Brexit discussion thread II

breatheme

Firblog wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK?  Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

It's because the EU doesn't trust the UK courts with the rights of its citizens.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

True, but I don't know how unionists can vote for something that can weaken their union? This will do more damage to the North than the IRA did. I'm surprised Sinn Fein didn't campaign for it.

The DUP's Wiki page describes their ideology as:

British nationalism
British unionism
Conservatism
National conservatism
Right-wing populism
Social conservatism
Euroscepticism

So they're simply following their principles. Our mutual friend's wish to cut off his leg to achieve Brexit epitomises the DUP's willingness to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Firblog

breatheme wrote: »

It's because the EU doesn't trust the UK courts with the rights of its citizens.

Yet they don't look for the same rights for EU citizens in any other country? Russia, China, Saudi, Syria etc

They must really have a poor opinion of UK courts from some reason, even though the laws they adjudicate on have been enacted by a democratically elected parliament, unlike the countries mentioned above.

Seems like another indication of the EU's much noted love of democracy

FrancieBrady

Firblog wrote: »

Yet they don't look for the same rights for EU citizens in any other country? Russia, China, Saudi, Syria etc

They must really have a poor opinion of UK courts from some reason, even though the laws they adjudicate on have been enacted by a democratically elected parliament, unlike the countries mentioned above.

Seems like another indication of the EU's much noted love of democracy

They are negotiating a deal. The UK are looking for some things in that deal and the EU want some things in return. Simple really

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

Yet they don't look for the same rights for EU citizens in any other country? Russia, China, Saudi, Syria etc

They must really have a poor opinion of UK courts from some reason, even though the laws they adjudicate on have been enacted by a democratically elected parliament, unlike the countries mentioned above.

Seems like another indication of the EU's much noted love of democracy

But EU citizens did not move to Russia, China or Saudi under the rules set out in a treaty, hence why free movement is called treaty rights. If a citizen of the EU wishes to move outside the area that is covered by EU law that is their choice.

But as A France national who moved to the U.K. did so under the protection of the treaties and directives then it is not surprising that the EU wanted to make sure that persons rights are protected just like it wants to protect the EU/UK citizen who moved to Spain and expects to retain his property rights and right to draw his pension in Spain, the EU also wants to make sure spain does not use Spanish law to make political gain, so in such a case in the future the U.K. citizens rights in Spain will be protected by EU Courts even after the motherland has left the EU.

Turkey is an example where by agreement with the EU certain movement rights are protected not by day UK or Irish law or Turkish law but by EU law.

Charles Babbage

Firblog wrote: »

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

That's the basis on which these people came to England, the "contract" can be changed for new arrivals, but not for people already there.

View

Firblog wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

The U.K. is asking for a deal so that ITS citizens continue to be treated as EU citizens with all associated rights AFTER the U.K. leaves the EU and they are no longer EU citizens. One of those rights would be that their (U.K.) citizens, who are living in EU countries, would be able to take any legal complaints to the ECJ.

The quid pro quo of that is the EU also wants its citizens, who are living in the U.K., to also be able to take any of their legal complaints to the ECJ.

Since the ECJ is the final audicator of the rights of EU citizens that position is reasonable. What would not be reasonable would be a deal where one group of citizens has access to the ECJ but the other is denied it. Such a deal basically amount to a proposal by the U.K. to treat EU citizens like all other non-EU ones.

Or, of course, we just forego such an agreement and have the UK process EU citizens - all 3 million + - as foreign nationals, and have the EU process all U.K. citizens as “third country nationals” - after giving preference to EU citizens first - and then give them no more preference than the citizens of Brazil or Burkina Faso.

sink

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Britain must take back control - no true Englishman wants Slovenians, Latvians or Turks deciding its laws. Especially the Turks. Such an idea is clearly nonsense and the EEC went too far when it started letting in more than the original 9 that we were in 1973.

Nationalists such as yourself have completely different first principles to my own and other internationalists.

Nations, culture and ethnicity are transient, existing only momentarily and forever changing and evolving. Your parents and grandparents had different cultural beliefs and practices to your own and the further you go back in time the farther culturally removed your ancestors are from you. In fact you share far more culture with your present day European neighbours than you do with your own ancestors only 3 generations back. There was once a time when the concept of Irish, British etc, didn't exist and eventually they will cease to exist. Even the landmasses we call homelands will one day sink under the sea. So your objective of preserving a national identity is as certain of defeat as death itself.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Many of the people from those countries have never even set foot in the UK, so why should they have anything to do with making our laws ? British laws should be made in London, and I make no apology for thinking thus.

