But here's the rub. The UK never gave that up.
England (and by default Ireland) are not in the Schengen accord[1].
You cannot get into the UK from Europe without passing border control and showing your passport (Id for some countries).
Even if you stretch that argument (our borders are porous and any EU citizen can move the UK to work) that argument still doesn't wash.
You have to be documented and all.
The UK never gave up control of their borders.
Although other documentation, like national ID cards will do, they can cause trouble. I don't know if it's official policy or what, but I travel by land and sea around the EU very often and I've had problems with over-zealous border officials many a time.
For instance, I've been delayed twice at the French border from and to the UK by French officials, who pretended they couldn't determine whether my Greek national ID card is valid (allegedly, because it doesn't have an expiration date; Greek ID cards currently don't) and kept repeating that "if you had a passport, things would have been so much easier, now we have to call a specialist to examine this document" wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
[The funny thing is, I was travelling with my cousin's ID card by mistake, but they didn't realise because we look very much like each other- "specialist" guy, my arse]
So while officially you can travel without a passport in the Schengen area, in practice, you better have some ID.
I agree that you never should travel without ID, but not accepting a Greek id just borders on ridiculous.
I very rarely had to show ID on inter-Schengen flights. But I'm certainly not stupid enough to not carry one.
The only European country where I actually carry my passport is England. Since you can't use the automated gates with an ID. But I never had trouble with my (Swiss) id.
That's what agreements and accords are for.
Or are you suggesting that UK unilaterally grants rights, which they don't receive in return?
Ironically, the UK was one of the most open and welcoming countries, when ex eastern European countries were granted the freedom of movement.
They took a lot of opt outs, from the Euro to parts of judical agreements and then some from the EU.
They could also have opted out to some extent. But probably the lure of cheap employees sounded just too good to be true.
'Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.'
Sounds to me like a pretty conclusive definition.
but the funny man with the silly hair said we did! he said it on TV and the daily mail said it as well!! i trust him as he says we have a plan, plus one time he got stuck on a zipwire - that's so relatable! what a nice down to earth guy.
The funny man who was caught in multiple lies, when he was Brussels correspondent for The Telegraph? So brazen and repeated that not even The Telegraph could keep him on?
Funny man, indeed. Alas with grave consequences for the whole country.
It seems short cited to simply measure internal numbers and then face larger markets as a group of smaller fragmented markets....
But the actual approach to withdrawal was always going to be incredibly complex. There are obvious, valid reasons for staying in the EU and obvious, valid reasons for leaving the EU. Almost any headline coming from Europe is going to be anti-Brexit; almost every headline about the issue is going to be highly biased.
The pro-Brexit arguments assume that the UK was getting less than it was giving to the EU - sacrificing money, border sovereignty, financial sovereignty for economic incentives that the UK is likely able to negotiate for anyway. The anti-Brexit arguments coming from outside of the UK are mostly impassioned moral attacks insulting anti-globalists, or fearmongering.
The EU has been on a slow decline, and the Brexit may hasten that decline, along with renewed trade pressure from the US and China. Britain holds more cards than every other EU nation besides Germany. It doesn't make sense for them to lend their weight to non-contributing economies.