EU border fingerprinting

[Handsome Jack]

I've just read in here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo

that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.

Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.

What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this
October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The
BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions
the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays
at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK
will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls?
Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are
introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca
without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

You could get to Dublin easily enough, but would presumably have to join the
non-EU queue for passport checking and fingerprinting if you tried to get a
flight from there to another EU country. I don't see how the NI/Ireland border
is affected.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be
fingerprinted.

The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger, which is
useful for matching people-in with people-out but not that useful
(compared to a full set like the police take) for comparing with
prints lifted from a crime scene or whatever.

Post by Handsome Jack
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to
travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via
Dublin?

I would imagine you'd get fingerprinted in Majorca because you'd have
to go through the non-EU/EEA queue due to having a UK passport. Bear in
mind that Ireland is not in the Schengen Zone so passports will be
checked on arrivals at Majorca from Dublin.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be
fingerprinted.

The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger, which is
useful for matching people-in with people-out but not that useful
(compared to a full set like the police take) for comparing with
prints lifted from a crime scene or whatever.

Post by Handsome Jack
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to
travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via
Dublin?

I would imagine you'd get fingerprinted in Majorca because you'd have
to go through the non-EU/EEA queue due to having a UK passport. Bear in
mind that Ireland is not in the Schengen Zone so passports will be
checked on arrivals at Majorca from Dublin.

Of course you're right. I was thinking of the ferries, where the French do the
passport control at the English port.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be
fingerprinted.

The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger, which is
useful for matching people-in with people-out but not that useful
(compared to a full set like the police take) for comparing with
prints lifted from a crime scene or whatever.

Post by Handsome Jack
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to
travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via
Dublin?

I would imagine you'd get fingerprinted in Majorca because you'd have
to go through the non-EU/EEA queue due to having a UK passport. Bear in
mind that Ireland is not in the Schengen Zone so passports will be
checked on arrivals at Majorca from Dublin.

Of course you're right. I was thinking of the ferries, where the French do the
passport control at the English port.

Chunnel too.

It only seems like yesterday when you could drive through customs
totally unchecked (regardless of what you were carrying), and often
simply wave your passport at the man in passport control.

All the new post-Brexit 'requirements' (both for passengers and goods)
are costing the UK billions. But although they are obviously providing
loads of additional work (both for the UK and for the EU countries we
visit), I'm finding it hard to understand any real advantage in it all.
For example, it certainly hasn't stopped illegal immigration.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Ian Jackson
All the new post-Brexit 'requirements' (both for passengers and goods)
are costing the UK billions. But although they are obviously providing
loads of additional work (both for the UK and for the EU countries we
visit), I'm finding it hard to understand any real advantage in it all

The only advantage is for the EU so that they can stop and identify the
boozing anti social Brits.

[Spike]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be
fingerprinted.

The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger, which is
useful for matching people-in with people-out but not that useful
(compared to a full set like the police take) for comparing with
prints lifted from a crime scene or whatever.

Post by Handsome Jack
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to
travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via
Dublin?

I would imagine you'd get fingerprinted in Majorca because you'd have
to go through the non-EU/EEA queue due to having a UK passport. Bear in
mind that Ireland is not in the Schengen Zone so passports will be
checked on arrivals at Majorca from Dublin.

Of course you're right. I was thinking of the ferries, where the French do the
passport control at the English port.

Chunnel too.
It only seems like yesterday when you could drive through customs
totally unchecked (regardless of what you were carrying), and often
simply wave your passport at the man in passport control.
All the new post-Brexit 'requirements' (both for passengers and goods)
are costing the UK billions. But although they are obviously providing
loads of additional work (both for the UK and for the EU countries we
visit), I'm finding it hard to understand any real advantage in it all.
For example, it certainly hasn't stopped illegal immigration.

Perhaps reason the post-Brexit requirements for passengers you mention are
doing nothing to stop the illegal migration you refer to is because the
‘passengers’ don’t arrive by public transport and have thrown their
passports into the English Channel when the UK rescue boats show up?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Spike

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be
fingerprinted.

The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger, which is
useful for matching people-in with people-out but not that useful
(compared to a full set like the police take) for comparing with
prints lifted from a crime scene or whatever.

Post by Handsome Jack
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to
travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via
Dublin?

I would imagine you'd get fingerprinted in Majorca because you'd have
to go through the non-EU/EEA queue due to having a UK passport. Bear in
mind that Ireland is not in the Schengen Zone so passports will be
checked on arrivals at Majorca from Dublin.

Of course you're right. I was thinking of the ferries, where the French do the
passport control at the English port.

Chunnel too.
It only seems like yesterday when you could drive through customs
totally unchecked (regardless of what you were carrying), and often
simply wave your passport at the man in passport control.
All the new post-Brexit 'requirements' (both for passengers and goods)
are costing the UK billions. But although they are obviously providing
loads of additional work (both for the UK and for the EU countries we
visit), I'm finding it hard to understand any real advantage in it all.
For example, it certainly hasn't stopped illegal immigration.

Perhaps reason the post-Brexit requirements for passengers you mention are
doing nothing to stop the illegal migration you refer to is because the
‘passengers’ don’t arrive by public transport and have thrown their
passports into the English Channel when the UK rescue boats show up?

Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

[Spike]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Spike

Post by Ian Jackson
All the new post-Brexit 'requirements' (both for passengers and goods)
are costing the UK billions. But although they are obviously providing
loads of additional work (both for the UK and for the EU countries we
visit), I'm finding it hard to understand any real advantage in it all.
For example, it certainly hasn't stopped illegal immigration.

Perhaps reason the post-Brexit requirements for passengers you mention are
doing nothing to stop the illegal migration you refer to is because the
‘passengers’ don’t arrive by public transport and have thrown their
passports into the English Channel when the UK rescue boats show up?

Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of.

Yes, it’s amazing how many people seem to believe the promises made at
election time. The problem Remainers had is that they never advanced any
real reasons for staying in, even after forty-odd years of EU largesse.

Post by Ian Jackson
As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.

Some neighbours of mine are frequent travellers to the EU, and they don’t
mention any problems. What issues have you had?

Post by Ian Jackson
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Considering that that nice Mrs Merkle had a policy of letting in a million
undocumented immigrants, even castigating Hungary for following the EU’s
own rules by building a fence to keep them out, there didn’t seem much
point in having the rules that they had. So what’s new?

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business. Not the UK as far as I am aware.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

Isn't it because we aren't in Schengen?

[Andy Burns]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack
Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

Isn't it because we aren't in Schengen?

Not quite ... Ireland isn't in schengen either, but Irish passport
holders are exempt from the EES

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

Isn't it because we aren't in Schengen?

I wondered that, but, no, Irish citizens for instance have to have
satisfactory id (?passports only or ID card) but do not have to provide
fingerprints or apply for a visa waiver to enter Schengen.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

Isn't it because we aren't in Schengen?

I wondered that, but, no, Irish citizens for instance have to have
satisfactory id (?passports only or ID card) but do not have to provide
fingerprints or apply for a visa waiver to enter Schengen.

Hmmm...

I wonder whether it's now time to apply for the Irish passport to which
I have always been entitled?

[Fredxx]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

So what you're saying is the EU is imposing this rule on us out of
choice. Whereas before they couldn't.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

So what you're saying is the EU is imposing this rule on us out of
choice. Whereas before they couldn't.

Well, they're imposing it on the entire world rather than just "us",
but yes. When we were in the EU we had a direct say over what the EU
did (and a veto over much of it), and now we don't. I do believe some
of us mentioned this at the time.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

So what you're saying is the EU is imposing this rule on us out of
choice. Whereas before they couldn't.

Well, they're imposing it on the entire world rather than just "us",
but yes. When we were in the EU we had a direct say over what the EU
did (and a veto over much of it), and now we don't. I do believe some
of us mentioned this at the time.