Have you visited Cornwall, Yorkshire, the Outer Hebridies? Why should you have anything to do with making the laws of anywhere you have not visited?

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

With the money we will save that is being squandered by fat French and German bureaucrats in Brussels on expense accounts, the trade deals we can make with countries all over the world without the deadweight of the EU, and being able to sell curved bananas again, we will be able to make Britain truly Great once more.

And what the parliamentary expense scandals? One could argue that that is a common cultural trait! The EU has more free trade deals in place and being negotiated than any other nation/trade block. Both those arguments fall flat under any scrutiny.

Really any of these 'technical' arguments that you put forward are just a smokescreen for what at heart is your desire to live in a culturally homogeneous state where you hope to feel a sense of inclusion. Nationalism is one of those dangerous beliefs that seek inclusion through exclusion, by dividing people along arbitrary lines and kicking anyone who doesn't 'belong' out. Some people seek inclusion through religion (which can be inclusive or exclusive) others through sport, music or even stamp collecting, practically any cultural activity that people interact and socialise. In other words nationalists need a better hobby.

FrancieBrady

sink wrote: »

Nationalists such as yourself have completely different first principles to my own and other internationalists.

Nations, culture and ethnicity are transient, existing only momentarily and forever changing and evolving. Your parents and grandparents had different cultural beliefs and practices to your own and the further you go back in time the farther culturally removed your ancestors are from you. In fact you share far more culture with your present day European neighbours than you do with your own ancestors only 3 generations back. There was once a time when the concept of Irish, British etc, didn't exist and eventually they will cease to exist. Even the landmasses we call homelands will one day sink under the sea. So your objective of preserving a national identity is as certain of defeat as death itself.



Have you visited Cornwall, Yorkshire, the Outer Hebridies? Why should you have anything to do with making the laws of anywhere you have not visited?



And what the parliamentary expense scandals? One could argue that that is a common cultural trait! The EU has more free trade deals in place and being negotiated than any other nation/trade block. Both those arguments fall flat under any scrutiny.

Really any of these 'technical' arguments that you put forward are just a smokescreen for what at heart is your desire to live in a culturally homogeneous state where you hope to feel a sense of inclusion. Nationalism is one of those dangerous beliefs that seek inclusion through exclusion, by dividing people along arbitrary lines and kicking anyone who doesn't 'belong' out. Some people seek inclusion through religion (which can be inclusive or exclusive) others through sport, music or even stamp collecting, practically any cultural activity that people interact and socialise. In other words nationalists need a better hobby.

I think you may have missed the sarcasm inherent in his/her post.

sink

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you may have missed the sarcasm inherent in his/her post.

On second reading I see I somehow skipped over the first paragraph. doh! Poe's law in action I guess.

First Up

Firblog wrote:

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

This is utter nonsense. The ECJ oversees the application of the agreement between the member states - agreements the UK signed up to.

The ECJ has no authority over any UK law other than those that affect how they impact on what was agreed as part of its EU membership.

mountaintop

First Up wrote: »

This is utter nonsense. The ECJ oversees the application of the agreement between the member states - agreements the UK signed up to.

The ECJ has no authority over any UK law other than those that affect how they impact on what was agreed as part of its EU membership.

I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored.

Igotadose

mountaintop wrote: »

I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored.

They go over to the Trump thread, spout, get drilled and disappear to surface again here. You can almost set your calendar by it.

BTW, thanks to those erudite pundits and boots-on-the-ground folks like Ambro and Calina for being patient with those of us that don't know the issues. And also thanks Solo who, whether you agree with his positions or not, is a rare boards poster willing to take a minority position and defend it, while resisting the sniping and personal attacks.

First Up

mountaintop wrote:

I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored.

I have no expectations of enlightening the posters who have an obvious agenda to pursue. However no harm in correcting their more obvious fallacies, in case others mistake them for facts.

Chips Lovell

There are far too many people personalising the debate. Play the ball, not the man. If there's any more, there will be cards.

Thanks

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please use the PM function for discussing mod warnings. Thanks.

breatheme

Firblog wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

It's because the EU doesn't trust the UK courts with the rights of its citizens.

Yet they don't look for the same rights for EU citizens in any other country? Russia, China, Saudi, Syria etc

They must really have a poor opinion of UK courts from some reason, even though the laws they adjudicate on have been enacted by a democratically elected parliament, unlike the countries mentioned above.

