Brexit?

[The Real Maroonblood]

More to the point who is well respected?

The ones that anyone agrees with.

[Cade]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/brexit-may-blocked-unilateral-offer-for-eu-citizens-rights-last-june

[Don Dan]

Any status offered to EU nationals living in the UK must be mirrored in the other 27 EU countries where UK nationals resided. There is no way anything other than a reciprocal agreement should be accepted.

[Sraman]

Any status offered to EU nationals living in the UK must be mirrored in the other 27 EU countries where UK nationals resided. There is no way anything other than a reciprocal agreement should be accepted.

 

Talking of reciprocal, how is it that all 27 EU countries get a say but only one UK country does?

[Don Dan]

Talking of reciprocal, how is it that all 27 EU countries get a say but only one UK country does?

Good question. The answer is easy though, the U.K. is the member state and not the individual countries which make up the UK.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sraman]

Good question. The answer is easy though, the U.K. is the member state and not the individual countries which make up the UK.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Times have changed though. When we went in we only had one parliament, now three of the four countries have their own parliament/assembly but none of these are involved in Brexit or allowed any input. In fact not even Westminster is allowed any input, it's only the Tories who, so far, have shown they have nothing to input.

[Don Dan]

Times have changed though. When we went in we only had one parliament, now three of the four countries have their own parliament/assembly but none of these are involved in Brexit or allowed any input. In fact not even Westminster is allowed any input, it's only the Tories who, so far, have shown they have nothing to input.

Apart from regional parliaments which ostensibly look after local issues each member of the U.K. have seats in Westminster, they all have a vote and will have a vote at the end of the negotiations.

The Tories have laid out their plans which for some reason [emoji848] the opposition seem to conveniently choose to ignore.

Take today's stumbling block, EU citizens rights. it's a well known fact May wanted equal rights for the EU and UK citizens. Others wanted to offer EU rights first and worry about UK expats at another time. Totally unfair IMO.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Unknown user]

Any status offered to EU nationals living in the UK must be mirrored in the other 27 EU countries where UK nationals resided. There is no way anything other than a reciprocal agreement should be accepted.

It will be, but there's no need to be sabre rattley about it - negotiations require goodwill and cooperation, not ultimatums from the start

[Don Dan]

It will be, but there's no need to be sabre rattley about it - negotiations require goodwill and cooperation, not ultimatums from the start

Totally agree however the vibes from Junker and Tusk are anything but.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jake]

The EU.

 

 

Yeah bigger state more control.

 

All carted by those who in theory support the opposite.

 

What a job done by the left.

[jake]

Up is down

[frankblack]

Am I correct in reading that the EU want its citizens living in the UK to have legal matters decided by the European Court of Justice?

 

How can those nutters seriously think that is a workable proposal when the supreme court is the highest court of the land? Imagine say as an employer you sacked an EU citizen and they took you to court in Belgium or wherever instead of the local court. Seems like the EU want it all their own way - free movement of people, legal system, and a big fat payoff .

[jake]

Declare all eu obsolete.

Renew legislation on proven trade dealswith workable options

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Am I correct in reading that the EU want its citizens living in the UK to have legal matters decided by the European Court of Justice?

 

How can those nutters seriously think that is a workable proposal when the supreme court is the highest court of the land? Imagine say as an employer you sacked an EU citizen and they took you to court in Belgium or wherever instead of the local court. Seems like the EU want it all their own way - free movement of people, legal system, and a big fat payoff .

 

You are correct, the EU want the European Court of Justice to take precedence over British Courts, even after the UK leaves the EU.

 

How is that even workable when the UK wouldn't be in the EU and therefore the European Court would have no legal basis or authority within the UK once we leave.

 

It strikes me that the EU wants to still to be able to influence British law after the UK leaves the EU. 

[Ulysses]

EU not convinced by an ill-conceived and vaguely-worded "offer" on residency that would make matters worse for almost four million Europeans.

 

Quelle surprise.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

EU not convinced by an ill-conceived and vaguely-worded "offer" on residency that would make matters worse for almost four million Europeans.

