Britain outside the EU

Taking back control (except for that pesky Parliamentary scrutiny...)



The purpose of scrutiny isn't to review something agreed, it's to see if what's being agreed, or what is current policy, is fit for purpose. Otherwise, it isn't scrutiny.

Our scrutiny processes are so "robust and transparent" that the deal can't be discussed by/with our elected representatives until after the deal is signed...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You forgot to reproduce Lord Frost's answer:

Lord Frost: There are some areas in EU competence where we are looking at bilateral agreements. For example, one area we would like to do bilateral agreements in is returns agreements on asylum seekers. That discussion is just beginning. The problem we face in that and some other areas is that although some member states probably do want to do bilateral agreements, that is not necessarily how the Commission sees it and, even if it is still a member state competence, the Commission has ways of influencing that. So we are just picking it up and I would say there is some way to go in that.

I'm sure that was an accidental omission, Hugh.

And you missed the other bit he said...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The point being, of course, that asylum seekers are nothing to do with trade, Seph.

[EDIT] Just noticed your red text!

I did warn you!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And you missed the other bit he said...

No, I didn't. But I think you are assuming that he was talking about bilateral trade arrangements. He didn't actually say that, but you have assumed that is what he meant.

Perhaps he did mean that, but he didn't say so - or maybe he asked the question to ensure that the message was out there that we could not have bilateral agreements with EU countries on trade.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Hugh

12 of the 26 finalists aren’t in the EU.

Of the 38 voting countries, 15 are not in the EU

Spain only got 6 points, Germany 3 points, and the Netherlands 11 points - were the EU voters "politicising" their votes as well?

It's the Eurovision Song Contest, not the European Union song contest.

It's for countries in Europe, how Israel a country in the Middle East qualifies I'll never know.

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We absolutely do have a good reputation for music in this country. So much so that I think many artists over here think it is a bit naff to appear on Eurovision.

We could do much better than this if we really wanted to win.

We could have a song that spends 30 weeks in every country with a pop chart, and we still wouldn't win.

TBH I surprised we got as many as ZERO points.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

It's the Eurovision Song Contest, not the European Union song contest.

It's for countries in Europe, how Israel a country in the Middle East qualifies I'll never know.

It's really the European Broadcasting Union Song Contest, and as Israel have a media group as a member it's why they can participate.

Morocco have entered once in the past as they're also a member.

https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...,-1900,00.html

THE RIGHT to participate in the contest is contingent on membership of the European Broadcasting Union. The statutes of the Union limit membership "primarily ... to organisations in the European Broadcasting Area. This area, as defined by the International Telecommunications Union, extends from the Atlantic to the meridian 40 deg E. It is bounded on the south by the 30th parallel." Jerusalem, the official headquarters of Israeli Television, is 35 deg E, and on the 32nd parallel. This definition also allows for participation by Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, the Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia. Israeli participation deters these countries on a point of principle, although Morocco did enter in 1980 when Israel withdrew for Passover.

Doesn't really explain why Australia can enter though, but that's likely a pure commercial reason.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

It's the Eurovision Song Contest, not the European Union song contest.


It's for countries in Europe, how Israel a country in the Middle East qualifies I'll never know.

Because it’s not for countries in Europe, it’s for members of the European Broadcasting Union. The EBU is not a political entity, but an association of public service broadcasters that has always had members from outside the continent of Europe. Every country in North Africa has at least one broadcaster who is a member of the EBU, as does Jordan and Lebanon. None of them take part in the Eurovision Song Contest because Israel does. Israel and Tunisia are founder members of the EBU.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Doesn't really explain why Australia can enter though, but that's likely a pure commercial reason.

They are an associate member of the EBU.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

They are an associate member of the EBU.

Yes, that's true - but associate membership doesn't qualify those countries for Eurovision entry normally

https://www.ebu.ch/about/members?type=associate

It is important to note that associate membership does not grant access to the Eurovision system.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Yes, that's true - but associate membership doesn't qualify those countries for Eurovision entry normally

https://www.ebu.ch/about/members?type=associate

Australia was the first experiment in extending the format. They brought Australia in because the country is absolutely nuts for the song contest so it was an easy first step. They are now developing a version of the contest to take place between the states of the USA. There are half a dozen associate member organisations in the USA, among them CBS, NBC and ABC.

[Sephiroth]

The EU is up to its dominating tricks again, this time with Switzerland:

In its dealings with Switzerland, the EU is proving us right for leaving
Brussels is threatening free trade by demanding concessions no country would deem acceptable


.... But this happy arrangement is about to be phased out - thanks to the EU trying to muscle its way into Swiss affairs in a way the Swiss found unacceptable. It started with the EU, eight years ago, wanting to roll those 120 bilateral trade agreements into one. It was a reasonable ambition you might think - a tidying-up exercise, a rationalisation which would make the rules easier for everyone to understand.

But, needless to say, that wasn’t just what the EU had in mind. It wanted to seize the opportunity to extend its free movement rules to Switzerland and more effectively to impose its regulations on the country. In future, Switzerland was to be forced into ‘dynamic alignment’ with EU regulations. In other words, the EU would lay down the rules that it expected Switzerland to follow, on environmental law, labour law and everything else.

Moreover, it expected Switzerland to bend to its social security rules, which, so the Swiss feared, would have meant EU citizens being able to settle in Switzerland and gain full access to its welfare system from day one.

The paywall link is: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...right-leaving/

Non-paywall

Swiss abandon years of EU talks and reject treaty

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57251681

[Sephiroth]

The BBC item covers the matter but with little analysis. Here is a further quote from the Telegraph article:

There is a very clear conclusion to draw from the episode: trade arrangements which the EU found perfectly acceptable 20, 30, 40 years ago it no longer finds acceptable. The EU no longer simply wants free trade: it wants to muscle its way into many more aspects of its neighbours’ economic and social lives. Either you are a member of the EU, it is asserted, or we will try all we can to force you to become a de facto member.

In taking this attitude, the EU is threatening free trade altogether. It is much easier to do a free trade deal if you are not trying to poke your nose into every aspect of the other country’s affairs. Remainers told us that we would never have the might to do trade deals on our own – we needed to be part of the EU.

Yet the Swiss episode - eight years of negotiations for nothing - tells us something quite different. Over the coming years a nimbler, less-demanding Britain has the opportunity to open up trade with the rest of the world much more successfully than has the EU. Indeed, with its growing protectionism and arrogance, the EU risks going backwards.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The BBC item covers the matter but with little analysis. Here is a further quote from the Telegraph article:

The Swiss got the best deal by far, I'd have liked us to have got similar but the reason they got it iirc was because their referendum on joining failed by 0.2% iirc and it was expected that they'd join, that was years ago now so they couldn't expect to just carry on, could they?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The BBC item covers the matter but with little analysis. Here is a further quote from the Telegraph article:

That’s more Torygraph anti-EU commentary, rather than "analysis", imho - ymmv…