Seems like another indication of the EU's much noted love of democracy

Can't blame them. Hell, I have a poor opinion of UK courts. How do you explain the case of an Irish man who was born in Northern Ireland who couldn't bring her fiancée over? (In direct violation of the Good Friday Agreement, I may add. This was later fixed, though, the fact that it happened in the first place is a disgrace.)
Or this similar case from an Irish woman in Derry.
Or this Spanish woman whose husband is being threatened with deportation. Or this Polish man's wife.
The UK Home Office is an inefficient bureaucratic mess that has shown time and again that it can't be trusted. If they start issuing deportation letters not only to EU nationals, but to their spouses or children come April 2019 and there's nothing the EU can do, what kind of deal is the UK offering? As an EU citizen whose spouse faces deportation and the UK courts are not working in your favour, what do you do? Do you pack up and leave?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Deleted User wrote: »

I have access to only a piece of this Daily Telegraph article. But apparently, Britain is £490 billion 'poorer' than previously thought. Also FDI by companies is plummeting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/15/britains-missing-billions-revised-figures-reveal-uk-490bn-poorer/

As with everything like this, the reality becomes clearer with a few days. To quote from a helpful article I read online:

Simon French, chief economist of Panmure Gordon, was the first to express reservations about the brewing media storm, saying the framing of the report was a classic example of the danger of misinterpreting balance sheet headlines.

In essence, apples are being compared to oranges. The movement or readjustment relates to the country’s epic assets and liabilities, and flows of investment. Equating that movement to something entirely different GDP – Gross Domestic Product, annual economic output – tells you very little.

“The UK economy has assets and liabilities totalling over £21trillion,” says French. “Therefore a revision of £490 billion (or 2.3%) is both modest and understandable given recent large swings in the UK’s exchange rate and asset prices. Data on assets and liabilities shouldn’t be directly compared with spending figures such as GDP. Stepping back, the data actually shows the UK now has its most healthy net investment balance since 2008”.

Another economist says the difference between balance sheet items and those on an income statement is usually taught in foundation level accountancy classes.

There are some genuine concerns on the levels of FDI, Foreign Direct Investment. The last two quarters have been weak, although as French says the figures are volatile. The numbers are “lumpy” and prone to being skewed by a large single investment or two in any quarter.

Of course, all is far from perfect in the British economy. Growth is sluggish and Brexit could be tough. But if anyone tells you that, OMG, a quarter of UK GDP just disappeared, tell them no it didn’t.

Yes, the economy is subdued. The fundamentals of the economy are still faring very well despite the uncertainty.

The solution is to work hard at resolving the uncertainty and to provide a good Brexit deal. In other words, keep calm and carry on.

Calina wrote: »

From the outside, it looks like a key problem for some people at least was that having to share power within the European Union did not sit well with people who felt that Britain's place was in charge. Like when it used to be an imperial power.

Wanting to take back control of Britain's priorities isn't the same as desiring to be an empire. Again, this wasn't a stated aspiration as a part of the campaign, and it isn't a frequently noted comment amongst the people I know who voted to leave.

Calina wrote: »

Grand. Pro-Brexit supporters can stop telling the EU that it should be making its decisions purely on economic grounds then.

By deciding to leave the European Union, the UK doesn't get to decide the future course of the European Union. I don't know why you feel the need to state this.

Calina wrote: »

The referendum was incredibly badly run. It was so incompetent it almost looks like total manipulation more than anything. You're Irish so you know how it works. Here is a referendum question. If you answer A, here's what happens, if you answer B, here's what happens. A was "we stay in the European Union" and B was "no details".

The Referendum Commission set the question after David Cameron proposed the original wording of "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?".

Moreover, you're never going to be able to pre-empt the result of a negotiation before the negotiation has started.

The moaning about the result utterly boring. Remain lost. People need to get over it and accept that the result is going to be implemented. We wouldn't be having this conversation of having another referendum if the remain side won by 52%.

Calina wrote: »

The UK is making a haimse of negotiating A and has no staff to do b) even if the EU was prepared to open those discussions which they won't because so little progress is being made on a). You're not a trade negotiator iirc - your field of expertise is apparently IT and like a lot of IT people I know, you're not willing to recognise that perhaps you're not well placed to judge whether the concessions are being made. You think paying for stuff you've already committed to pay for is a concession. YOu think May's Florence speech was full of concessions. You think the current position offered by the UK as known publically represents a concession and you flatly refuse to discuss matters like Home Office being in contempt of court, sending out 100 letters to EU citizens to leave the country. You think everyone in the country at some arbitrary point in time will be allowed stay when there is scant evidence of that.