 

Quelle surprise.

 

That is no shock to me either.

 

If the UK gave the EU every single thing they demanded they'd still come back and say it wasn't enough.

[Ulysses]

If the UK gave the EU every single thing they demanded they'd still come back and say it wasn't enough.

 

Ah we would, in fairness.

 

We also would say it was enough if the UK didn't give us every single thing we demanded.  But first of all we have to stake our claims and set out our lines, as the UK has to stake its claims and set out its lines; that's how it goes in major-league negotiations.

 

Early days yet.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Ah we would, in fairness.

 

We also would say it was enough if the UK didn't give us every single thing we demanded.  But first of all we have to stake our claims and set out our lines, as the UK has to stake its claims and set out its lines; that's how it goes in major-league negotiations.

 

Early days yet.

 

If the situations were reversed, if there were only 1 Million EU citizens in the UK and 3 Million UK citizens in the EU, would the EU be playing hard ball then, i very much doubt it.

 

But yes i agree, it's early days and there is often a lot political posturing from all sides catering to their domestic electorate.

 

I've said it before that what politicians say to the camera's is often very different to what they say behind closed doors.

[Cade]

Treeza still saying that control of immigration is the key demand.

 

EU have said all along that the 4 freedoms (people, goods, capital and services) are non-negotiable, indivisible and must be taken as all-or-nothing.

 

Many financial service providers are already drawing up plans to leave for Frankfurt or Paris, with many others likely to follow in their wake.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Treeza still saying that control of immigration is the key demand.

 

EU have said all along that the 4 freedoms (people, goods, capital and services) are non-negotiable, indivisible and must be taken as all-or-nothing.

 

Many financial service providers are already drawing up plans to leave for Frankfurt or Paris, with many others likely to follow in their wake.

 

Even if that were to happen it would still be a decade at least for Frankfurt or Paris to come even close to the infrastructure and investment portfolios that London has.

 

I can't remember exactly who said this, but i know it was from a German financial journalist several months ago during an interview, probably on Sky News, it was later backed up by a regular financial contributor on sky, whose name escapes me right now.

 

It was in response to exactly what you are saying that financial companies where making plans to pull out of London and both basically rubbished it saying that it would take Frankfurt or Paris many years to even get close to the stature and level that London has.

 

I don't know whether what they said was true or not.

[Ulysses]

If the situations were reversed, if there were only 1 Million EU citizens in the UK and 3 Million UK citizens in the EU, would the EU be playing hard ball then, i very much doubt it.

 

But yes i agree, it's early days and there is often a lot political posturing from all sides catering to their domestic electorate.

 

I've said it before that what politicians say to the camera's is often very different to what they say behind closed doors.

 

 

 

We didn't create this mess.  The UK did.  It's a pity, and we'll just have to see what can be salvaged from it.

 

But as they go to work on the task, we expect our negotiators to look after our interests, not the UK's interests.  I'm sure the UK negotiators can look after the UK's interests.

 

There are obvious places the negotiations will have to lead both sides, though it will take some time for the parties to recognise and accept that.  But they will; that's politics for you.

[Ibrahim Tall]

There was always going to have to be a qualifying period and a cut off date, simply because if you didn't have one and say it was every EU citizen in the UK at the date of us leaving could then stay and enjoy everything free in the UK which we currently do, well just imagine the millions who potentially could then flood into the UK.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40376083

 

Of course the EU has to reciprocate the offer for UK citizens living in EU countries as well now.

Never understood that argument, why would millions suddenly 'flood' in prior to Brexit. At present those same millions are perfectly entitled to move to UK hassle free but simply don't want to, why does anyone think an increasingly right wing UK that's about to exit the EU and who even the most optimistic 'leaver' will admit is going to to take a hit over the next 5-10 years would somehow be more appealing?

[Cade]

1 Trillion Euros passes through the City of London every single day as London houses the main clearing services of the EU banks.

 

This massive amount of money will more than likely be routed through Frankfurt instead after Brexit.