That depends on what you mean by "we". It seems that the UK government at the time agreed to this. Moreover they did not ask us whether "we" in the form of you and I and Joe Soap agreed with it. So whatever "direct say" or "veto" we had - where "we" means you and I and Joe Soap - was worth diddly squat. The decision was taken in private by TPTB, who never bothered to consult us about it. As in many other matters.

I do believe that this practice of theirs was mentioned at the time of the referendum, and before. It probably led to quite a few people voting Leave, as Kat has pointed out.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

So what you're saying is the EU is imposing this rule on us out of
choice. Whereas before they couldn't.

Well, they're imposing it on the entire world rather than just "us",
but yes. When we were in the EU we had a direct say over what the EU
did (and a veto over much of it), and now we don't. I do believe some
of us mentioned this at the time.

That depends on what you mean by "we". It seems that the UK government
at the time agreed to this. Moreover they did not ask us whether "we"
in the form of you and I and Joe Soap agreed with it. So whatever
"direct say" or "veto" we had - where "we" means you and I and Joe
Soap - was worth diddly squat. The decision was taken in private by
TPTB, who never bothered to consult us about it. As in many other
matters.
I do believe that this practice of theirs was mentioned at the time of
the referendum, and before. It probably led to quite a few people
voting Leave, as Kat has pointed out.

You're saying people voted Leave because they didn't approve of the *UK*
system of government, even though such a vote made no difference to that?
It's impressively stupid, which makes sense for Leave voters, I suppose.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

So what you're saying is the EU is imposing this rule on us out of
choice. Whereas before they couldn't.

Well, they're imposing it on the entire world rather than just "us",
but yes. When we were in the EU we had a direct say over what the EU
did (and a veto over much of it), and now we don't. I do believe some
of us mentioned this at the time.

That depends on what you mean by "we". It seems that the UK government
at the time agreed to this. Moreover they did not ask us whether "we"
in the form of you and I and Joe Soap agreed with it. So whatever
"direct say" or "veto" we had - where "we" means you and I and Joe
Soap - was worth diddly squat. The decision was taken in private by
TPTB, who never bothered to consult us about it. As in many other
matters.
I do believe that this practice of theirs was mentioned at the time of
the referendum, and before. It probably led to quite a few people
voting Leave, as Kat has pointed out.

You're saying people voted Leave because they didn't approve of the *UK*
system of government, even though such a vote made no difference to that?
It's impressively stupid, which makes sense for Leave voters, I suppose.

"We've established that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
That depends on what you mean by "we". It seems that the UK government
at the time agreed to this. Moreover they did not ask us whether "we"
in the form of you and I and Joe Soap agreed with it. So whatever
"direct say" or "veto" we had - where "we" means you and I and Joe
Soap - was worth diddly squat. The decision was taken in private by
TPTB, who never bothered to consult us about it. As in many other
matters.
I do believe that this practice of theirs was mentioned at the time of
the referendum, and before. It probably led to quite a few people
voting Leave, as Kat has pointed out.

You're saying people voted Leave because they didn't approve of the *UK*
system of government,

They didn't approve of the UK system of government as it operated when we
were in the EU, waving through Brussels legislation without any concern as
to how British voters might feel about it if they were ever asked. And
sometimes, as we know, gold-plating it.

Post by Jon Ribbens
even though such a vote made no difference to that?

It did, though not as much as we would like.

Post by Jon Ribbens
It's impressively stupid, which makes sense for Leave voters, I suppose.

Every time a Remainer says something like that, it makes people dislike them
even more. Even my wife, a Remainer herself, hates it.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
That depends on what you mean by "we". It seems that the UK government
at the time agreed to this. Moreover they did not ask us whether "we"
in the form of you and I and Joe Soap agreed with it. So whatever
"direct say" or "veto" we had - where "we" means you and I and Joe
Soap - was worth diddly squat. The decision was taken in private by
TPTB, who never bothered to consult us about it. As in many other
matters.
I do believe that this practice of theirs was mentioned at the time of
the referendum, and before. It probably led to quite a few people
voting Leave, as Kat has pointed out.

You're saying people voted Leave because they didn't approve of the *UK*
system of government,

They didn't approve of the UK system of government as it operated when we
were in the EU, waving through Brussels legislation without any concern as
to how British voters might feel about it if they were ever asked. And
sometimes, as we know, gold-plating it.

Firstly, that is exactly how they then, and now, deal with regulations under
UK law, it would be impracticable to do otherwise. Secondly, perhaps they
"gold plated" them because they thought they were good and desirable
regulations, which quite often we had a large part in writing!

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Jon Ribbens
even though such a vote made no difference to that?

It did, though not as much as we would like.

Post by Jon Ribbens
It's impressively stupid, which makes sense for Leave voters, I suppose.

Every time a Remainer says something like that, it makes people dislike them
even more. Even my wife, a Remainer herself, hates it.

I have to admit that self-confessed leave voters don't exactly attract much
love from me. Perhaps, on the whole, the two groups don't have a great deal of
respect for each other. Such is life.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
That depends on what you mean by "we". It seems that the UK government
at the time agreed to this. Moreover they did not ask us whether "we"
in the form of you and I and Joe Soap agreed with it. So whatever
"direct say" or "veto" we had - where "we" means you and I and Joe
Soap - was worth diddly squat. The decision was taken in private by
TPTB, who never bothered to consult us about it. As in many other
matters.
I do believe that this practice of theirs was mentioned at the time of
the referendum, and before. It probably led to quite a few people
voting Leave, as Kat has pointed out.

You're saying people voted Leave because they didn't approve of the *UK*
system of government,

They didn't approve of the UK system of government as it operated when we
were in the EU, waving through Brussels legislation

That's where you are significantly misinformed. Westminster put a huge
number of resources into scrutinising EU legislation when it was in the
pipeline. The irony is, if they continue to aspire to affect EU
legislation which might affect the UK, it will require *more* resources
from outside the tent, than were committed inside the tent.

Post by Handsome Jack
without any concern as to how British voters might feel about it if
they were ever asked. And sometimes, as we know, gold-plating it.

The gold-plating is a result of legislation that's gone through Brussels
(because it was their jurisdiction) being *weaker* than Westminster
would have wished. So we are allowed to enhance it because EU Directives
are *minimum* requirements, not maximum.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

[quoted text muted]

That's where you are significantly misinformed. Westminster put a huge
number of resources into scrutinising EU legislation when it was in the
pipeline.

It was alleged in the 80s that the UKs overview of EEC/EC legislation was
the best in the bloc, as *only* the UK has an upper house which consists
of real life judges.

We weren't just "members" of the EU. We were very much a star player. And
it's against that environment you have to assess the optics of electing a
grifter like Farage to serve as an MEP.

As David Mitchell said "take no interest in how your country is fun for
40 years and look what happens".

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

[quoted text muted]

That's where you are significantly misinformed. Westminster put a huge
number of resources into scrutinising EU legislation when it was in the
pipeline.

It was alleged in the 80s that the UKs overview of EEC/EC legislation was
the best in the bloc, as *only* the UK has an upper house which consists
of real life judges.

Er, not entirely. There are also 26 bishops, 92 hereditary peers, loads
of assorted childrens' presenters, athletes, actors, comedians, quiz
show hosts and so on and so on, about none of whom the public has had
any say whatsoever.

Post by Jethro_uk
We weren't just "members" of the EU. We were very much a star player. And
it's against that environment you have to assess the optics of electing a
grifter like Farage to serve as an MEP.
As David Mitchell said "take no interest in how your country is fun for
40 years and look what happens".

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

[quoted text muted]

That's where you are significantly misinformed. Westminster put a huge
number of resources into scrutinising EU legislation when it was in
the pipeline.

It was alleged in the 80s that the UKs overview of EEC/EC legislation
was the best in the bloc, as *only* the UK has an upper house which
consists of real life judges.

Er, not entirely. There are also 26 bishops, 92 hereditary peers, loads
of assorted childrens' presenters, athletes, actors, comedians, quiz
show hosts and so on and so on, about none of whom the public has had
any say whatsoever.

None of which invalidates the point I made. The *only* upper chamber in
the EU that was guaranteed to have legal expertise on hand was the UK.