A number of points:
Firstly - you're concluding that the UK is making a haimse of negotiating because it hasn't bent to the exact negotiating strategy of the European Union. I would argue that this isn't negotiating at all. Negotiating requires playing hard ball at times. Playing hard ball means that you don't concede more than you have to later. The claim that the UK has no staff to do so is nonsense. There are 90 British negotiators in Brussels every round.

Secondly - I'm entitled to an opinion about what is happening in the country I live in irrespective of what career I happen to have. As far as I know I'm not any less qualified than you to contribute to this discussion. I think the pointed barbs about me personally are irrelevant.

Calina wrote: »

The time for the politicians to get on with their job was when they wrote the referendum legislation. If they couldnt' do that, they could have rectified

The time for the politicians to get on with their job is now. The people have given them their verdict on the European Union. It is now the job for the politicians to honour that decision in the best way possible.

Calina wrote: »

YOu don't get to use electoral fatigue as an argument. The original referendum was by the people. It is now their job to either maintain that decision or reverse it. The UK doesn't even come close to electoral fatique. The Italians could define it for you.

I can use whatever argument I wish. The fact that people have been given two polls on the nature of Brexit in a year is sufficient from my standpoint.

Calina wrote: »

I'm really sorry to say this solodeogloria but your opinion doesn't really dictate. For the few of you who "voted remain and now just want to leave" there are plenty more -thousands of them - who voted remain and are fighting hard to get this vandalism on the UK reversed. They marched the streets of Manchester in their tens of thousands a few weeks ago. The REmain demonstrations have been massive.

Protests in a country with a population the size of the UK's always look large.

Polling that I've seen seems to suggest that half of remainers just want to get on and leave. There are a lot of people like me, not just a "few". I'm behind the verdict the people left last year. The UK isn't suited to be a continuing member of the European Union.

Firblog wrote: »

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The ECJ has the following responsibilities:

"It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union and of the provisions laid down by the competent Community institutions"

In other words they, a collection of 28 judges from each member state deal with laws relating to membership of the EU. It relates to EU law, I.E the set of rules that the EU is bound by. It's not as simple as Brexiters make out, but then again what is?

Look at these last two points. steddyeddy misses the point again.

I understand what the ECJ is, as does the previous poster. The previous poster makes the clear case that I've made dozens of times on this thread. Namely, that a court of the European Union cannot and should not have jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit. Why? Because the UK is leaving the European Union. This is a very simple position.

Most of us are happy for the European Union to go in whatever direction it pleases, but the European Union has no right to direct jurisdiction in Britain after Brexit.

View wrote: »

It clearly is to do with racism.

One of primary reasons cited by Leave voters for voting Leave was immigration. So, clearly, Leave voters did have a problem with immigration. Indeed, it was no accident that Brexit proponents used immigration as a topic during the campaign, but rather it was a deliberate strategy by them intended to persuade people to back Brexit.

Only, it wasn’t a problem with immigration from non-EU countries since both before and after the referendum, the U.K. has handed out and continues to hand out visas to huge numbers of non-EU citizens every year and no Brexit politician has the slightest problem with it.

And, like it or not, if the voters who backed Brexit have a problem with EU citizens who immigrate to the U.K. and want to stop/restrain them, while they ignore the much large number of non-EU immigrants, then that clearly is racism.

I don't think supporting a restriction in immigration automatically is the product of racism. I agree that it could be.

The argument that restricting immigration is automatically racist falls flat when the European Union itself enforces immigration controls on those from outside the European Union. Why does it do this? For a number of reasons, protection of the labour market, and protection of public services are two good reasons. Controlling immigration isn't automatically racist, and it is dishonest to present it as such.

On the difference between non-EU and EU immigration. I pointed this out clearly already on this thread. I don't know why people keep ignoring this:

solodeogloria wrote:

There's also more complexity in this. Non-EU immigrants aren't the same as EU immigrants in a number of respects.

They are subject to controls on wage, and on qualifications. They are not available for low skilled visas in the current environment. They need proof of earnings above a certain amount. There are of course people who come on student visas and break the rules, but there are lot more restrictions on what part of the economy they actually work in.

They are also subject to controls on duration of stay in a way that EU nationals aren't. Most people I know on a Tier 2 visa are only allowed to stay in the country for 2 years. Most of these visas at least in IT are bound to employment. If the employment ends then they are asked to leave the country.

The visas tend to be subject to control on how much access they can have to the welfare system in a way that EU immigrants are not.

So a non-EU migrant is a very different migrant to the EU migrant for these reasons.