 

But at least we can keep out the darkies, eh?

[Francis Albert]

Never understood that argument, why would millions suddenly 'flood' in prior to Brexit. At present those same millions are perfectly entitled to move to UK hassle free but simply don't want to, why does anyone think an increasingly right wing UK that's about to exit the EU and who even the most optimistic 'leaver' will admit is going to to take a hit over the next 5-10 years would somehow be more appealing?

If the UK is "increasingly right wing" what explains the swing to the left in the election?

[Francis Albert]

1 Trillion Euros passes through the City of London every single day as London houses the main clearing services of the EU banks.

 

This massive amount of money will more than likely be routed through Frankfurt instead after Brexit.

 

But at least we can keep out the darkies, eh?

 

The only immigration Brexit may directly affect is overwhelmingly white immigration from the EU , mainly from Eastern Europe. It's nothing to do with keeping out "the darkies". And the dependence of not only European banks but also EU nations and EU companies on raising finance in London is why London will continue to perform this function. The EU will not risk its still mainly fragile economies and national finances by taking the risk that Frankfurt can or will rapidly replicate the City of London. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The ECJ supremacy is a nonsense given that even those who hold the right to EU citizenship within the UK, i.e. anyone living in Northern Ireland via an Irish passport through the Good Friday Agreement, still need to know who the supreme legal authority is of the country. This should be the UK Supreme Court.

[Rocco_Jambo]

Never understood that argument, why would millions suddenly 'flood' in prior to Brexit. At present those same millions are perfectly entitled to move to UK hassle free but simply don't want to, why does anyone think an increasingly right wing UK that's about to exit the EU and who even the most optimistic 'leaver' will admit is going to to take a hit over the next 5-10 years would somehow be more appealing?

Why do you think an increasingly right wing Uk would suddenly make it less appealing to EU immigrants when the country with the highest number of EU immigrants in the UK has elected its own right wing government?

[Maroon Sailor]

1 Trillion Euros passes through the City of London every single day as London houses the main clearing services of the EU banks.

 

This massive amount of money will more than likely be routed through Frankfurt instead after Brexit.

 

But at least we can keep out the darkies, eh?

About time you thought about immigrating yourself to put yourself out of your misery.

 

How about a one way ticket to Kabul ? You can spend all day apologising for the nasty British government.

 

Oh wait that won't do either cos you'll have nothing to moan about then

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 Trillion Euros passes through the City of London every single day as London houses the main clearing services of the EU banks.

 

This massive amount of money will more than likely be routed through Frankfurt instead after Brexit.

 

But at least we can keep out the darkies, eh?

 

That must be bordering on a racist comment.

 

Maybe you want to "keep out the darkies" but please don't include me in the 'we' part of your racist sentence.

 

FWIW I have no issue about people coming to the UK and working, in fact I've said that on numerous occasions previously and colour doesn't even come into it, but it obviously seems to matter to you.

 

 

 

 

 

[Maroon Sailor]

That must be bordering on a racist comment.

 

Maybe you want to "keep out the darkies" but please don't include me in the 'we' part of your racist sentence.

 

FWIW I have no issue about people coming to the UK and working, in fact I've said that on numerous occasions previously and colour doesn't even come into it, but it obviously seems to matter to you.

I've often wondered how he blasts these things out. Says more about his mindset than anything else.

 

I've said before he'd be a good character in a Harry Enfield sketch. Mr over reaction to everything

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I've often wondered how he blasts these things out. Says more about his mindset than anything else.

 

I've said before he'd be a good character in a Harry Enfield sketch. Mr over reaction to everything

 

I don't understand what the colour of someone's skin has to do with the City of London and it's financial institutions, absolutely nothing whatsoever as far as I can see.

 

Why even bring something like that up, as you say you have to sometimes wonder what goes through people's minds to even think like that?

 

[Ulysses]

The ECJ supremacy is a nonsense....

 

There are four million people in the Union who have rights, particularly rights derived from the four freedoms, that are ultimately vindicated by the ECJ.  Taking that away from them is a deprivation of their rights, and the Union doesn't want that to happen, which means it wants some solution to be found.