And for those of us able to remember, the "Law Lords" were a subset of
the House of Lords that formed the UKs highest court.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 31 May 2024 11:28:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Jethro_uk
None of which invalidates the point I made. The *only* upper chamber in
the EU that was guaranteed to have legal expertise on hand was the UK.
And for those of us able to remember, the "Law Lords" were a subset of
the House of Lords that formed the UKs highest court.

But...

"These Law Lords were able to vote on legislation as full Members of the
House of Lords, but in practice rarely did so."

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appellate-committee.html

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 31 May 2024 11:28:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Jethro_uk
None of which invalidates the point I made. The *only* upper chamber in
the EU that was guaranteed to have legal expertise on hand was the UK.
And for those of us able to remember, the "Law Lords" were a subset of
the House of Lords that formed the UKs highest court.

But...
"These Law Lords were able to vote on legislation as full Members of the
House of Lords, but in practice rarely did so."
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appellate-committee.html

I would imagine (but I haven't checked) that they may have provided
the benefit of their legal expertise in advice to the Lords though.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 31 May 2024 20:39:08 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Tim Jackson
On Fri, 31 May 2024 11:28:44 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote...

Post by Jethro_uk
None of which invalidates the point I made. The *only* upper chamber in
the EU that was guaranteed to have legal expertise on hand was the UK.
And for those of us able to remember, the "Law Lords" were a subset of
the House of Lords that formed the UKs highest court.

But...
"These Law Lords were able to vote on legislation as full Members of the
House of Lords, but in practice rarely did so."
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appellate-committee.html

I would imagine (but I haven't checked) that they may have provided
the benefit of their legal expertise in advice to the Lords though.

However, that might put the Law Lord concerned in a difficult position
later on, when called upon to decide an appeal turning on the meaning to
be given to an Act they themself had influenced. To avoid a suspicion
of bias, they might have to recuse themself.

Perhaps avoiding that sort of criticism was a reason for replacing the
Appelate Committee of the House of Lords with the more clearly
independent Supreme Court?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

[quoted text muted]

That's where you are significantly misinformed. Westminster put a huge
number of resources into scrutinising EU legislation when it was in
the pipeline.

It was alleged in the 80s that the UKs overview of EEC/EC legislation
was the best in the bloc, as *only* the UK has an upper house which
consists of real life judges.

Er, not entirely. There are also 26 bishops, 92 hereditary peers, loads
of assorted childrens' presenters, athletes, actors, comedians, quiz
show hosts and so on and so on, about none of whom the public has had
any say whatsoever.

None of which invalidates the point I made. The *only* upper chamber in
the EU that was guaranteed to have legal expertise on hand was the UK.
And for those of us able to remember, the "Law Lords" were a subset of
the House of Lords that formed the UKs highest court.

Not any more, and not in fact since 2009.

"From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction
on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal
cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) were the first
justices of the 12-member Supreme Court and were disqualified from
sitting or voting in the House of Lords. When they retired from the
Supreme Court they could return to the House of Lords as full members
but newly-appointed Justices of the Supreme Court do not have seats in
the House of Lords."

https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-types/law-lords/

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

[quoted text muted]

That's where you are significantly misinformed. Westminster put a
huge number of resources into scrutinising EU legislation when it
was in the pipeline.

It was alleged in the 80s that the UKs overview of EEC/EC legislation
was the best in the bloc, as *only* the UK has an upper house which
consists of real life judges.

Er, not entirely. There are also 26 bishops, 92 hereditary peers,
loads of assorted childrens' presenters, athletes, actors, comedians,
quiz show hosts and so on and so on, about none of whom the public has
had any say whatsoever.

None of which invalidates the point I made. The *only* upper chamber in
the EU that was guaranteed to have legal expertise on hand was the UK.
And for those of us able to remember, the "Law Lords" were a subset of
the House of Lords that formed the UKs highest court.

Not any more, and not in fact since 2009.
"From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction
on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal
cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) were the first
justices of the 12-member Supreme Court and were disqualified from
sitting or voting in the House of Lords. When they retired from the
Supreme Court they could return to the House of Lords as full members
but newly-appointed Justices of the Supreme Court do not have seats in
the House of Lords."
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-types/

law-lords/

You realise my used of the word "were" rather than "are" means that was a
waste of time ?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <v377i5$14s2a$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@spam.invalid>
writes

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business.
Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Which we will only have to do because we are no longer in the EU.

So what you're saying is the EU is imposing this rule on us out of
choice. Whereas before they couldn't.

Not just us. Presumably the new procedures apply to all non-EU
countries.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Quite a number of Brexiteers really did believe that leaving the EU
would allow us to prevent unwanted immigration - even the immigration we
have no control of. As a result, we now seem obliged to enthusiastically
be hell-bent on making overseas travel and the transport of goods as
inconvenient as possible for those who are generally 99.999% bona fide.
Apart from the academic satisfaction of implementing the dogma of
keeping our borders absolutely 100% 'safe', I don't see much point in
it.

Err, it's the *EU* that is introducing this fingerprinting business. Not the UK as far as I am aware.

Nobody is forcing you to holiday in the EU. You have a choice.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be
fingerprinted.

The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger, which is
useful for matching people-in with people-out but not that useful
(compared to a full set like the police take) for comparing with
prints lifted from a crime scene or whatever.

Post by Handsome Jack
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to
travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via
Dublin?

I would imagine you'd get fingerprinted in Majorca because you'd have
to go through the non-EU/EEA queue due to having a UK passport. Bear in
mind that Ireland is not in the Schengen Zone so passports will be
checked on arrivals at Majorca from Dublin.

Of course you're right. I was thinking of the ferries, where the French do the
passport control at the English port.

Chunnel too.
It only seems like yesterday when you could drive through customs
totally unchecked (regardless of what you were carrying), and often
simply wave your passport at the man in passport control.
All the new post-Brexit 'requirements' (both for passengers and goods)
are costing the UK billions. But although they are obviously providing
loads of additional work (both for the UK and for the EU countries we
visit), I'm finding it hard to understand any real advantage in it all.
For example, it certainly hasn't stopped illegal immigration.

Perhaps reason the post-Brexit requirements for passengers you mention are
doing nothing to stop the illegal migration you refer to is because the
‘passengers’ don’t arrive by public transport and have thrown their
passports into the English Channel when the UK rescue boats show up?

The majority of illegal immigrants come with legitimate papers but overstay.

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be
fingerprinted.

The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger, which is
useful for matching people-in with people-out but not that useful
(compared to a full set like the police take) for comparing with
prints lifted from a crime scene or whatever.

Post by Handsome Jack
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to
travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via
Dublin?

I would imagine you'd get fingerprinted in Majorca because you'd have
to go through the non-EU/EEA queue due to having a UK passport. Bear in
mind that Ireland is not in the Schengen Zone so passports will be
checked on arrivals at Majorca from Dublin.

Of course you're right. I was thinking of the ferries, where the French do the
passport control at the English port.

Chunnel too.
It only seems like yesterday when you could drive through customs
totally unchecked (regardless of what you were carrying), and often
simply wave your passport at the man in passport control.
All the new post-Brexit 'requirements' (both for passengers and goods)
are costing the UK billions. But although they are obviously providing
loads of additional work (both for the UK and for the EU countries we
visit), I'm finding it hard to understand any real advantage in it all.
For example, it certainly hasn't stopped illegal immigration.

Perhaps reason the post-Brexit requirements for passengers you mention are
doing nothing to stop the illegal migration you refer to is because the
‘passengers’ don’t arrive by public transport and have thrown their
passports into the English Channel when the UK rescue boats show up?

The majority of illegal immigrants come with legitimate papers but overstay.

So the illegal immigrants weren’t illegal immigrants when they arrived,
which was Ian’s point.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Handsome Jack
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media.

It was originally intended to be live in 2020

Post by Jon Ribbens
The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger

According to Thales, it's four fingerprints plus facial photos, is there
a reason the photo couldn't be taken from passports, for those who have
NFC versions?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Jon Ribbens
The privacy/civil rights implications aren't *that* significant
in my opinion, if it's the same as other border-fingerprints I've
experience. They just take a scan of a single finger

According to Thales, it's four fingerprints plus facial photos,

That sounds a bit more concerning.