EU immigration has been overwhelmingly a good thing. I personally only support very light control on low wage labour. I also think the UK Government needs to start including training schemes for British nationals in these lines of work to even the playing ground. Cheap EU labour has made the British government lazy in this regard. This is the reason why a Tier 3 visa for low skilled workers was never introduced for non-EU nationals, and it's also another reason why I think they are not comparable by and large.

Immigration isn't a matter of mere numbers, there are nuances involved. An immigrant who can stay for 2 years is very different to an immigrant who can stay indefinitely.

Non-EU immigration is very different to EU immigration. But to follow the logic of your argument, if immigration controls are inherently racist, why don't you support getting rid of immigration controls for non-EU citizens into the European Union? Surely even you know this argument is silly?

It's kind of like the argument that support for Brexit is fuelled by British nationalism. That doesn't work in many cases. I'm Irish and I support Brexit. The reason why I support Brexit is because I think it is the best decision for the UK, not because I harbour massive nationalist sentiment.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

breatheme wrote: »

Can't blame them. Hell, I have a poor opinion of UK courts. How do you explain the case of an Irish man who was born in Northern Ireland who couldn't bring her fiancée over? (In direct violation of the Good Friday Agreement, I may add. This was later fixed, though, the fact that it happened in the first place is a disgrace.)
Or this similar case from an Irish woman in Derry.
Or this Spanish woman whose husband is being threatened with deportation. Or this Polish man's wife.
The UK Home Office is an inefficient bureaucratic mess that has shown time and again that it can't be trusted. If they start issuing deportation letters not only to EU nationals, but to their spouses or children come April 2019 and there's nothing the EU can do, what kind of deal is the UK offering? As an EU citizen whose spouse faces deportation and the UK courts are not working in your favour, what do you do? Do you pack up and leave?

"This decision discriminates against me because I hold an Irish passport, as do many other people in Northern Ireland.

Actually, an Irish citizen is not 'foreign' under the Government of Ireland Act 1949.

Declared that, even though the Republic of Ireland was no longer a British dominion, it would not be treated as a foreign country for the purposes of British law.

For all intents and purposes, an Irish Citizen has the same rights as a British Citizen in UK Law. The Good Friday Agreement (otherwise known as the Belfast Agreement) gives extra rights to people born in NI.

Someone should tell the British Home Office.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good day,

Any chance you can post what about vote Leave still holds true, even after you conceded that both campaigns lied in the run-up to the referendum? If you could link who made the argument during the campaign it would help to know if it was Nigel Farage, who had no power to promise anything, or the official campaign, who has the power to influence the negotiations.

mountaintop

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way and I would campaign for another referendum if remain wins. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third on the other hand, that ends it.”
Nigel Farage said the above.
We wouldn't be having this conversation of having another referendum if the remain side won by 52%.
Solo said the above.
What's good for the goose, etc...

johnnyskeleton

mountaintop wrote: »

I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There are far too many people personalising the debate. Play the ball, not the man. If there's any more, there will be cards.

Thanks

mountaintop wrote: »

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way and I would campaign for another referendum if remain wins. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third on the other hand, that ends it.”
Nigel Farage said the above.
We wouldn't be having this conversation of having another referendum if the remain side won by 52%.
Solo said the above.
What's good for the goose, etc...

Mod note:

Since Mountaintop can't seem to refrain from personalising every single post, he/she will not be posting in Politics for the foreseeable.

Thomas__

Sam Russell wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

Can't blame them. Hell, I have a poor opinion of UK courts. How do you explain the case of an Irish man who was born in Northern Ireland who couldn't bring her fiancée over? (In direct violation of the Good Friday Agreement, I may add. This was later fixed, though, the fact that it happened in the first place is a disgrace.)
Or this similar case from an Irish woman in Derry.
Or this Spanish woman whose husband is being threatened with deportation. Or this Polish man's wife.
The UK Home Office is an inefficient bureaucratic mess that has shown time and again that it can't be trusted. If they start issuing deportation letters not only to EU nationals, but to their spouses or children come April 2019 and there's nothing the EU can do, what kind of deal is the UK offering? As an EU citizen whose spouse faces deportation and the UK courts are not working in your favour, what do you do? Do you pack up and leave?

"This decision discriminates against me because I hold an Irish passport, as do many other people in Northern Ireland.

Actually, an Irish citizen is not 'foreign' under the Government of Ireland Act 1949.

 Declared that, even though the Republic of Ireland was no longer a British dominion, it would not be treated as a foreign country for the purposes of British law.