 

That means it isn't a nonsense.  It's a major concern about the deprivation of the civil rights of millions of people, including three million of our people who live in the UK, and that concern has to be addressed in the negotiations by one means or another.

 

 

 

In other news, Andrea Leadsom has called on broadcasters to be "more patriotic" when reporting on Brexit. 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40386788/brexit-tory-mp-leadsom-says-broadcasters-should-be-patriotic

 

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

There are four million people in the Union who have rights, particularly rights derived from the four freedoms, that are ultimately vindicated by the ECJ. Taking that away from them is a deprivation of their rights, and the Union doesn't want that to happen, which means it wants some solution to be found.

 

That means it isn't a nonsense. It's a major concern about the deprivation of the civil rights of millions of people, including three million of our people who live in the UK, and that concern has to be addressed in the negotiations by one means or another.

 

 

 

In other news, Andrea Leadsom has called on broadcasters to be "more patriotic" when reporting on Brexit.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40386788/brexit-tory-mp-leadsom-says-broadcasters-should-be-patriotic

 

 

 

Essentially it's an attempt to maintain ECJ jurisdiction over UK law. It's one of the fundamental reasons why I would have voted for Brexit as it means the country isn't sovereign.

[Cade]

Essentially it's an attempt to maintain ECJ jurisdiction over UK law. It's one of the fundamental reasons why I would have voted for Brexit as it means the country isn't sovereign.

So by that fuzzy logic, you denounce ALL international law?

[Rocco_Jambo]

There are four million people in the Union who have rights, particularly rights derived from the four freedoms, that are ultimately vindicated by the ECJ. Taking that away from them is a deprivation of their rights, and the Union doesn't want that to happen, which means it wants some solution to be found.

 

That means it isn't a nonsense. It's a major concern about the deprivation of the civil rights of millions of people, including three million of our people who live in the UK, and that concern has to be addressed in the negotiations by one means or another.

 

 

 

In other news, Andrea Leadsom has called on broadcasters to be "more patriotic" when reporting on Brexit.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40386788/brexit-tory-mp-leadsom-says-broadcasters-should-be-patriotic

 

 

 

It's the equivalent of the RUK requesting that the Uk Supreme Court maintain supremacy over civil matters in an independent Scotland that affect rUK citizens.

 

Crazy.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So by that fuzzy logic, you denounce ALL international law?

No, that's just shit logic by you.

 

The ECJ was part of the Treaty of Rome and the UK accepted that when it joined. It is now revoking the Treaty of Rome as part of the Repeal Bill. Therefore, the ECJ should no longer be a supranational Supreme Court for UK law.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

It's the equivalent of the RUK requesting that the Uk Supreme Court maintain supremacy over civil matters in an independent Scotland that affect rUK citizens.

 

Crazy.

Exactly this.

 

Or the equivalent of a banker from the US being convicted in London and demanding an appeal to the US Supreme Court as a legal right.

[Ulysses]

It's the equivalent of the RUK requesting that the Uk Supreme Court maintain supremacy over civil matters in an independent Scotland that affect rUK citizens.

 

Crazy.

 

The European Union is concerned about the rights of its citizens, and the rights of British citizens.  It is not interested in woolly-minded and vaguely-worded suggestions; it wants guarantees and commitments that the rights of European Union citizens living in Britain will not be made worse, and it is clearly saying that it wants to put in place guarantees and commitments that the rights of British citizens living in the EU will not be worsened.   It also turns out that the number of people affected is closer to 5 million than the 4 million I suggested.  That's not crazy, that's looking after the rights of people.  Well done to the Union for sticking up for those rights, and the negotiations would go a whole lot better if the British side would start paying attention to the rights of citizens instead of cat-farting about as it has done up to now.

[Ulysses]

So by that fuzzy logic, you denounce ALL international law?

 

In fairness, it isn't an issue of international law, or international institutions.  It's an issue of acquired rights, and the EU's objective that those rights should not be stripped away from people who have already got them.

