How does the EU manage its border with Brazil ?
The EU has no shared border with Brazil. Quote from: mtread on 03 February 2019, 01:02:11 am Yes the French EU Overseas Territory shares a border with Brazil.
Yes the French EU Overseas Territory shares a border with Brazil.
Quote from: VNA on 02 February 2019, 07:43:40 PM<blockquote> Quote<blockquote>It wishes to have its own army,</blockquote>Nope it’s never going to happen.Quote<blockquote>Absolute bollocks, in 2018 Merkel and Macron were both backing the creation of a EU army , A spokesperson for the commission’s president Jean-Claude Junckersaid he was “pleased” that the argument for the force seemed to be “going in our direction”.</blockquote></blockquote> Report to moderator Logged
The thing is Slappy that VNA just spouts stuff off, most of it is what he wants to happen - or not happen and the rest he just does not understand, he is like the Diane Abbott of the forum See-------Quote from: fazersharp on 31 January 2019, 09:59:29 PM<blockquote>How does the EU manage its border with Brazil ? </blockquote>Quote from: VNA on 02 February 2019, 06:01:23 PM<blockquote>The EU has no shared border with Brazil. Quote from: mtread on Today at 01:02:11 AM<blockquote> Yes the French EU Overseas Territory shares a border with Brazil. </blockquote></blockquote> « Last Edit: Today at 11:35:18 AM »
It's a closed border, unlike Switzerland. Unlike Ireland,
The problem with the Brexit referendum was not Brexit, it was the referendum. How could such a drastic decision be taken through so primitive a procedure in the first place?
So what? Somebody googled EU Borders before someone else did. Playground stuff.
Thirdly, where did you get all that rubbish from?
I did but I was fact checking something else before posting on here which is when I came across it. I thought I would save it until it was relevant to the conversation the reason I posted it was a trap for VNA to which he gladly fell into I know he would reply back saying it was wrong.
QuoteI did but I was fact checking something else before posting on here which is when I came across it. I thought I would save it until it was relevant to the conversation the reason I posted it was a trap for VNA to which he gladly fell into I know he would reply back saying it was wrong. So, tell us how does the EU manage it’s border with Brazil? That is the border between French Guiana and Amapa. Perhaps you can explain to us all how this is relevant to the single market and in particular how it relates to the border between Northern Ireland and Eire.
I have no idea how the border is managed. I can not explain how it is relevant at all in any way.
One thing that has truck me in the last few months is the absolute weakness of the argument from the BREXITEERS. People who voted for BREXIT can’t actually tell you why they voted for BREXIT, at least not in real substantial factual political terms. Or if they can, to some degree, it’s daylight running lamps, bent bananas and 350 million a week more for the NHS – one non-issue and two lies there then.Increasingly what we now hear is nationalism. English Nationalism. Patriotic fighting talk. England is at it’s best when it stands alone. Of course, they kinda forget that this is actually about the UK. And standing alone - well there was a few wee nice tweets from Dan Snow this week, I think he appears to be a little irritated at the creeping nationalism in England;QuoteBritain did indeed fight with extraordinary determination against the Axis Powers. British civilians and servicemen and women displayed enormous bravery and sacrifice. The human and economic cost was vast. But Britain did not fight alone.Even after the fall of Britain's W European allies in 1939-40 Britain had India, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and many other countries in its corner. The collective economic might of the UK, its dominions and colonies approached that the of the mighty USAOnce the USA and Soviets joined it was by pooling resources and integrating command structures that the allies were able to project overwhelming strength onto the battlefield against their enemies.British troops often went into battle under American or other allied command. And vice versa. Polish squadrons fighting under a New Zealander played a hugely important role in the Battle of Britain, while.....on D-day British, US, Canadian and other troops landed, commanded by British general Montgomery, working to a plan set by American Supreme Commander Eisenhower. There were slightly more British Empire than US troops. (By VE Day there were many more Americans)Meanwhile in South East Asia a vast coalition of allies fought under British supreme command.At the very highest level Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt debated strategy fiercely. Churchill lost, on Poland at Yalta for example, but also won on things like a French occupation zone in Germany.At Tehran Churchill was bullied into abandoning plans in the eastern Mediterranean in favour of D-day in the west. He said he felt like the 'poor little English donkey' between the mighty Russian bear and American buffalo.He gave in. But in return Stalin agreed to time a massive Soviet offensive in the East with the allied landings in the west and agreed to join the war against Japan.