Post by Andy Burns
is there a reason the photo couldn't be taken from passports, for
those who have NFC versions?

I think the whole point is to not assume that that the person holding
the passport is the passport holder... otherwise you wouldn't need any
of this, you'd just need the passport number and country of issue and
none of these biometrics at all.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Andy Burns
According to Thales, it's four fingerprints plus facial photos,

That sounds a bit more concerning.

I haven't been to USA/Canada since they started ESTA and fingerprinting
on entry, I don't give my own country my fingerprints, I don't trust
other countries not to pass them back to the UK.

I have nothing to hide, I just resent the big brother aspects.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Andy Burns
is there a reason the photo couldn't be taken from passports, for
those who have NFC versions?

I think the whole point is to not assume that that the person holding
the passport is the passport holder... otherwise you wouldn't need any
of this, you'd just need the passport number and country of issue and
none of these biometrics at all.

But isn't the whole point of biometric passports that they can be used
to prove that the person standing at the immigration desk *is* the true
holder of the passport?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Andy Burns
According to Thales, it's four fingerprints plus facial photos,

That sounds a bit more concerning.

I haven't been to USA/Canada since they started ESTA and fingerprinting
on entry, I don't give my own country my fingerprints, I don't trust
other countries not to pass them back to the UK.

Well my point was there's a difference between "fingerprint" and
"[all] fingerprints".

Post by Andy Burns
I have nothing to hide, I just resent the big brother aspects.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Andy Burns
is there a reason the photo couldn't be taken from passports, for
those who have NFC versions?

I think the whole point is to not assume that that the person holding
the passport is the passport holder... otherwise you wouldn't need any
of this, you'd just need the passport number and country of issue and
none of these biometrics at all.

But isn't the whole point of biometric passports that they can be used
to prove that the person standing at the immigration desk *is* the true
holder of the passport?

I think it was to make the passports harder to forge, and to make it
easier for checks to be automated. But I guess the requirements have
been made more stringent since they designed the biometric system.

[fred]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Andy Burns
According to Thales, it's four fingerprints plus facial photos,

That sounds a bit more concerning.

I haven't been to USA/Canada since they started ESTA and fingerprinting
on entry, I don't give my own country my fingerprints, I don't trust
other countries not to pass them back to the UK.
I have nothing to hide, I just resent the big brother aspects.

Likewise, although for info you do not need to give biometrics when
travelling on an eTA to Canada:

https://ircc.canada.ca/english/visit/biometrics.asp

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Andy Burns
is there a reason the photo couldn't be taken from passports, for
those who have NFC versions?

I think the whole point is to not assume that that the person holding
the passport is the passport holder... otherwise you wouldn't need any
of this, you'd just need the passport number and country of issue and
none of these biometrics at all.

But isn't the whole point of biometric passports that they can be used
to prove that the person standing at the immigration desk *is* the true
holder of the passport?

The unreliability of photo based identity checking is, I think, well
known, particularly for certain ethnic groups or say similar looking
siblings.

[Andy Burns]

Post by fred
for info you do not need to give biometrics when
https://ircc.canada.ca/english/visit/biometrics.asp

They can go back on the holiday list then ...

[JNugent]

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

Since the same system has been used for UK citizen entry into the USA
and Canada (and possibly Australia) for a considerable number of years,
what's the problem?

It isn't as though the EU has stated that someone with a thirty-year-old
conviction or caution for possession of marijuana will be denied entry.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

Since the same system has been used for UK citizen entry into the USA
and Canada (and possibly Australia) for a considerable number of years,
what's the problem?

I can't speak for anyone else. But the problem for me is that I never go to the USA or Canada, but I do go on holiday to EU countries. And I do not want the comic-opera police forces of 27 countries having the opportunity to run my prints through their database, issue an extradition warrant for some obscure crime on the basis of a "match", and chuck me in one of their filthy jails. (And for "me" read "me or a member of my family").

Moreover, it's another step down the slippery wedge. What next? DNA probably. In fact, almost certainly. And if we object .... "But you didn't object to us having your fingerprints ... The US and Canada have been doing this for years ... What's the problem?"

[JNugent]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

Since the same system has been used for UK citizen entry into the USA
and Canada (and possibly Australia) for a considerable number of years,
what's the problem?

I can't speak for anyone else. But the problem for me is that I never go to the USA or Canada, but I do go on holiday to EU countries. And I do not want the comic-opera police forces of 27 countries having the opportunity to run my prints through their database, issue an extradition warrant for some obscure crime on the basis of a "match", and chuck me in one of their filthy jails. (And for "me" read "me or a member of my family").

The check would surely only happen at the first Schengen border encountered?

Once you've gone through control at JFK or LAX and you're through, you
can go anywhere you like in the lower 48 states, totally without
hindrance. State boundaries don't have control points. Neither do the
borders between EU states (any more), though the buildings are usually
still there.

Post by Handsome Jack
Moreover, it's another step down the slippery wedge. What next? DNA probably. In fact, almost certainly. And if we object .... "But you didn't object to us having your fingerprints ... The US and Canada have been doing this for years ... What's the problem?"

Slippery wedge / slope towards what?

Countries and groups of countries are entitled to control entry to their
territories, after all.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

Since the same system has been used for UK citizen entry into the USA
and Canada (and possibly Australia) for a considerable number of years,
what's the problem?

I can't speak for anyone else. But the problem for me is that I never go to the USA or Canada, but I do go on holiday to EU countries. And I do not want the comic-opera police forces of 27 countries having the opportunity to run my prints through their database, issue an extradition warrant for some obscure crime on the basis of a "match", and chuck me in one of their filthy jails. (And for "me" read "me or a member of my family").
Moreover, it's another step down the slippery wedge. What next? DNA probably. In fact, almost certainly. And if we object .... "But you didn't object to us having your fingerprints ... The US and Canada have been doing this for years ... What's the problem?"

You have a choice. You are free not to go there.

[Martin Harran]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

Since the same system has been used for UK citizen entry into the USA
and Canada (and possibly Australia) for a considerable number of years,
what's the problem?

I can't speak for anyone else. But the problem for me is that I never go to the USA or Canada, but I do go on holiday to EU countries.

Did you vote leave in the Brexit referndum? If so, you can't really
moan about the price.

Post by Handsome Jack
And I do not want the comic-opera police forces of 27 countries having the opportunity to run my prints through their database, issue an extradition warrant for some obscure crime on the basis of a "match", and chuck me in one of their filthy jails. (And for "me" read "me or a member of my family").
Moreover, it's another step down the slippery wedge. What next? DNA probably. In fact, almost certainly. And if we object .... "But you didn't object to us having your fingerprints ... The US and Canada have been doing this for years ... What's the problem?"

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications, preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

Since the same system has been used for UK citizen entry into the USA
and Canada (and possibly Australia) for a considerable number of years,
what's the problem?

I can't speak for anyone else. But the problem for me is that I never go to

the USA or Canada, but I do go on holiday to EU countries.

Post by Martin Harran
Did you vote leave in the Brexit referndum? If so, you can't really
moan about the price.

Yes, I did vote leave, and I'm not moaning about the EU imposing this rule.
They can impose whatever border controls they want, just as I (as someone has
pointed out) am free not to go there any more. I expect quite a few others
will feel the same, so bollocks to their tourism industry.

I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that there has been very little
publicity about this in the UK media, even though it is apparently
almost upon us. Certainly well within holiday-booking range.

[Smolley]

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-

fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/

Post by JNugent

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this
date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British
media. The BBC article burbles on for over a thousand words, but
somehow never mentions the privacy or civil rights implications,
preferring to concentrate on delays at Dover. Nor is there any
suggestion that arrivals from the EU into the UK will be fingerprinted.
What about the famously sacrosanct Irish border and its lack of any
controls? Will the IRA instantly start bombing us as soon as these
checks are introduced, or will everyone in England be allowed to travel
to Majorca without being fingerprinted ... as long as we go via Dublin?