 

It's also got nothing to do with sovereignty or Brexit.  The people who voted for Brexit won, so that's the end of that debate.  The British say they wish to do a deal with Europe that would give the British preferential access to the markets of the Union - better access than everyone else outside the European Economic Area.  If the British really want that, then they are going to have to give something back. 

 

If they don't want to give something back, then they shouldn't do a deal.  As a sovereign nation the UK is entirely free to do that.  For our part we are entirely free to do a deal, not do a deal, or set down our markers for a deal.  We used to have to take the UK's views into account when we did that, which meant pooling a bit of our sovereignty with the UK.  But we don't any more.  We didn't make that change - the UK did.

 

C'est la vie.

[Rocco_Jambo]

The European Union is concerned about the rights of its citizens, and the rights of British citizens. It is not interested in woolly-minded and vaguely-worded suggestions; it wants guarantees and commitments that the rights of European Union citizens living in Britain will not be made worse, and it is clearly saying that it wants to put in place guarantees and commitments that the rights of British citizens living in the EU will not be worsened. It also turns out that the number of people affected is closer to 5 million than the 4 million I suggested. That's not crazy, that's looking after the rights of people. Well done to the Union for sticking up for those rights, and the negotiations would go a whole lot better if the British side would start paying attention to the rights of citizens instead of cat-farting about as it has done up to now.

That's the epitome of wooly minded and a vaguely worded suggestion bearing no relation to the reality of what this would involve

 

10 years from now different laws, case law, regulations will develop differently between UK law and EU law whose to say what is the best system or whose rights are best?

 

It's ludicrous to suggest that the ECJ should when it ends up being a foreign jurisdiction to the UK still have superiority over UK courts and laws in relation to its citizens who have decided to remain in the UK.

 

One of the most basic principles of modern legal systems is equality before the law yet the EU seems to want the UK to agree to creating a two tier system where EU citizens can not only enforce their rights in UK courts under UK law but also at the ECJ under EU law.

 

How can you have a situation where EU citizens have different rights under their contract of employement but UK citizens or non EU or Uk citizens have different rights under their contract of employment?

 

The irony is is that the EU is asking the Uk to agree to something which is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010 but also the EU's own Racial Equality Directive by trying to create a situation where a persons rights in the UK differ based on their nationality.

[Ulysses]

That's the epitome of wooly minded and a vaguely worded suggestion bearing no relation to the reality of what this would involve

 

10 years from now different laws, case law, regulations will develop differently between UK law and EU law whose to say what is the best system or whose rights are best?

 

It's ludicrous to suggest that the ECJ should when it ends up being a foreign jurisdiction to the UK still have superiority over UK courts and laws in relation to its citizens who have decided to remain in the UK.

 

One of the most basic principles of modern legal systems is equality before the law yet the EU seems to want the UK to agree to creating a two tier system where EU citizens can not only enforce their rights in UK courts under UK law but also at the ECJ under EU law.

 

How can you have a situation where EU citizens have different rights under their contract of employement but UK citizens or non EU or Uk citizens have different rights under their contract of employment?

 

The irony is is that the EU is asking the Uk to agree to something which is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010 but also the EU's own Racial Equality Directive by trying to create a situation where a persons rights in the UK differ based on their nationality.

 

The European Union's position is clear; the acquired rights of its citizens should not be diminished.  If the UK doesn't wish to agree to that, it doesn't have to.

 

The Union gets to say whose system is best, because it is protecting the acquired rights of its citizens.  If the UK subsequently develops a better set of protections the ECJ will have no choice but to recognise that, so our citizens won't end up any worse off.

 

All the pejorative language in the world won't alter a simple fact; the UK can dictate its own departure from the European Union, but it can't dictate a subsequent agreement on access to the Union's markets.

 

If you don't want to deal, don't deal.

[Rocco_Jambo]

The European Union's position is clear; the acquired rights of its citizens should not be diminished. If the UK doesn't wish to agree to that, it doesn't have to.