For all intents and purposes, an Irish Citizen has the same rights as a British Citizen in UK Law.  The Good Friday Agreement (otherwise known as the Belfast Agreement) gives extra rights to people born in NI.  

Someone should tell the British Home Office.

Do you really think that they don´t know that? I doubt it and in my view, they´re doing that all on purpose which is to intimidate and bring as much EU nationals to leave as possible and apparently they don´t give much of a damn about whether this goes conform with the law or not. When it becomes too much embarrassing because those affected by these "measures" go to the media and the media takes up the story to publish it, then the PM issues some apology and changes nothing.

It´s clear to me that the using of EU nationals residing in the UK as bargaining chips in her negotiations with the EU on Brexit is one reason among many various others that has lad to this "stale-mate" in the negotiations process. It is this what I find most unforgivable and unacceptable from the present PM and her cabinet to act in such mean ways in their attempt to push their wishful thinking suggestions through but as everyone can see, they fail with it time and again and those who suffer are those EU nationals living in the UK, but not UK nationals living in other EU member states (as far as I am aware I haven´t come across any such similar reports where UK nationals had to endure the same harrassment by authorities).

Firblog

mountaintop wrote: »

I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored.

Yesterday was my first time posting on this thread, and went to bed after my last post, work this morning and just logged in now, how can you you justify posting this?

Igotadose wrote: »

They go over to the Trump thread, spout, get drilled and disappear to surface again here. You can almost set your calendar by it.

BTW, thanks to those erudite pundits and boots-on-the-ground folks like Ambro and Calina for being patient with those of us that don't know the issues. And also thanks Solo who, whether you agree with his positions or not, is a rare boards poster willing to take a minority position and defend it, while resisting the sniping and personal attacks.

Ok, please post a link to any post I've made on the Trump thread.. Otherwise I'd be grateful if you'd remove this post.

First Up wrote: »

I have no expectations of enlightening the posters who have an obvious agenda to pursue. However no harm in correcting their more obvious fallacies, in case others mistake them for facts.

Again, this is my first time posting on here, how do you come to think that i've 'got an obvious agenda' after what 2 or 3 postings?

It is no wonder that there are very few posters who question the pro EU agenda of most of the posters on here given that after very few posts I've been accused of having an agenda, not replying to posts, spouting on the trump forum, all for having the temerity to question the group think that seems to be prevalent here

Firblog

Charles Babbage wrote: »

That's the basis on which these people came to England, the "contract" can be changed for new arrivals, but not for people already there.

It's a fair point, however they came over under that contract, and that contract allowed for a member state to leave the EU, and there were no guarantees in any treaty that the rights of EU citizens would be maintained in such an eventuality.

Let me ask a question, do you expect EU citizens to have the exact rights that they have now forever? or if the EU changes some rights, lets say the right to have children's allowance paid for children not resident in the country, then will those citizens in the UK be subject to those new rules or continue to operate under the 'contract' that was in existence when they first set foot on uk soil?

ambro25

Thomas__ wrote: »

<...>

It´s clear to me that the using of EU nationals residing in the UK as bargaining chips in her negotiations with the EU on Brexit is one reason among many various others that has lad to this "stale-mate" in the negotiations process. It is this what I find most unforgivable and unacceptable from the present PM and her cabinet to act in such mean ways in their attempt to push their wishful thinking suggestions through but as everyone can see, they fail with it time and again and those who suffer are those EU nationals living in the UK, but not UK nationals living in other EU member states (as far as I am aware I haven´t come across any such similar reports where UK nationals had to endure the same harrassment by authorities).

As one such EU national in the UK, let me tell you that this whole bargain chip angle is arguably worse for them (Brits in the EU): so far as May, Davis, Johnson, Fox et al are concerned, they simply don't exist.

Many (most?) were not even allowed to vote in the referendum in the first place..and when was the last time you heard them mentioned by the British media and politicians since then?

At least we EU types have got the EU27, Barnier and the Guardian batting for us.

From a government playing such strong identity/nationalistic politics, that clear dereliction of its own subjects is the most unforgivable and unacceptable by the present PM and her cabinet.

Firblog wrote: »

It's a fair point, however they came over under that contract, and that contract allowed for a member state to leave the EU, and there were no guarantees in any treaty that the rights of EU citizens would be maintained in such an eventuality.

That contract also -and however- includes a mitigation clause at the tail end of Article 50. With which the UK is failing engage meaningfully.

