounds (Source VOA).

Using those numbers, the EU has a larger population, but 9% (0.090909)  of the gun violence, yet they admit there is a problem. Although officially, the US admits it has a problem as the VOA article I mentioned about is titled: Experts: Gun Violence Is Public Health Crisis in US.

The DW article goes on:

The EU's home affairs commissioner wrote that one problem with the open-border bloc was "the danger that criminals try to get hold of their guns in the countries with the most lax laws" on gun ownership.

Let's also put out this bit of info:

The annual Small Arms Survey report in 2007 sought to estimate gun ownership per capita around the world. According to these results, Germany had 30.3 registered firearms for every 100 inhabitants – putting it above average in European Union terms, but behind countries like Finland (45.3), Cyprus (36.4) and Sweden (31.6). The US topped the global list by a considerable margin, averaging just under one gun per person, according to the research institute based in Switzerland.

The rule changes which are reported to be under European Commission consideration include revising which guns are eligible for home ownership, tighter regulations for the sale and ownership of antique weapons and air rifles or air pistols, and a possible ban on selling weapons or ammunition on the Internet.

I know the usual excuse is to blame the Second Amendment, but any interpretation that goes against the public welfare goes against the spirit of the constitution (and you don't need to go too far into the document to see that).