 

The Union gets to say whose system is best, because it is protecting the acquired rights of its citizens. If the UK subsequently develops a better set of protections the ECJ will have no choice but to recognise that, so our citizens won't end up any worse off.

 

All the pejorative language in the world won't alter a simple fact; the UK can dictate its own departure from the European Union, but it can't dictate a subsequent agreement on access to the Union's markets.

 

If you don't want to deal, don't deal.

Of course our citizens will be worse off. If an EU citizen can exercise its rights under UK law in the UK courts that benefit them but also choose to exercise other rights in the EU courts whereas Uk citizens and non EU citizens can only enforce rights according to UK law how will they not be worse off?

 

The ECJ is never going to recognise there is a better set of protections than its own law becuase if it did it would have implemented it. An EU court can't just say to someone sorry you have that right in EU law but actually we are today going to decide another jurisdictions law is better.

 

You enforce a right against another. Enforcing one persons right means potentially diminishing another persons right.

 

Under your desired scenario you could potentially have someone contracting with another where they don't know what the law is that will apply unless they know what nationality a person is first.

 

This isn't just about enforcing rights against the state. This also affects employment contracts, consumer protection law, rights against other citizens of the UK etc etc.

 

In ten years time the amount of time you have to return a toaster you have bought online from Argos could come down to your nationality under the EUs desired system.

 

And people say the Uk Brexit negotiators have shit for brains.

[Ulysses]

And people say the Uk Brexit negotiators have shit for brains.

 

Why do you have to be so insulting just because people have a different viewpoint to you?  I appreciate that it might be frustrating for you, and you probably have no experience of high-stakes negotiations, but your country got itself into this position, and realistically it now has to deal with the fallout from that.

 

The European Union does not want the rights of citizens diminished.  Now that may have some odd or unexpected consequences, and they may not be easy to deal with, but as a citizen I am pleased to see the EU emphasise it as an issue, and it needs to be dealt with.  I know European Union citizens working and living in the UK, and I don't want to see their rights reduced.  I know English people living and working in Ireland who have lived and worked in other EU countries, and I don't want to see their rights reduced.  You might not care if their rights get reduced, but I do, and I want our negotiators to care.  So fair play to them for caring, fair play to the Union for responding the way it did to the UK Prime Minister's half-baked idea, and I don't care whether that response pisses the other side in the negotiations off or not.

[Rocco_Jambo]

Why do you have to be so insulting just because people have a different viewpoint to you?  I appreciate that it might be frustrating for you, and you probably have no experience of high-stakes negotiations, but your country got itself into this position, and realistically it now has to deal with the fallout from that.

 

The European Union does not want the rights of citizens diminished.  Now that may have some odd or unexpected consequences, and they may not be easy to deal with, but as a citizen I am pleased to see the EU emphasise it as an issue, and it needs to be dealt with.  I know European Union citizens working and living in the UK, and I don't want to see their rights reduced.  I know English people living and working in Ireland who have lived and worked in other EU countries, and I don't want to see their rights reduced.  You might not care if their rights get reduced, but I do, and I want our negotiators to care.  So fair play to them for caring, fair play to the Union for responding the way it did to the UK Prime Minister's half-baked idea, and I don't care whether that response pisses the other side in the negotiations off or not.

 

I don't think I was being insulting. Are you feeling insulted? Uk Brexit negotiators have been criticised for having no clue so when the the EU negotiators also come out with similar nonsense and have no clue I don't think it's insulting to criticise them by way of a slight at both parties. It's probably the least insulting thing I could have said.

 

It's not frustrating for me. I simply have an understanding of how the law works. I couldn't care less how negotiatians  work. If a very naive EU thinks it will undermine the rules of law just because a country decided to have the audacity to the leave the EU then they can try. I just don't expect anyone with a rudimental understanding of how the law works to buy it.

[269miles]

That's the epitome of wooly minded and a vaguely worded suggestion bearing no relation to the reality of what this would involve

 

10 years from now different laws, case law, regulations will develop differently between UK law and EU law whose to say what is the best system or whose rights are best?

