Albania & Serbia agreed to move toward open borders between the people.
The U.K. joined in bombing Serbia over the ethnic based-conflict 20 years ago.
Now that these two nation's have leaders that are trying to open borders, we see that the U.K. is going for a "deal" that includes closed borders and no freedom of movement for dozens of (E.U.) country's people that previously COULD move to the U.K.
How many steps forward?
How many backward?
I can't add all the worldwide positives and negatives up (so I can't say if things are getting better or worse at the net level), but the recent (after the June 23, 2016 incident ) U.K. policy changes are just plain gross.
If the world is opening borders overall, then Sub-Saharan Africa gets the lion's share of credit, or I SHOULD SAY the continent collectively should.
Re: Albania & Serbia agreed to move toward open borders between the people.
I am not for closed borders, byt I am also not for unrestricted open borders. It will cause wars either way.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.” ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
OK, so what the hell just happened? What is this Letwin Amendment? From what I see this Letwin thing said Parliament would not vote on Boris’ Brexit deal until it discussed and passed the Brexit deal. Say what?
In a nutshell, the Letwin Amendment is an extra 'insurance policy' for the Benn Act, which essentially makes it clear that the Prime Minister has to ask the EU for an extension to the Article 50 deadline. The concern was that they didn't want a vote on the deal prior to the PM asking for the extension because they thought Boris might find a way to circumvent the extension request.
Interestingly, Boris has indeed sent a letter to the EU asking for an extension. But it was unsigned. He then also sent a second letter, which was signed, telling the EU that he thinks an extension is a mistake. So its an interesting case of a world leader basically sending bipolar signals to the EU.
I am actually quite curious what the EU will do at this point. From my point of view, I think it might actually be in their best interest to reject the extension request. That would put all the onus on the UK to either accept the new deal, leave without a deal or cancel Article 50.
Most of what is going right now in the UK is political maneuvering. All political parties are trying to engineer a scenario that they think will be most beneficial for them in the election that is likely to come.
The Letwin amendment requires that the house do not vote on the withdrawal agreement untill the legislation is in place.
Some MPs feared that even if the deal was voted through, without leglistation in place to to force the PM to enact the deal, he could still opt to crash out with no deal. (a possible loophole to the Benn Act). They wanted this loophole closed.
So this amendment is basically parliament making clear that they do not trust the current prime minister.
quote:The Commons Speaker has refused a government request to hold a "yes" or "no" vote on its Brexit deal.
John Bercow said a motion on the deal had already been brought before MPs on Saturday, and it would be "repetitive and disorderly" to debate it again.
Saturday's sitting saw an amended motion nodded through by MPs, which withholds approval of Boris Johnson's deal until it has been passed into law.
The PM agreed a deal with the EU last week, but it must be approved by MPs.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Bercow said he came to the decision on the basis of a parliamentary convention dating back to 1604.
He cited Parliament's rulebook, Erskine May, which says a motion that is the same "in substance" as a previous one cannot be brought back to the Commons during the course of a single parliamentary session.