Since the same system has been used for UK citizen entry into the USA
and Canada (and possibly Australia) for a considerable number of years,
what's the problem?
It isn't as though the EU has stated that someone with a thirty-year-old
conviction or caution for possession of marijuana will be denied entry.

China is easier to enter than any EU countries.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years. It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.

It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general, according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016), and as we all knew what
we were voting for*, a majority indicated that this was indeed the sort
of that we wanted.
*Or so I've been told on countless occasions.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time we went abroad? I don't remember that.

[kat]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time we went abroad? I don't remember that.

The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU rules without
asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

I am not surprised you weren't informed when booking a holiday, even if it was
the responsibility of whomever you booked with, because this has been delayed
and delayed, and who knows, might be again.

[Fredxx]

Post by kat

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time we
went abroad? I don't remember that.

The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU rules
without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we wouldn't be
in this mess. Similarly if there was a referendum over the Maastricht
and other treaties I'm sure would still be in the EU.

Post by kat
I am not surprised you weren't informed when booking a holiday, even if
it was the responsibility of whomever you booked with, because this has
been delayed and delayed, and who knows, might be again.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we wouldn't
be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule going
through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant Minister
attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).

Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.

If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that, then
the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar body, and
persuade their professionals to do it for you.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we wouldn't
be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule going
through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant Minister
attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that, then
the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar body, and
persuade their professionals to do it for you.

The same applies, of course, to thousands of regulations made under British
Acts of Parliament and and implemented without discussion in the Commons.

[Fredxx]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we wouldn't
be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule going
through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant Minister
attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that, then
the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar body, and
persuade their professionals to do it for you.

The same applies, of course, to thousands of regulations made under British
Acts of Parliament and and implemented without discussion in the Commons.

Agreed, but no other country has veto over repealing those SIs or laws.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we wouldn't
be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule going
through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant Minister
attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that, then
the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar body, and
persuade their professionals to do it for you.

The same applies, of course, to thousands of regulations made under British
Acts of Parliament and and implemented without discussion in the Commons.

If you mean SIs, then any MP has the right to object and thus cause a
debate. But yes, the lobbying process is similar. Professionals in trade
associations etc are well aware of SIs in the pipeline which affect
their members, and just because the scrutiny is taking place other than
in the Chamber, doesn't mean it's absent.

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we wouldn't
be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule going
through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant Minister
attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that, then
the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar body, and
persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

[Jeff Layman]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Ah - "representative democracy", that fabled condition bordering utopia,
but more likely to be found next to dystopia (or cacotopia as it is
sometimes referred to. Mind you, if I had to refer back to Greek for a
more fitting word, I'd probably invent "cacodotopia").

Anyway, I thought that Juncker had said that there should be no more
referenda concerning EU membership by the remaining countries. Is that
the sort of representative democracy you were referring to? Perhaps if I
was ubercynical, I'd think that he could have been referring to the
"referenda" of representative democracy by MEPs.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

Who gets to decide it in the EU at present? The Commission? The Council
of Ministers? MEPs? Probably anyone other than those whom the major
changes effect, i.e. the electorate.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every
rule going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the
relevant Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like
that, then the best thing to do is join a trade association or
similar body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Ah - "representative democracy", that fabled condition bordering
utopia, but more likely to be found next to dystopia (or cacotopia as
it is sometimes referred to. Mind you, if I had to refer back to Greek
for a more fitting word, I'd probably invent "cacodotopia").

They've just slimmed down the House Of Commons to slightly fewer
representatives. I don't they could find a venue big enough for tens of
millions to participate in the original concept of Democracy.

Post by Jeff Layman
Anyway, I thought that Juncker had said that there should be no more
referenda concerning EU membership by the remaining countries. Is that
the sort of representative democracy you were referring to? Perhaps if
I was ubercynical, I'd think that he could have been referring to the
"referenda" of representative democracy by MEPs.

No, the representative democracy is MPs (and MEPs) voting on thousands
of largely mundane issues on behalf of the people they represent.

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

Who gets to decide it in the EU at present? The Commission? The Council
of Ministers? MEPs? Probably anyone other than those whom the major
changes effect, i.e. the electorate.

That sounds like a good plan. First have a referendum to decide which of
tens of thousands of proposals need to be put to a full referendum.

[Jethro_uk]

Sortition !

[Mike Scott]

Post by Roland Perry
No, the representative democracy is MPs (and MEPs) voting on thousands
of largely mundane issues on behalf of the people they represent.

But there's the rub. My MP does not and cannot "represent me" or my
opinions in any meaningful way. He does not know me from Adam, much less
my (or his other constituents') views. All the electorate can do is
elect someone whose views are vaguely aligned with their own and trust
(ha!) that they'll deliver as they offer.

And even on a local level, it's broken. I contacted three local
councillors a year or so back about a matter - not one of them even
bothered acknowledging. They clearly had no intention of "representing
me" in any meaningful way.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 30 May 2024 18:51:04 +0100, Jeff Layman <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:


[snip for focus]

Post by Jeff Layman
Anyway, I thought that Juncker had said that there should be no more
referenda concerning EU membership by the remaining countries.

Do you have a cite for that? If he said it, then it was rather silly
of him seeing that Irish supreme court decided in 1987 in Crotty v. An
Taoiseach [1] that any amendments that result in a transfer of
sovereignty to the European Union require a constitutional amendment
and Ireland's Constitution can only be amended by a referendum.

I'm not sure about other countries who hold referenda but I'd imagine
they have similar principles.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v_An_Taoiseach



[...]

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't  be in this mess.

 The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going  through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister  attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
 Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
 If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then  the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and  persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.

Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.

And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.

There are no doubt others.

But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.

You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

The EU did not enforce any voting!! As well shown by Brexit, they had no power
to! The individual country's governments actually wanted to stay in the EU so
those individual governments *decided* of their own free will to enable this
by holding another vote, and giving their citizens the effective choice about
staying in. Except for us, they elected to stay in, but the EU had zero power
to force them to. That is one of the stupider lies the leave propagandists
invented - the idea that the EU forced countries to hold referenda. Stupider
because it was the leave propagandists who wanted a referendum, not the EU.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

The EU did not enforce any voting!! As well shown by Brexit, they had no power
to! The individual country's governments actually wanted to stay in the EU so
those individual governments *decided* of their own free will to enable this
by holding another vote, and giving their citizens the effective choice about
staying in. Except for us, they elected to stay in, but the EU had zero power
to force them to. That is one of the stupider lies the leave propagandists
invented - the idea that the EU forced countries to hold referenda. Stupider
because it was the leave propagandists who wanted a referendum, not the EU.

Have you encountered the phrase "distinction without a difference"?

Why, unless it wanted the outcome changed, did the EU itself not object
to the deliberate turning of a blind eye to a democratic vote?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

The EU did not enforce any voting!! As well shown by Brexit, they had no power
to! The individual country's governments actually wanted to stay in the EU so
those individual governments *decided* of their own free will to enable this
by holding another vote, and giving their citizens the effective choice about
staying in. Except for us, they elected to stay in, but the EU had zero power
to force them to. That is one of the stupider lies the leave propagandists
invented - the idea that the EU forced countries to hold referenda. Stupider
because it was the leave propagandists who wanted a referendum, not the EU.

Have you encountered the phrase "distinction without a difference"?
Why, unless it wanted the outcome changed, did the EU itself not object
to the deliberate turning of a blind eye to a democratic vote?

Because the results of a national referendum were none of the EU's business?
The internal democratic structures of countries matter not, what matters to
the EU is the decision of the competent national government. To the extent MEP
have any relevance they also are recognised by the EU, but are generally
irrelevant to the sort of decision we are talking about.