Firblog wrote: »

Let me ask a question, do you expect EU citizens to have the exact rights that they have now forever? or if the EU changes some rights, lets say the right to have children's allowance paid for children not resident in the country, then will those citizens in the UK be subject to those new rules or continue to operate under the 'contract' that was in existence when they first set foot on uk soil?

Since the UK Parliament shan't be bound by the TEU & TFEU to transpose any EU law whatsoever post-Brexit, nothing which the EU changed post-Brexit could ever become UK law, until and unless the UK Parliament transposed it into UK law.

The exact rights of EU citizens post-Brexit will be those as negotiated as part of the membership termination deal (i.e. in Stage 1 negotiations, not the transition deal, nor the post-transition 'for real' deal). Or will simply correspond to those of third party nationals (US, Chinese, <etc., but not Ireland or Commonwealth countries>) in case of 'no deal'.

There will be those rights negotiated for EU citizens who were already here (for x years) by the time Brexit happens. They're those rights being negotiated now, within Stage 1, and the whole hoo-haa about EU citizens' rights in the UK post-Brexit is about those, and is about preventing the UK from reducing those rights after Brexit.

If the UK wanted to increase UK citizens rights but not to third party (incl.EU) nationals after Brexit, it'd be fully entitled to do so. The same as it could at all times (and has done) about non-EU third party nationals whilst an EU member state.

Likewise if the UK decides to extend those increased UK citizens rights to third party (incl.EU) nationals after Brexit.

But what the UK cannot do, under the most elementary of principles of equity (and, accessorily, the Vienna Convention), is to reduce rights of EU nationals, as negotiated under Article 50, after-the-fact. For instance because it would be politically advantageous or expedient for the UK government to do so at a later time.

That's why the EU is insisting on the ECJ for legal interpretation of the rights of EU nationals, as negotiated under Article 50 (which is the usual role of the ECJ, i.e. not that of deciding a case on its facts), as a procedural and cost-efficient shortcut for 27 nationalities within the UK, rather than 27 national court systems.

Then there will be the rights for EU citizens who were not residing in the UK by the time Brexit happens. These will be negotiated as part of the transition and post-transition 'for real' deals. These will be 'lesser' rights compared to the above, and might end up being the same as the current rights of third party (non-EU) nationals, for all we know.

Hope that clears up some issues.

Firblog

First Up wrote: »

This is utter nonsense. The ECJ oversees the application of the agreement between the member states - agreements the UK signed up to.

The ECJ has no authority over any UK law other than those that affect how they impact on what was agreed as part of its EU membership.

There are many laws that were agreed to by the UK when it was part of the EU that they are totally free to change once they leave, and the ECJ will have no oversight, so I think you may be mistaken in that belief.. they'll be fit to keep LB's and Oz's as their measurements of weight if they so choose, EU/foreign boats will not be allowed fish in UK waters if they so choose etc

Professor Moriarty

The Head of the European Commission, Antonio Tajani, said that the UK government is not realistic and that the offer of 20 billion is "peanuts". May's Florence speech and her dinner with Juncker have definitely cleared the logjam.

Thomas__

Firblog wrote: »

mountaintop wrote: »

I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored.

Yesterday was my first time posting on this thread, and went to bed after my last post, work this morning and just logged in now, how can you you justify posting this?

Igotadose wrote: »

They go over to the Trump thread, spout, get drilled and disappear to surface again here. You can almost set your calendar by it.

BTW, thanks to those erudite pundits and boots-on-the-ground folks like Ambro and Calina for being patient with those of us that don't know the issues. And also thanks Solo who, whether you agree with his positions or not, is a rare boards poster willing to take a minority position and defend it, while resisting the sniping and personal attacks.

Ok, please post a link to any post I've made on the Trump thread.. Otherwise I'd be grateful if you'd remove this post.

First Up wrote: »

I have no expectations of enlightening the posters who have an obvious agenda to pursue. However no harm in correcting their more obvious fallacies, in case others mistake them for facts.

Again, this is my first time posting on here, how do you come to think that i've 'got an obvious agenda' after what 2 or 3 postings?

It is no wonder that there are very few posters who question the pro EU agenda of most of the posters on here given that after very few posts I've been accused of having an agenda, not replying to posts, spouting on the trump forum, all for having the temerity to question the group think that seems to be prevalent here

I´m not much aware of a group thinking on these boards and frankly those you consider to merely question the pro EU Agenda on this site are quite those who are reiterating their stances on and on and on and refuse to even accept that those who they trust with bringing about the "glorious era" of post-Brexit Britain deliver one failure after another and are showing every day their incompentence and deflect from their failing by blaming the EU for all.
I´d like to ask you what sense does it make to support politicians who behave as if they´d be part of a muppet show? It doesn´t make any sense to me at all and frankly, this present UK govt cabinet is the worst ever, a disgrace to the nation they represent and a daily embarrassment.

