EU puts freedom of movement above saving lives........

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2020-05-20 6:58 PM...…………………...

1 "The other states had closed their borders to exclude Covid"

2 Which is what Boris wanted to do *-) .........

3 So it's OK for them but not for us >:-( ........

1 Yes.

2 No. Boris decided to leave our borders open but, when he introduced the quarantine (kind of, on scout's honour) regulations for foreign travellers, he tried to make an exemption for France, and then had to be reminded by the EU that he couldn't do that under the Withdrawal Agreement - unless he extended the exemption to all EU states, so he withdrew the French exemption.

3 No. It is OK for them as well as us, irrespective of which question you were actually asking! :-D

It's a bit complicated, Dave, and all the complications are coming from the UK government changing its mind, and not getting its facts straight, but if you take it slowly, one baby step at a time, you should get there - eventually! :-D You'll just need to read some proper newspapers first. Oh yes, and set aside that anti-anythingtodowiththeEU bias that so clouds your judgement! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2020-05-21 8:07 AM...……………………………..

Did the EU threaten to sue them? >:-) .............Nope *-) ........

Of course not, because they acted in accordance with the free movement regulations, whereas we tried to create an exclusive rule for just one country (France), which would breach the free movement regulations. Just like Quixote, you're tilting at windmills again, and again, and...………………………………………..:-D It really is quite simple, but your groundless anti-EU suspicions prevent you from seeing it. First read, then think, then you'll understand. :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2020-05-21 8:36 AM

 

pelmetman - 2020-05-20 6:58 PM...…………………...

1 "The other states had closed their borders to exclude Covid"

2 Which is what Boris wanted to do *-) .........

3 So it's OK for them but not for us >:-( ........

1 Yes.

2 No. Boris decided to leave our borders open but, when he introduced the quarantine (kind of, on scout's honour) regulations for foreign travellers, he tried to make an exemption for France, and then had to be reminded by the EU that he couldn't do that under the Withdrawal Agreement - unless he extended the exemption to all EU states, so he withdrew the French exemption.

3 No. It is OK for them as well as us, irrespective of which question you were actually asking! :-D

It's a bit complicated, Dave, and all the complications are coming from the UK government changing its mind, and not getting its facts straight, but if you take it slowly, one baby step at a time, you should get there - eventually! :-D You'll just need to read some proper newspapers first. Oh yes, and set aside that anti-anythingtodowiththeEU bias that so clouds your judgement! :-D

 

Seems to me other European countries have all introduced different border controls ;-) ........

 

Current Temporarily Reintroduced Border Controls

 

Temporarily reintroduced border controls in the context of cases requiring immediate action:

 

Iceland (24 April – 3 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders;

Slovakia (8 April – 27 May 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders.

Temporarily reintroduced border controls in the context of foreseeable events:

 

Germany (16 May - 15 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; land and air borders with Austria, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Italy and Spain, sea border with Denmark;

Germany (12 May - 11 November 2020)

Secondary movements, situation at the external borders; land border with Austria;

Estonia (18 May – 16 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; internal air and sea borders;

Spain (10 May - 24 May 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders;

Portugal (15 May – 15 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; land border with Spain;

Poland (14 March - 12 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; land borders with Czechia, Slovakia, Germany, Lithuania, sea borders, air borders;

Hungary (12 May – 11 November 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal land and air borders;

Finland (19 March - 14 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders;

Lithuania (14 May – 31 May 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders;

Czechia (14 May – 13 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; land borders with Austria and Germany, air borders;

Austria (8 May - 31 May 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; land borders with Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Slovakia and Czechia;

Belgium (19 May - 8 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders;

Switzerland (14 May – 8 June 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal air and land borders except from borders with Liechtenstein;

Austria (12 May 2020 - 11 November 2020)

Secondary movements, risk related to terrorists and organized crime, situation at the external borders; land borders with Hungary and with Slovenia;

Sweden (12 May - 11 November 2020)

Terrorist threats, shortcomings at the external borders; to be determined but may concern all internal borders;

Denmark (12 May – 12 November 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19 (to the extent necessary), terrorist threats, organized criminality; all internal borders;

France (1 May - 31 October 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; continuous terrorist threat and risk of terrorists using the vulnerability of States due to COVID-19 pandemics; support to measures aiming at containing the spread of virus; all internal borders;

Norway (12 May - 11 November 2020)

Terrorist threats, secondary movements; ports with ferry connections with Denmark, Germany and Sweden;

Norway (15 May – 13 August 2020)

Coronavirus COVID-19; all internal borders.