Anyway, perhaps the EU, along with many of us, were unaware of God's law that
referendum results are immutable, conclusive and cannot be changed for a Long
Time? Perhaps like myself they think this is a self-serving invention? Many
places which use referenda regularly (Switzerland and some US states for
instance) have no such rule that referenda can't be repeated next year if
that's what a significant number of people want.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter
Anyway, perhaps the EU, along with many of us, were unaware of God's law that
referendum results are immutable, conclusive and cannot be changed for a Long
Time? Perhaps like myself they think this is a self-serving invention? Many
places which use referenda regularly (Switzerland and some US states for
instance) have no such rule that referenda can't be repeated next year if
that's what a significant number of people want.

The question is what is a significant number, how that can be
determined, why that is relevant, and who decides.

The losing side will always bleat, say there's huge support on their
side, and demand a re-run.

And if those in power don't like the result they will order another one
and another until they just once get the result they want, when,
miraculously, it will be the final and definitive one, never to be repeated.

It's utterly cynical but it happens.

At least the UK government was honest about it, promising in advance
that the result, whichever way, would be honoured and implemented. And
it was.

Those who lose, lose. They should suck it up, not bleat interminably
about a replay.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many
EU rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't  be in this mess.

 The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going  through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister  attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
 Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
 If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then  the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and  persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the
results COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.

I've already said we are not a referendum-driven society, in the way for
example Switzerland is. In the USA they have referendums all the way
down to whether or not to spend money (aka raise taxes to pay for)
improving the local waterworks.

Post by JNugent
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to
a referendum.

I presume you are familiar with the process of petitions to the House of
Commons. Several a week I think. Would you turn out to vote on all of
those?

Post by JNugent
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting
in some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

The EU repeats votes in their parliament when there isn't a consensus.
More subtle than the first-past-the-post system we have for Bills. In
the overwhelming majority of cases, gaining such a consensus requires
weakening aspects of the legislation, not strengthening them.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many
EU rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't  be in this mess.

 The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going  through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister  attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
 Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
 If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then  the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and  persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the
results COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.

I've already said we are not a referendum-driven society, in the way for
example Switzerland is. In the USA they have referendums all the way
down to whether or not to spend money (aka raise taxes to pay for)
improving the local waterworks.

The USA has referendums on state and local ballots occasionally, but
I've never heard of a federal (i.e., national) one.

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by JNugent

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many
EU  rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to
leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't  be in this mess.

 The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going  through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the
relevant Minister  attending the Council (of Ministers, not of
Europe).
 Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
 If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then  the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and  persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

 As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the
results  COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

 And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.

I've already said we are not a referendum-driven society, in the way for
example Switzerland is. In the USA they have referendums all the way
down to whether or not to spend money (aka raise taxes to pay for)
improving the local waterworks.

Switzerland isn't in the EU.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of
MPs. A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead
automatically to a referendum.

I presume you are familiar with the process of petitions to the House of
Commons. Several a week I think. Would you turn out to vote on all of
those?

Do any or all of them have implications for me and others in my position?

What turns upon my answer?

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting
in some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

The EU repeats votes in their parliament when there isn't a consensus.
More subtle than the first-past-the-post system we have for Bills. In
the overwhelming majority of cases, gaining such a consensus requires
weakening aspects of the legislation, not strengthening them.

That's at least an explanation for the outrageous "Make 'em vote
repeatedly until they get it right to our satisfaction" approach.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by JNugent
Switzerland isn't in the EU.

No, but it pays 1.3 Billion Euros to the EU for the privilege of having
business with them and they have to accept also freedom of movement,
albeit restricted.

[Martin Harran]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't  be in this mess.

 The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going  through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister  attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
 Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
 If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then  the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and  persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum; I don't recall anyone forcing me to vote; I certainly
don't recall anyone standing beside me in the polling booth telling me
which way to vote.

In both cases, I voted NO the first time and YES the second time, just
over a year later. The reason I changed my mind was because the Irish
Government listened to people the first time around and went back to
the EU to get modifications to the Treaty that dealt with the concerns
expressed by Irish voters and I and a clear majority of Irish voters
regarded the modified treaties as being beneficial for Ireland.

That's how democracy works, people get the chance to accept or reject
and also get the chance to change their minds. I accept that is a
concept that seems alien to those who insist that the Brexit
referendum was a once for ever decision that could not be revisited to
matter how much people came to the conclusion that they got it wrong.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum; I don't recall anyone forcing me to vote; I certainly
don't recall anyone standing beside me in the polling booth telling me
which way to vote.
In both cases, I voted NO the first time and YES the second time, just
over a year later. The reason I changed my mind was because the Irish
Government listened to people the first time around and went back to
the EU to get modifications to the Treaty that dealt with the concerns
expressed by Irish voters and I and a clear majority of Irish voters
regarded the modified treaties as being beneficial for Ireland.
That's how democracy works, people get the chance to accept or reject
and also get the chance to change their minds.

How many chances have they been given to change their minds again since
deciding just once the 'right' way?

Post by Martin Harran
I accept that is a
concept that seems alien to those who insist that the Brexit
referendum was a once for ever decision that could not be revisited to
matter how much people came to the conclusion that they got it wrong.

It was never 'for ever'. It was 'for a generation'.

And you can't shilly-shally for ever. You have to decide and go with
what you decide, or you'll never do anything difficult.

[Martin Harran]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum; I don't recall anyone forcing me to vote; I certainly
don't recall anyone standing beside me in the polling booth telling me
which way to vote.
In both cases, I voted NO the first time and YES the second time, just
over a year later. The reason I changed my mind was because the Irish
Government listened to people the first time around and went back to
the EU to get modifications to the Treaty that dealt with the concerns
expressed by Irish voters and I and a clear majority of Irish voters
regarded the modified treaties as being beneficial for Ireland.
That's how democracy works, people get the chance to accept or reject
and also get the chance to change their minds.

How many chances have they been given to change their minds again since
deciding just once the 'right' way?

As noted above, we were given a second chance with two EU treaties, we
had 3 chances on abortion (technically 6 chances as one of the
referenda had 3 separate clauses to be voted on). They are the only
ones I can think of offhand were there was a significant public demand
for a rethink.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Martin Harran
I accept that is a
concept that seems alien to those who insist that the Brexit
referendum was a once for ever decision that could not be revisited to
matter how much people came to the conclusion that they got it wrong.

It was never 'for ever'. It was 'for a generation'.

Ah, only 30 years or so, I guess that's ok then.

Post by Norman Wells
And you can't shilly-shally for ever. You have to decide and go with
what you decide, or you'll never do anything difficult.

I can't help wondering in what other areas of life you'd tie yourself
indefinitely to a decision no matter how much you came to regret it.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Martin Harran
I can't help wondering in what other areas of life you'd tie yourself
indefinitely to a decision no matter how much you came to regret it.

It's actually worse than that. One thread of Brexiteer logic is that *no
one* in future be allowed to reverse it. Even as yet unborn great
grandchildren.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:48:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Martin Harran
I can't help wondering in what other areas of life you'd tie yourself
indefinitely to a decision no matter how much you came to regret it.

It's actually worse than that. One thread of Brexiteer logic is that *no
one* in future be allowed to reverse it. Even as yet unborn great
grandchildren.

Ssssshhhhh ... that memo was to a restricted list and Norman wasn't on
it.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Martin Harran
I can't help wondering in what other areas of life you'd tie yourself
indefinitely to a decision no matter how much you came to regret it.

It's actually worse than that. One thread of Brexiteer logic is that *no
one* in future be allowed to reverse it. Even as yet unborn great
grandchildren.

That's completely untrue, so why do you say it?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Martin Harran
I can't help wondering in what other areas of life you'd tie yourself
indefinitely to a decision no matter how much you came to regret it.

It's actually worse than that. One thread of Brexiteer logic is that
*no one* in future be allowed to reverse it. Even as yet unborn great
grandchildren.

That's completely untrue, so why do you say it?

If I have met people who espouse it (I have) then it is a truth for me.

At least two people I have encountered in lifes rich pageant have wanted
Brexit "added the to the Magna Carta" as they put it, so it could never
be reversed.

