Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Chaos At Dover
Thousands of coach and car passengers endured a miserable Wait .
Many of them all through the night for their much awaited Easter Holiday
Stormy weather and the French were blamed by the UK Government .
But the Brits were just getting a taste of what they signed up for with Brexit When voted to become "Third Country Nationals" in the eyes of the EU... And it can only get worse....You are no longer in the EU so you have to join the non EU queues at ports and airports You voted for it . Enjoy.
Many of them all through the night for their much awaited Easter Holiday
Stormy weather and the French were blamed by the UK Government .
But the Brits were just getting a taste of what they signed up for with Brexit When voted to become "Third Country Nationals" in the eyes of the EU... And it can only get worse....You are no longer in the EU so you have to join the non EU queues at ports and airports You voted for it . Enjoy.
Answers
As I have said before, things are going to get much, much worse with Brexit continuing to wreck havoc on the UK.
10:20 Sun 02nd Apr 2023
//It has seen quite a fall in the amount of EU tourists coming to visit Britain. because of passport control and red tape .//
I know you don’t like to trouble yourself too much with facts, but here’s some:
/www.dw.com/en/how-has-brexit-affected-britains-tourist-sector/a-64515180#:~:text=A%20report%20published%20by%20British,of%20global%20travel%20and%20tourism.
“In fact, VisitBritain figures show that 8 million people, among them almost 5 million EU nationals, visited Britain in April, May and June 2022 — not too far off the visitor numbers for the same time period in 2019.”
There is no additional passport control or red tape for visitors to the UK from the EU. The only people affected by Brexit are EU citizens without a passport who previously travelled on an EU identity card (which they now - quite rightly - cannot do). That arrangement demonstrates perfectly the abnormality of EU member nations, as allowing people to travel without a passport is distinctly odd (as is also witnessed between Ireland and the UK).
//This sector relied heavily on serving staff from Spain, Italy and Greece etc. But can no longer tap into the EU labour market.//
Which of course is another advantage of Brexit. The country should not be paying people to sit at home watching the racing on the telly whilst there are jobs available.
//In my golf club, constitutional changes need either 67% of the votes or 50% of the electorate. It gives a bit more constitutional stability ...//
No it doesn’t. What it provides is the potential for 66% of the members who voted for a change to be disappointed. It means that twice as many voters need to opt for a change than need to vote to retain the status quo. Why should a vote for the status quo carry double the weight of a vote for change?
I know you don’t like to trouble yourself too much with facts, but here’s some:
/www.dw.com/en/how-has-brexit-affected-britains-tourist-sector/a-64515180#:~:text=A%20report%20published%20by%20British,of%20global%20travel%20and%20tourism.
“In fact, VisitBritain figures show that 8 million people, among them almost 5 million EU nationals, visited Britain in April, May and June 2022 — not too far off the visitor numbers for the same time period in 2019.”
There is no additional passport control or red tape for visitors to the UK from the EU. The only people affected by Brexit are EU citizens without a passport who previously travelled on an EU identity card (which they now - quite rightly - cannot do). That arrangement demonstrates perfectly the abnormality of EU member nations, as allowing people to travel without a passport is distinctly odd (as is also witnessed between Ireland and the UK).
//This sector relied heavily on serving staff from Spain, Italy and Greece etc. But can no longer tap into the EU labour market.//
Which of course is another advantage of Brexit. The country should not be paying people to sit at home watching the racing on the telly whilst there are jobs available.
//In my golf club, constitutional changes need either 67% of the votes or 50% of the electorate. It gives a bit more constitutional stability ...//
No it doesn’t. What it provides is the potential for 66% of the members who voted for a change to be disappointed. It means that twice as many voters need to opt for a change than need to vote to retain the status quo. Why should a vote for the status quo carry double the weight of a vote for change?
-- answer removed --
And call me by my correct AB Name.
Perhaps someone would like to remove your comment. Name calling is against Site Rules!
Perhaps someone would like to remove your comment. Name calling is against Site Rules!