 

Yet the EU has NOT threatened to sue them *-) ..........

[Brian Kirby]

Come on Dave, you're being incredibly slow! Those are restrictions permissible within the freedom of movement regs, for the reasons stated in each case. The only reason it "seems to you" is because you have either not read what is there, or have not understood (yet again :-)) what you have read. Take the blinkers off.

 

The UK was not introducing a restriction on qualifying grounds. We were attempting to relax a legally compliant quarantine regulation. This would benefit of specifically France - and thereby discriminate unfairly against all other EU member states). We could introduce the exemption, but only if it applied equally to all other EU states.

 

Surely you understand the difference between a restriction imposed for national health reasons, and a relaxation that appears to have only a selectively beneficial trade reason?. It is that favourable discrimination that breaches the regs. How many times do I have to repeat the same, simple, point? Strewth! :-(

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2020-05-21 9:22 AM

 

Come on Dave, you're being incredibly slow! Those are restrictions permissible within the freedom of movement regs, for the reasons stated in each case. The only reason it "seems to you" is because you have either not read what is there, or have not understood (yet again :-)) what you have read. Take the blinkers off.

 

The UK was not introducing a restriction on qualifying grounds. We were attempting to relax a legally compliant quarantine regulation. This would benefit of specifically France - and thereby discriminate unfairly against all other EU member states). We could introduce the exemption, but only if it applied equally to all other EU states.

 

Surely you understand the difference between a restriction imposed for national health reasons, and a relaxation that appears to have only a selectively beneficial trade reason?. It is that favourable discrimination that breaches the regs. How many times do I have to repeat the same, simple, point? Strewth! :-(

Pelmets fanatical obsession with EU countries and the EU would be amusing if his view points were not so utterly bizarre, ill informed and clouded in obvious bias. For a bloke who voted to drag the UK out of the EU, but spends half the year outside his "beloved" UK sitting inside an EU country, then spends the rest of the year denigrating a system which has given him freedoms he's previously enjoyed for years he thought would only ever apply 'one way' and he would enjoy 'specialty' and exemption as a Colonialist 'patriot', i'm beginning to think Malc had a point when he mentioned last week Pelmet maybe regretting leaving. After all he's slowly beginning to realise both the actions he voted for as well as the government he wanted, have not only gone pear shaped, but they're being held to account.....and they don't 'do' accountability seeking only to blameshift every time something goes tits up.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2020-05-21 9:22 AM

 

Come on Dave, you're being incredibly slow! Those are restrictions permissible within the freedom of movement regs, for the reasons stated in each case. The only reason it "seems to you" is because you have either not read what is there, or have not understood (yet again :-)) what you have read. Take the blinkers off.

 

The UK was not introducing a restriction on qualifying grounds. We were attempting to relax a legally compliant quarantine regulation. This would benefit of specifically France - and thereby discriminate unfairly against all other EU member states). We could introduce the exemption, but only if it applied equally to all other EU states.

 

Surely you understand the difference between a restriction imposed for national health reasons, and a relaxation that appears to have only a selectively beneficial trade reason?. It is that favourable discrimination that breaches the regs. How many times do I have to repeat the same, simple, point? Strewth! :-(

 

Yet curiously we can allow the Irish to have free movement because it was a pre EU agreement ;-) ........

 

Perhaps Boris should tell the EU France also has a pre EU agreement ..........signed in 1066 at Hastings >:-) ..........

 

 

[teflon2]

Brian Kirby - 2020-05-21 9:22 AM

 

Come on Dave, you're being incredibly slow! Those are restrictions permissible within the freedom of movement regs, for the reasons stated in each case. The only reason it "seems to you" is because you have either not read what is there, or have not understood (yet again :-)) what you have read. Take the blinkers off.

 

The UK was not introducing a restriction on qualifying grounds. We were attempting to relax a legally compliant quarantine regulation. This would benefit of specifically France - and thereby discriminate unfairly against all other EU member states). We could introduce the exemption, but only if it applied equally to all other EU states.

 

Surely you understand the difference between a restriction imposed for national health reasons, and a relaxation that appears to have only a selectively beneficial trade reason?. It is that favourable discrimination that breaches the regs. How many times do I have to repeat the same, simple, point? Strewth! :-(

 

 

 

Brian you accuse Dave of not understanding but if you actually read his list you will find at least 2 discrepancy's Germany has closed their sea border with Denmark but not with the UK.

France has closed all internal borders but not their sea border with the UK, guess what we live on an island all our borders with the EU countries are sea borders so what borders are concerned with us ?

Ireland being an unusual variation.