Note I didn't say anyone worth bothering about said it. But it has been
said to me.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum; I don't recall anyone forcing me to vote; I certainly
don't recall anyone standing beside me in the polling booth telling me
which way to vote.
In both cases, I voted NO the first time and YES the second time, just
over a year later. The reason I changed my mind was because the Irish
Government listened to people the first time around and went back to
the EU to get modifications to the Treaty that dealt with the concerns
expressed by Irish voters and I and a clear majority of Irish voters
regarded the modified treaties as being beneficial for Ireland.
That's how democracy works, people get the chance to accept or reject
and also get the chance to change their minds.

How many chances have they been given to change their minds again since
deciding just once the 'right' way?

As noted above, we were given a second chance with two EU treaties, we
had 3 chances on abortion (technically 6 chances as one of the
referenda had 3 separate clauses to be voted on). They are the only
ones I can think of offhand were there was a significant public demand
for a rethink.

No, there never is any 'public demand' when those in power have managed
to achieve the 'right' result once, is there?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Martin Harran
I accept that is a
concept that seems alien to those who insist that the Brexit
referendum was a once for ever decision that could not be revisited to
matter how much people came to the conclusion that they got it wrong.

It was never 'for ever'. It was 'for a generation'.

Ah, only 30 years or so, I guess that's ok then.

Yes, that's right. Leaving the EU was a huge step with enormous
ramifications. It's not like a tap you can just turn off or a car you
can reverse. It was a long-term decision that everyone was told and
knew was important and long-term. It was in all the papers.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Norman Wells
And you can't shilly-shally for ever. You have to decide and go with
what you decide, or you'll never do anything difficult.

I can't help wondering in what other areas of life you'd tie yourself
indefinitely to a decision no matter how much you came to regret it.

People do. They buy houses, they change jobs, they join the army, they
emigrate, they marry, they have children etc etc etc. The difficulty of
reversal makes some decisions more important and longer term than others.

[Martin Harran]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum; I don't recall anyone forcing me to vote; I certainly
don't recall anyone standing beside me in the polling booth telling me
which way to vote.
In both cases, I voted NO the first time and YES the second time, just
over a year later. The reason I changed my mind was because the Irish
Government listened to people the first time around and went back to
the EU to get modifications to the Treaty that dealt with the concerns
expressed by Irish voters and I and a clear majority of Irish voters
regarded the modified treaties as being beneficial for Ireland.
That's how democracy works, people get the chance to accept or reject
and also get the chance to change their minds.

How many chances have they been given to change their minds again since
deciding just once the 'right' way?

As noted above, we were given a second chance with two EU treaties, we
had 3 chances on abortion (technically 6 chances as one of the
referenda had 3 separate clauses to be voted on). They are the only
ones I can think of offhand were there was a significant public demand
for a rethink.

No, there never is any 'public demand' when those in power have managed
to achieve the 'right' result once, is there?

Let's just take two changes of mind.

In the first referendum on the Nice Treaty on 7 June 2001, 53.9% voted
NO. In the second referendum just six months later, 62.9% voted YES.

In the first referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on 12 June 2008, 53.4%
voted NO. In the second referendum 16 months later, 67.1% voted YES.

Perhaps you can explain just how either the EU or the Irish Government
forced so many people to change their minds.

[...]

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Martin Harran
In both cases, I voted NO the first time and YES the second time, just
over a year later. The reason I changed my mind was because the Irish
Government listened to people the first time around and went back to the
EU to get modifications to the Treaty that dealt with the concerns
expressed by Irish voters and I and a clear majority of Irish voters
regarded the modified treaties as being beneficial for Ireland.

Jacob Rees Mogg "promised" (in the same way that Cameron "promised")
there would be a second referendum on the terms if the first was to leave.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Jethro_uk
Jacob Rees Mogg "promised" (in the same way that Cameron "promised")
there would be a second referendum on the terms if the first was to leave.

"could" and "might" hardly sounds like a strong promise ...

<https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#11102441000299>

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Martin Harran
In both cases, I voted NO the first time and YES the second time, just
over a year later. The reason I changed my mind was because the Irish
Government listened to people the first time around and went back to the
EU to get modifications to the Treaty that dealt with the concerns
expressed by Irish voters and I and a clear majority of Irish voters
regarded the modified treaties as being beneficial for Ireland.

Jacob Rees Mogg "promised" (in the same way that Cameron "promised")
there would be a second referendum on the terms if the first was to leave.

On whose behalf and with what authority, where and when, did Mogg
'promise' any such thing?

[JNugent]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Fredxx

 The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules  without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't  be in this mess.

 The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going  through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister  attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
 Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
 If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then  the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and  persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

...because the Irish electorate "got it wrong" first time.

Post by Martin Harran
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum;

See my reply to another poster.

[Martin Harran]

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

...because the Irish electorate "got it wrong" first time.

Errr, no - the Irish Government got it wrong first time and had to
come back to the people with a revised proposal.

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum;

See my reply to another poster.

I've asked Norman to explain just how either the EU or the Irish
Government forced so many people to change their minds in these
referna - would you care to tackle it?
..

[kat]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

...because the Irish electorate "got it wrong" first time.

Errr, no - the Irish Government got it wrong first time and had to
come back to the people with a revised proposal.

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum;

See my reply to another poster.

I've asked Norman to explain just how either the EU or the Irish
Government forced so many people to change their minds in these
referna - would you care to tackle it?
..

Surely you have already said - the terms were improved. Thus more people found
them acceptable.

Of course, it was nice to be asked, and to be able to force that improvement.
Something we never got the chance to do. if we had th ehabit of holding these
votes maybe we would neve rhave reached the point of the Brexit referendum, and,
if we had and still voted as we did, maybe it would have been acceptable to us,
to our Government, and to the EU to renegotiate the terms and have another vote.

But as Roland has said, we don't do referendums, unlike the Swiss - and the
Irish. Maybe we should.

[Martin Harran]

Post by kat

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Fredxx

Post by kat
The Governments of the times ( over many years) agreed to many EU
rules without asking us. One of the reasons people voted to leave.

Quite, if every rule was referred to the House of Commons we
wouldn't be in this mess.

The House of Commons doesn't have enough time to debate every rule
going through Brussels, so it's in effect delegated to the relevant
Minister attending the Council (of Ministers, not of Europe).
Behind the scenes, people who want to influence the outcome lobby
those ministers (via their staff) a process which is usually far
more successful than lobbying 500 MPs who might vote in Parliament.
If you, Fred, don't want to get on your horse and lobby like that,
then the best thing to do is join a trade association or similar
body, and persuade their professionals to do it for you.

That hardly smacks of the best practices of democracy, though. Does it?

As a country, we don't have thousands of referenda every year, so
representative democracy is the next best thing.

Post by JNugent
As a PP said, I am fairly sure that if previous major changes to the
EU's constitution and MO had been put to UK referenda (and the results
COMPLIED with), we would still be in the EU.

And who gets to decide what "major" means?

That's easy.
Any decision which led to a referendum somewhere else (whatever the
result) for an absolute minimum.
And any decision which changes the rights of a member state to make or
enforce their own law within their own territory.
There are no doubt others.
But of course, it would be easy to subject such changes to the same
write-in voting which now applies to the continuation in office of MPs.
A sufficiently significant number of requests to lead automatically to a
referendum.
You are as aware as everyone else how the EU enforced repeated voting in
some places because the first vote didn't come up with the "right"
answer. Do you think other people didn't notice that as well?

Ireland makes considerable use of referenda, having held 40 over the
last century or so. I voted in two Irish referenda on on EU matters
which were then voted on a second time, the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

...because the Irish electorate "got it wrong" first time.

Errr, no - the Irish Government got it wrong first time and had to
come back to the people with a revised proposal.

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
I don't recall anyone forcing the Irish Government to have a second
referendum;

See my reply to another poster.

I've asked Norman to explain just how either the EU or the Irish
Government forced so many people to change their minds in these
referna - would you care to tackle it?
..

Surely you have already said - the terms were improved. Thus more people found
them acceptable.

