Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would anyone ever deal in good faith with the UK? Haven't they proved they can't be in an alliance without whining profusely at every turn?
When you consider the alliance is the 'EU' then you shouldn't really be surprised no? Tell me, how would you like to be ruled by un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels?
Why don't the USA and Canada does not have freedom of movement of people, just like Australia and New Zealand?
It's not absolute freedom of movement, though. Immigration checks are in place so people can certainly be denied entry or deported, and if New Zealanders aren't eligible for any "regular" visa types, they can only enter Australia via a special category visa which is a temporary visa that doesn't provide resident status or rights.
Last edited by Bakery Hill; 12-24-2017 at 03:47 AM..
When you consider the alliance is the 'EU' then you shouldn't really be surprised no? Tell me, how would you like to be ruled by un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels?
But there is an elected European Parliament to which those bureaucrats are answerable?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,186 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
Why would anyone ever deal in good faith with the UK? Haven't they proved they can't be in an alliance without whining profusely at every turn?
It's always very amusing when Americans criticise us for leaving an organisation they would never ever consider joining.
The US would never be ruled over by foreign courts that could overrule it's constitution and make decisions regarding trade, borders, immigration etc, nor would the US ever give up the dollar or be ruled over by a foreign parliament.
In terms of free trade, it is the one area which we did support, however been ruled over by an unelected commission and a foreign parliament is a lot different to just being part of a free trade organisation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telegraph
There is no country in the world that defends its own sovereignty with such hysterical vigilance as the United States of America. This is a nation born from its glorious refusal to accept overseas control.
Almost two and a half centuries ago the American colonists rose up and violently asserted the principle that they – and they alone – should determine the government of America, and not George III or his ministers.
To this day the Americans refuse to kneel to almost any kind of international jurisdiction. Alone of Western nations, the US declines to accept that its citizens can be subject to the rulings of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
They have not even signed up to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Can you imagine the Americans submitting their democracy to the kind of regime that we have in the EU?
Think of Nafta – the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement – that links the US with Canada and Mexico. Suppose it were constituted on the lines of the EU, with a commission and a parliament and a court of justice.
Would the Americans knuckle under – to a Nafta commission and parliament generating about half their domestic law? Would they submit to a Nafta court of justice – supreme over all US institutions – and largely staffed by Mexicans and Canadians whom the people of the US could neither appoint nor remove? No way.
The idea is laughable, and completely alien to American traditions. So why is it essential for Britain to comply with a system that the Americans would themselves reject out of hand? Is it not a blatant case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?
America would never join anything like the EU. Yet they urge us to stay
The average Trump voter doesn’t like Congress, but would hate an expensive international parliament even more
How would Americans like it if we argued that it is in our interests that the United States should forthwith be united with all the countries in their continent north of the Panama Canal — Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama — into a vast customs union governed by a trans-national, unelected civil service. Let’s call it the American Union, or AU.
Imagine that Britain’s Foreign Secretary has just made a speech in Toronto saying he thinks America should join the AU in order to influence Mexico in the direction of free trade.
The great and the good in America agree, because they think being part of the ten-country AU will prevent war, boost trade, help smaller nations compete with the behemoths of Europe and China, enable free movement of people, stand up to Russia, encourage scientific co-operation and ensure environmental protection.
Above all, we argue, it would show the world that America is not small-minded, xenophobic, protectionist and isolationist.
To this end we think the AU should — er — agree a common tariff against imports from the poorer countries of South America and have free movement of peoples within but not from outside the union.
We also think the United States should give up the dollar and use a common currency issued in central America, called the auro, sometimes known as the oreo, or if it is not ready to do that, should encourage others to use the auro, even though there is limited fiscal harmonisation, which bodes ill for the single currency.
Oh, and the flag of the AU, consisting of ten radial yellow stripes on a blue background, should be prominently displayed alongside the Stars and Stripes.
Unfortunately, in the current political climate, it turns out that these manifest advantages, deliciously attractive though they might be to the American elite, because they offer an escape from having to think about people in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, apparently do not have quite the same appeal to the American electorate.
People are worried about Mexicans taking their jobs, using their health care and drawing upon their welfare if they join the AU. And about Panamanians running up deficits, Guatemalans passing laws that affect Americans and Nicaraguans sharing a common foreign policy.
The average Trump voter might not like Congress much, but he likes the idea of an expensive international parliament that shuttles between Mexico City and Vancouver even less, and of an international executive whose directives pass automatically into law still less, let alone one whose corridors of power are positively seething with lobbyists from big business and big pressure groups (funded by the AU to lobby it).
As for the idea that the US Supreme Court could be overruled by judges sitting in Toronto or Managua…
It's not absolute freedom of movement, though. Immigration checks are in place so people can certainly be denied entry or deported, and if New Zealanders aren't eligible for any "regular" visa types, they can only enter Australia via a special category visa which is a temporary visa that doesn't provide resident status or rights.
If you move to Australia as a New Zealand citizen you won't automatically get permanent residency status in Australia — you'll have a special category of visa that means you can live, study or work in Australia for as long as you like.
However those that have criminal convictions can be forbidden to live in Australia. Depends on the crime and the sentence.
The temporary visa allows a New Zealand citizen to remain indefinitely and live, work or study in Australia lawfully as long as that person remains a New Zealand citizen. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about...ct-sheets/17nz
US and Canada don't have that agreement and moving from the US into Canada requires you to have either investments or family there, possess a job skill that Canadians themselves lack, claim refugee status (good luck with that), enroll in school, or convince an actual Canadian to marry you
It's not absolute freedom of movement, though. Immigration checks are in place so people can certainly be denied entry or deported, and if New Zealanders aren't eligible for any "regular" visa types, they can only enter Australia via a special category visa which is a temporary visa that doesn't provide resident status or rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99
If you move to Australia as a New Zealand citizen you won't automatically get permanent residency status in Australia — you'll have a special category of visa that means you can live, study or work in Australia for as long as you like.
However those that have criminal convictions can be forbidden to live in Australia. Depends on the crime and the sentence.
The temporary visa allows a New Zealand citizen to remain indefinitely and live, work or study in Australia lawfully as long as that person remains a New Zealand citizen. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about...ct-sheets/17nz
Very different to the situations for Australians who choose to live in NZ - no specials visas, immediate right to benefits, able to vote, no police state detention due to association.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