 

It's ludicrous to suggest that the ECJ should when it ends up being a foreign jurisdiction to the UK still have superiority over UK courts and laws in relation to its citizens who have decided to remain in the UK.

 

One of the most basic principles of modern legal systems is equality before the law yet the EU seems to want the UK to agree to creating a two tier system where EU citizens can not only enforce their rights in UK courts under UK law but also at the ECJ under EU law.

 

How can you have a situation where EU citizens have different rights under their contract of employement but UK citizens or non EU or Uk citizens have different rights under their contract of employment?

 

The irony is is that the EU is asking the Uk to agree to something which is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010 but also the EU's own Racial Equality Directive by trying to create a situation where a persons rights in the UK differ based on their nationality.

Can we turn it around and ask , as a comparison : what is to happen to UK immigrants in Europe eg Spain, lots of whom have been there for decades ?

 

Will they have rights of citizenship , rights of domicile , rights to healthcare ? Who protects their rights - UK courts ?  Why has the UK media been so quiet on this ? Why is immigration seen only as a problem in the UK ? 

 

It's no wonder EU negotiators are taking a no nonsense stand on this - it is sheer hypocricy. They will be demanding EU law because they can't trust the UK govt on anything. Brexit was a battleground that was fought and won on immigration but now the Tories are dumping everything on this - not only are we not getting rid of the 3 million who came here, we are going to allow anyone who has been here 5 years the right to stay ? So, the numbers could keep on climbing beyond what we have now ? 

 

This isn't what Brexiters voted for , is it ? 

 

 

[Ulysses]

I don't think I was being insulting. Are you feeling insulted? Uk Brexit negotiators have been criticised for having no clue so when the the EU negotiators also come out with similar nonsense and have no clue I don't think it's insulting to criticise them by way of a slight at both parties. It's probably the least insulting thing I could have said.

 

It's not frustrating for me. I simply have an understanding of how the law works. I couldn't care less how negotiatians  work. If a very naive EU thinks it will undermine the rules of law just because a country decided to have the audacity to the leave the EU then they can try. I just don't expect anyone with a rudimental understanding of how the law works to buy it.

 

You're not insulting me, you're insulting the EU position - and WADR, you are doing it for no other reason than that it's different to yours (probably coupled with some degree of political naivety).

 

UK Brexit negotiators have been criticised because so far the other side have run rings around them on the sequencing issue.  Some UK commentators have been criticised because they think the EU needs the UK more than it does, but they aren't negotiating on the UK's behalf, and in any case as Angela Merkel has pointed out the EU27 has other priorities and higher priorities.

 

I can see from the tone and language of your posts that you couldn't care less how negotiations work, and in fairness it looks like negotiations of such a high-stakes nature aren't really all that interesting to you. But that doesn't really matter.  The British government does care, and the EU does care - and they don't generally have the luxury of throwing out pejorative remarks as if they were chancers posting on a football message board.   And speaking as someone with a wee bit more than a rudimentary understanding of both negotiating and European law, these people do understand how high-stakes political negotiations work, and so far they're doing just fine, at least on our side of the table.

 

You are also missing a fundamental point of the EU's relationship with non-EU countries.  No-one gets unrestricted access to our Customs Union and Single Market unless they accept the fundamental principles of European Union law, and unless they have acceptable measures for the transposition of EU law into domestic law.  Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have all had to find ways of making sure that can be done, and they have done so.  The position of the EU is that the UK will have to do the same, or else it will have to pay for heightened access to the Union.  The UK's position is somewhat different.

 

The UK doesn't have to deal with this issue if it doesn't want to.  For example Russia doesn't, China doesn't, the United States doesn't, and Japan doesn't, and they are all exporting away to their hearts' content.  Of course those countries don't want the level of unrestricted access to the EU27's market that Britain wants, so that might have some influence on the UK's take on the matter.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Can we turn it around and ask , as a comparison : what is to happen to UK immigrants in Europe eg Spain, lots of whom have been there for decades ?