I'm not quite sure how an improvement of terms amounts to somehow
forcing people to give "the right answer" that they didn't give the
first time.

Post by kat
Of course, it was nice to be asked, and to be able to force that improvement.
Something we never got the chance to do.

That was the core issue with Brexit - Johnson, Rees Moggs and co. were
absolutely determined not to give people a chance to decide on the
terms eventually agreed. Instead we got an insistence that the
decision was made and that was it, irrespective of the consequences,
not to be revisited forever or for at least a generation depending
upon whom you listened to.

Post by kat
if we had th ehabit of holding these
votes maybe we would neve rhave reached the point of the Brexit referendum, and,
if we had and still voted as we did, maybe it would have been acceptable to us,
to our Government, and to the EU to renegotiate the terms and have another vote.
But as Roland has said, we don't do referendums, unlike the Swiss - and the
Irish. Maybe we should.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Martin Harran
That was the core issue with Brexit - Johnson, Rees Moggs and co. were
absolutely determined not to give people a chance to decide on the
terms eventually agreed. Instead we got an insistence that the
decision was made and that was it, irrespective of the consequences,

That's the way it had to be. While we had not actually left the EU,
there were no terms to discuss. We were still full members, you see.
It was only after we sent the Article 50 letter leaving the EU that the
EU could or would discuss anything.

So, a referendum on the terms finally agreed would have been absolutely
pointless and of no effect whatsoever.

Not that the people would have been able to decide on the thousands of
pages involved anyway. Referenda are only useful or practical to
determine a matter of principle or direction in a yes/no way.

Post by Martin Harran
not to be revisited forever or for at least a generation depending
upon whom you listened to.

There was no doubt about it. No-one could possibly insist anything was
forever, so even to suggest it is absurd.

The key quotes and promises come from a pamphlet sent to every single
household in the country by the UK government prior to the referendum.
It emphasised how important it was, and called it 'A once in a
generation decision'. It also said 'It’s a big decision. One that will
affect you, your family and your children for decades to come' as well
as 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide'.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8055a4e5274a2e87db9392/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

No-one could have been in any doubt.

It wasn't a poll to gauge opinion, or one where you can change your mind
if you like afterwards. It was a decision, and it was made.

[Andy Walker]

Post by kat
Of course, it was nice to be asked, and to be able to force that
improvement. Something we never got the chance to do. if we had th
ehabit of holding these votes maybe we would neve rhave reached the
point of the Brexit referendum, and, if we had and still voted as we
did, maybe it would have been acceptable to us, to our Government,
and to the EU to renegotiate the terms and have another vote.

The EU had no intention of renegotiating anything. If they
[against all the evidence] wanted us to stay in, they were their own
worst enemies. They cold-shouldered David Cameron, and immediately
after the result essentially told us where to go [with the honourable
exception of Donald Tusk]. Whether the current leaders [both of the
EU and of France/Germany] would have handled it better than their
predecessors is up for debate, but they could scarcely have handled
it worse.

It seems to be "Remoaner" rhetoric that a second referendum
would have had a different result. That seems to me to be wishful
thinking. We had two major elections in 2019 [Euro and UK] in which
the "leave" vote showed little or no sign of collapsing. Had there
been a second referendum a lot of people who initially voted "remain"
[inc me] would have voted "leave" not because that was their view but
because of a constitutional view that the first result should have
been respected. You really can't have referendums whose results are
ignored and then expect anyone to take them seriously; the notion
that you can wait for the result and then say "oh, but we didn't mean
it to be binding" is for the birds [and political suicide].

Post by kat
But as Roland has said, we don't do referendums, unlike the Swiss -
and the Irish. Maybe we should.

Maybe we shouldn't. They very rarely deliver the "right" result
[whichever that might be]. They're absolutely hopeless for anything bar
a clearly binary decision [witness the PR referendum, whereby the Lib-Dems
were well and truly stitched up primarily because there was no clear-cut
best way to deliver PR and therefore no way to offer a proper choice].
The one real advantage is that you can discuss pros and cons without being
bogged down in party politics; witness the Brexit debate [and also the
Scottish independence debate] where every man and his dog was discussing
the issues in pubs, coffee shops and nail bars in an intelligent way for
several weeks, something we don't get at elections.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time
we went abroad? I don't remember that.

They didn't ask lots of questions which would have put voters off
"Leave", and hence they won by a wafer thin majority.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time
we went abroad? I don't remember that.

They didn't ask lots of questions which would have put voters off
"Leave", and hence they won by a wafer thin majority.

Actually Gove gave a lot of answers back in the day, such as "don't
worry about your house in France".

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time
we went abroad? I don't remember that.

They didn't ask lots of questions which would have put voters off
"Leave", and hence they won by a wafer thin majority.

Actually Gove gave a lot of answers back in the day, such as "don't
worry about your house in France".

The exact opposite. He didn't answer a question with "wave goodbye to
your holiday home".

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time we went abroad? I don't remember that.

It was in the fine print.
Or it should have been in the fine print, if they had supplied the kind
of information people actually needed to make a sensible response to the
question asked in that (non-binding) referendum.

[Spike]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time we
went abroad? I don't remember that.

It was in the fine print.
Or it should have been in the fine print, if they had supplied the kind
of information people actually needed to make a sensible response to the
question asked in that (non-binding) referendum.

Technically, Cameron said he would be bound by the result. It didn’t end
well for him.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Spike

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time we
went abroad? I don't remember that.

It was in the fine print.
Or it should have been in the fine print, if they had supplied the kind
of information people actually needed to make a sensible response to the
question asked in that (non-binding) referendum.

Technically, Cameron said he would be bound by the result.

Politicians say all sorts of things. It doesn't make them law.
As indeed was demonstrated when Cameron was not in fact bound by
the result at all.

Post by Spike
It didn’t end well for him.

Didn't it? He swanned off immediately, avoiding having to deal with
any of the consequences of his self-made disaster, spent the next years
peddling his political connections for vast sums of money, and then got
handed a Lordship and another one of the great offices of state. Some
come-uppance indeed! A salutory lesson to us all.

[JNugent]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Spike

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fi
ngerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from
this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general,
according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I
booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print
somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Actually, the UK DID ask us all (back in 2016),

They asked us whether we agreed with being fingerprinted every time we
went abroad? I don't remember that.

It was in the fine print.
Or it should have been in the fine print, if they had supplied the kind
of information people actually needed to make a sensible response to the
question asked in that (non-binding) referendum.

Technically, Cameron said he would be bound by the result.

Politicians say all sorts of things. It doesn't make them law.
As indeed was demonstrated when Cameron was not in fact bound by
the result at all.

Post by Spike
It didn’t end well for him.

Didn't it? He swanned off immediately, avoiding having to deal with
any of the consequences of his self-made disaster, spent the next years
peddling his political connections for vast sums of money, and then got
handed a Lordship and another one of the great offices of state. Some
come-uppance indeed! A salutory lesson to us all.

"...was handed a Lordship..."

All Prime Ministers are entitled to be ennobled. Ask the families of
Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan and Tony Blair (as they
respectively once were).

"...one of the great offices of State...".

Is there some reason that a Member of the HoL may not hold an office of
state (or even the relevant shadow position)?

All government departments need representation within the House.

[Martin Harran]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/21/eurostar-passengers-fingerprinted-twice-complex-eu-rules/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm866p23mo
that non-EU citizens are to be fingerprinted on entry to the EU from this October, though I haven't found official confirmation of this date.
Odd that this has got so far with barely a mention in the British media.

It has been reported to death for the last 5 years.

I have never seen it, and nor have two thirds of UK adults in general, according to the Telegraph article. I wasn't even informed of it when I booked a holiday in the EU for this autumn. Probably in the small print somewhere, next to the bit about delivering up your first-born.

Post by Ottavio Caruso
It was supposed to
apply from 2019, the it was delayed due to Brexit first and the French
Olympics later.
It was approved by the UK when it still was in the EU.

I don't recall "the UK" asking me. Funny that.

Seeing that it didn't apply to you, they probably didn't see any great
need to ask you.