Britain did indeed fight with extraordinary determination against the Axis Powers. British civilians and servicemen and women displayed enormous bravery and sacrifice. The human and economic cost was vast. But Britain did not fight alone.Even after the fall of Britain's W European allies in 1939-40 Britain had India, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and many other countries in its corner. The collective economic might of the UK, its dominions and colonies approached that the of the mighty USAOnce the USA and Soviets joined it was by pooling resources and integrating command structures that the allies were able to project overwhelming strength onto the battlefield against their enemies.British troops often went into battle under American or other allied command. And vice versa. Polish squadrons fighting under a New Zealander played a hugely important role in the Battle of Britain, while.....on D-day British, US, Canadian and other troops landed, commanded by British general Montgomery, working to a plan set by American Supreme Commander Eisenhower. There were slightly more British Empire than US troops. (By VE Day there were many more Americans)Meanwhile in South East Asia a vast coalition of allies fought under British supreme command.At the very highest level Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt debated strategy fiercely. Churchill lost, on Poland at Yalta for example, but also won on things like a French occupation zone in Germany.At Tehran Churchill was bullied into abandoning plans in the eastern Mediterranean in favour of D-day in the west. He said he felt like the 'poor little English donkey' between the mighty Russian bear and American buffalo.He gave in. But in return Stalin agreed to time a massive Soviet offensive in the East with the allied landings in the west and agreed to join the war against Japan.
I ask how much use actually is this veto that keeps being touted whenever a negative fact is stated about the EU. Apart from 1 time I can not find when it has actually been used by us.Here is what I have found, this is how useful it is. Back in 2011 Cameron used the UKs veto to block the revised Lisbon treaty, a new EU-wide treaty to salvage the single currency.EU leaders promptly agreed to bypass Britain and establish a new accord on the euro among themselves. The EU appeared poised to line up 26-1 against Cameron in support of the Franco-German blueprint, leaving Britain utterly isolated. For the first time since Britain joined the European Community in 1973, a treaty that goes to the heart of how the EU works will be struck without a British signature.Cameron appeared initially to have lukewarm backing from Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary. But by all three had signalled they would take the Franco-German proposals for a new "fiscal compact" to their parliaments.With at least 23 countries signing up for a deal conferring intrusive rights on European institutions to enforce budgetary policy in countries breaking the euro's debt and deficit rules, as well as quasi-automatic penalties for delinquents, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the central driver of the new regime, appeared sanguine and unbothered by the British veto.Further more the EU has a plan to prevent EU states from using veto powers to block legislation in areas that usually demand an unanimous agreement, (LIKE AN EU ARMY Fazersharp added this) (and the EU foreign policy _Agricola)The EU commission is now pushing for a qualified majority voting based on article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty. For full disclosure I got my info after googling "how many times has the UK used its EU veto"
Blimey Dazza, are you going for a Foccing record! OK I'll follow your links in future
QuoteQuote from: VNA on 02 February 2019, 07:43:40 PM<blockquote> Quote<blockquote>It wishes to have its own army,</blockquote>Nope it’s never going to happen.Quote<blockquote>Absolute bollocks, in 2018 Merkel and Macron were both backing the creation of a EU army , A spokesperson for the commission’s president Jean-Claude Junckersaid he was “pleased” that the argument for the force seemed to be “going in our direction”.</blockquote></blockquote> Report to moderator Logged Slappy, I know they say Jean-Claude Juncker always gets what he wants. But on this one he won’t. And if you actually believe this, umm non-issue, it’s all the more reason to stay in the EU so that the UK can deploy it’s veto.
You spout more shit than an elephant with diarrhoea, the EU vision for the future is total harmonisation , that incliudes all laws, taxation and armed forces. As for all 27 countries having to agree , already the EU wants to remove this right from members when voting on tax legislation. Once the right to veto is removed from one aspect then it makes it all the easier to remove it from every other aspect.
QuoteYou spout more shit than an elephant with diarrhoea, the EU vision for the future is total harmonisation , that incliudes all laws, taxation and armed forces. As for all 27 countries having to agree , already the EU wants to remove this right from members when voting on tax legislation. Once the right to veto is removed from one aspect then it makes it all the easier to remove it from every other aspect.No, it does not include all laws, not even all taxation, but obviously it includes laws relevant to trade. If you have a single market you need to have common standards.Individuals within the EU can of course have all the delusional visions they wish. Jean-Claude Juncker is just as free to talk pure shite as you are slappy. But the reality is The EU is currently 28 countries, it is democratic – the members will decide.So the creation of an EU army is about as likely as Turkey joining the EU and it’s whole population moving to the UK.
You truly are delusional,
the vision is for the future not the present. No matter who head up the EU the future is a superstate where member countries will do as they are told or suffer the consequences. They have already rejected Italy 2019 budget plans as they do not meet their rules for member states that use the Euro, in other words if the EU doesn't like it they won't let you do it.That is just a little preview of the future for EU members,.