 

Will they have rights of citizenship , rights of domicile , rights to healthcare ? Who protects their rights - UK courts ? Why has the UK media been so quiet on this ? Why is immigration seen only as a problem in the UK ?

 

It's no wonder EU negotiators are taking a no nonsense stand on this - it is sheer hypocricy. They will be demanding EU law because they can't trust the UK govt on anything. Brexit was a battleground that was fought and won on immigration but now the Tories are dumping everything on this - not only are we not getting rid of the 3 million who came here, we are going to allow anyone who has been here 5 years the right to stay ? So, the numbers could keep on climbing beyond what we have now ?

 

This isn't what Brexiters voted for , is it ?

Is the UK demanding its Supreme Court be the ultimate arbiter for Spanish courts in these cases? No, no it isn't.

 

Also, for Ulysses to say this is about protecting Irish rights as much as anyone else is disingenuous. Irish citizens have never been classed as "foreigners" by the United Kingdom at any time since 1920 and beyond.

[Rocco_Jambo]

You're not insulting me, you're insulting the EU position - and WADR, you are doing it for no other reason than that it's different to yours (probably coupled with some degree of political naivety).

 

UK Brexit negotiators have been criticised because so far the other side have run rings around them on the sequencing issue. Some UK commentators have been criticised because they think the EU needs the UK more than it does, but they aren't negotiating on the UK's behalf, and in any case as Angela Merkel has pointed out the EU27 has other priorities and higher priorities.

 

I can see from the tone and language of your posts that you couldn't care less how negotiations work, and in fairness it looks like negotiations of such a high-stakes nature aren't really all that interesting to you. But that doesn't really matter. The British government does care, and the EU does care - and they don't generally have the luxury of throwing out pejorative remarks as if they were chancers posting on a football message board. And speaking as someone with a wee bit more than a rudimentary understanding of both negotiating and European law, these people do understand how high-stakes political negotiations work, and so far they're doing just fine, at least on our side of the table.

 

You are also missing a fundamental point of the EU's relationship with non-EU countries. No-one gets unrestricted access to our Customs Union and Single Market unless they accept the fundamental principles of European Union law, and unless they have acceptable measures for the transposition of EU law into domestic law. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have all had to find ways of making sure that can be done, and they have done so. The position of the EU is that the UK will have to do the same, or else it will have to pay for heightened access to the Union. The UK's position is somewhat different.

 

The UK doesn't have to deal with this issue if it doesn't want to. For example Russia doesn't, China doesn't, the United States doesn't, and Japan doesn't, and they are all exporting away to their hearts' content. Of course those countries don't want the level of unrestricted access to the EU27's market that Britain wants, so that might have some influence on the UK's take on the matter.

I think my last post and all my posts previous to it related to the EU requesting its citizens in the UK have opportunity to have EU law supersede UK law in the ECJ and how it was nonsense. I'm struggling to see how any of your above post relates to this.

 

You seem to be adopting the politician "we care" approach or the cardboard "we want it now" approach as opposed actually addressing how this would actually work whilst not being incompatible with UK and EU law.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

It's all about trust.

 

The EU obviously doesn't trust the UK Judiciary to uphold the rights of EU citizens and for the UK's part we are fiercely proud of the independence of our Judiciary.

 

So when the EU calls into question the impartiality and independence of the UK's Judiciary to uphold EU citizens rights, even when those rights will be written into UK law, we then the British, quite rightly feel aggrieved at that slur, whether intended or not, it is nonetheless a slur on the British Judicial System, little wonder then that's it's a complete non starter in the eyes of the British.

 

The solution will be a joint judicial panel made up of an equal number of UK & EU judges who will sit on a case by case basis, of course this panel will be the final adjudicator when cases can't be resolved through the normal UK judicial system.

The panel has to have both UK & EU judges, it's the only way that both the UK and EU would accept the rulings on cases passed down from the panel.

 

Personally I can't see any other solution which would satisfy the sovereignty of either the UK or the EU.

[GBJambo]

.