Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's a totally false analogy. Saskatchewan is not in another country, as you noted. That's a huge, huge difference.
There's nothing at all objectionable about a sovereign nation wanting to protect its borders and control who comes in. There are stupid extremes one could take that to that are terrible policy, like Trump's "ban all Muslims", or whatever, but it's a policy decision to have stricter, or less strict, controls on your borders that a country can legitimately make. It's not somehow a violation of a "basic European freedom" to make that policy choice and say, "here are our rules for entrance into the UK; if you don't follow them you can't come in".
|
Sure of course it's not apples to apples but isn't this kinda the whole point of the European Union? You want to be part of a Union, you need to follow the rules. You can totally decide to lock up your borders and break the Union rules that you signed up for originally (as a sovereign nation), that's Article 50. But then you can't be surprised if the other members of the Union don't let you have the privileges of the same Union.
Nevermind that as a sovereign nation, the UK signed up for the rules to join the Euro in the first place.
I don't think people are begrudging the UK for being allowed to vote and to leave and break the Euro rules. But you can't do that AND expect to keep all the benefits like unchanged access to the Euro market. And frankly, people were warning of that potential consequences well before the vote.
EDIT: It would be like us signing on for NAFTA and then voting to leave and break rules of it. We can't have the benefits of the agreement and still flaunt our ability to break the agreements that we made. Even though we would be well within our rights to certainly throw up tariffs as a sovereign nation.
Or is your objection with the semantics of somebody saying "basic European freedom" in this context?