New answers tagged

0

Ultimately, the question is in itself an answer. Why doesn't the EU blackmail Russian oligarchs? Because Russian oligarchs are mostly people who make lots of money at the expense of the well-being and interests of Russian people, politics and interests, then invest that money in EU countries which they like to visit during their vacations. Why would you want ...


2

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no, not on home soil - unless you count joint press conferences with EU dignitaries. While Steve Melnikoff's answer shows that David Cameron did give a solo press conference accompanied by the EU flag, this was taken at the European Council headquarters in Brussels in 2010. The only examples I was able to find of ...


20

The answer to this question dates back to 2019. Theresa May's government rejected the current solution, a border in the Irish Sea, and instead proposed a "backstop" that would keep the entire UK aligned with EU rules until a better solution could be found. That proposal was soundly rejected by the UK Parliament, with both Tory and opposition MPs ...


4

Yes; May 26th - the date on which the Swiss Federal Council declined to sign the Institutional Framework Agreement (IFA) - was also the deadline for the renewal of the mutual recognition agreement (MRA) between the EU and Switzerland on medical devices. This came about due to the Medical Devices Regulation (EU) 2017/745 coming into full force on that date; ...


4

I think Ambassador Almeida was echoing Vice President Maroš Šefčovič in using the "upside down and inside out" soundbite - he used the same language in a press statement the day before (June 30th), where he unveiled a list of 'practical solutions' proposed to facilitate the implementation of the Protocol. Turning to the second part of our package: ...


36

The problem is the Brexit Trilemma. From Wikipedia: Following the Brexit referendum, the first May government decided that not only should the United Kingdom leave the European Union but also that it should leave the European Union Customs Union and the European Single Market. This meant that a customs and regulatory border would arise between the UK and ...


21

The argument appears to boil down to: the situation under the current Protocol is unsustainable, the British government feels that it would be entitled to invoke Article 16 of the Protocol, allowing it to unilaterally take action, but would prefer to proceed bilaterally with the EU to come to an agreement which both sides can be satisfied with. The ...


62

Brexit recreated/uncovered problems which the EU membership of Ireland and the UK had allowed to recede. If there are no hard borders, then people and goods can travel from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland (NI), from there to the Republic of Ireland (RoI), and from there to the rest of the EU. The Brexiteers wanted to "take back control" of ...


2

Probably not the main reason, but pretty much important for Bulgaria: Bulgarian government has hard times retaining the people (i.e. workforce) in Bulgaria. People are lost to EU countries with better economy, better security, better education and better medical services. Schengen area membership can only make things worse in regard to retaining people. That'...


19

Nothing has changed since Why are Romania's and Bulgaria's reasons for postponing entering the Schengen area considered non-technical? The process is complete and both countries are deemed ready on a technical level, the Parliament and Commission are still making noise from time to time (the last time was a month ago) and the lack of action from the ...


10

The short answer is: because some of the other member states are blocking their full integration. Despite Bulgaria and Romania fulfilling the necessary criteria and repeated calls from the European Parliament to let them join, the Schengen area has not been expanded to these two countries yet as EU national governments must unanimously decide to allow new ...


4

Not leaving the U.K. carries no dead loss transition costs and hasn't had any catastrophic negative consequences so far. Inertia is powerful and you shouldn't fix what isn't seriously broken. Not leaving the U.K. avoids unnecessary political conflict over shared resources (from national football and Olympic stars, to offshore oil and gas rights, to national ...


5

One argument that has been made is that Scotland would lose some access to the UK market, which is a major one for its economy. There seems to be some truth in that, as we have seen that Northern Ireland, which is part of the EU's economic area with a border down the Irish Sea separating it from the rest of the UK, has not been able to retain unfettered ...


8

While the UK was still in the EU, an independent Scotland remaining in the EU would also enjoy unfettered access to the rump UK market through the EU single market framework. In that scenario, it would get the best of both worlds: access to the UK market and access to the rest of the EU single market (and increased autonomy/sovereignty on other matters). ...


-2

EU membership or not would be an argument hotly debated by the media, but far less important among the voters. People realised that the exit of the UK from the EU is more a formal than actual. The UK still has a lot of agreements binding it to the EU and the change for Scotland from the UK to the EU would have little economic impact.


1

...this or that US (internet) company... must adapt... since they tend to be too lax with regards to privacy protection according to EU regulations; while from the US perspective there is no problem. Why is this generally the case? Why do US citizens and companies tend to be less concerned about privacy with regards to their European counterparts? Is it due ...


Top 50 recent answers are included