I´m accusing you of nothing and seeing that you´ve been on here for a very short time just yet I guess that you´ll learn to tell one poster from another more quickly and thus avoid wasting your time debating with posters who refuse to consider your point of view. That´s probably the better way to stay on this site to choose between the posters for otherwise, you´d only work yourself up and become involved in arguments that might not be worth all the trouble. Well, that´s the way I handle this site and I put rude posters simply on ignore for I have no interest in personal tit-for-tat games from which one can´t win anything but be disciplined by the moderators and one should be satisfied enough with the moderation team on here cos in other places there isn´t much moderation at all. So, good luck to you whatever your opinions are.

First Up

Firblog wrote:

There are many laws that were agreed to by the UK when it was part of the EU that they are totally free to change once they leave, and the ECJ will have no oversight, so I think you may be mistaken in that belief.. they'll be fit to keep LB's and Oz's as their measurements of weight if they so choose, EU/foreign boats will not be allowed fish in UK waters if they so choose etc

Mistaken in what belief?

You complained that the ECJ was intruding in domestic UK law and I pointed out that the ECJ is only involved in adjudicating on laws agreed between EU members.

Enzokk

Firblog wrote: »

It's a fair point, however they came over under that contract, and that contract allowed for a member state to leave the EU, and there were no guarantees in any treaty that the rights of EU citizens would be maintained in such an eventuality.

Let me ask a question, do you expect EU citizens to have the exact rights that they have now forever? or if the EU changes some rights, lets say the right to have children's allowance paid for children not resident in the country, then will those citizens in the UK be subject to those new rules or continue to operate under the 'contract' that was in existence when they first set foot on uk soil?

The UK will have to balance the rights of people working in the UK at the moment from the EU and paying into the treasury against those from the UK living abroad and the benefits they will add to the treasury if they have to return as a result of a loss of rights to UK and EU citizens.

It seems that most research finds that EU migrants contribute more to the treasury than they cost. This can vary from £1.34 in taxes they pay for every £1 they receive from the state for new arrivals to an overall amount of £1.05 paid to the treasury against £1 they receive for arrivals from the EU from 1995 to 2012. Interestingly those from outside the EU that the government control costs the UK more than they receive in taxes if you take the long term arrivals into account (£1.02 received against £1 for benefits for new arrivals), £0.85 taxes paid for every £1 received in benefits.

The asterisk to these amounts are obviously that the longer you stay and if you settle with a family you are entitled to more benefits, and that new arrivals will not be able to claim as much as someone who is settled a few years.

But it seems that overall EU immigrants provide a net benefit to the UK economy, but what do UK emigrants in the UK provide to their host countries?

Do EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 received from the UK?

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK will have to balance the rights of people working in the UK at the moment from the EU and paying into the treasury against those from the UK living abroad and the benefits they will add to the treasury if they have to return as a result of a loss of rights to UK and EU citizens.

It seems that most research finds that EU migrants contribute more to the treasury than they cost. This can vary from £1.34 in taxes they pay for every £1 they receive from the state for new arrivals to an overall amount of £1.05 paid to the treasury against £1 they receive for arrivals from the EU from 1995 to 2012. Interestingly those from outside the EU that the government control costs the UK more than they receive in taxes if you take the long term arrivals into account, £0.85 taxes paid for every £1 received in benefits.

The asterisk to these amounts are obviously that the longer you stay and if you settle with a family you are entitled to more benefits, and that new arrivals will not be able to claim as much as someone who is settled a few years.

But it seems that overall EU immigrants provide a net benefit to the UK economy, but what do UK emigrants in the UK provide to their host countries?

Do EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 received from the UK?

Excellent point.

First Up

Firblog wrote:

Again, this is my first time posting on here, how do you come to think that i've 'got an obvious agenda' after what 2 or 3 postings?

Did I say you had?

Thomas__

Firblog wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

This is utter nonsense. The ECJ oversees the application of the agreement between the member states -  agreements the UK signed up to.

The ECJ has no authority over any UK law other than those that affect how they impact on what was agreed as part of its EU membership.

There are many laws that were agreed to by the UK when it was part of the EU that they are totally free to change once they leave, and the ECJ will have no oversight, so I think you may be mistaken in that belief.. they'll be fit to keep LB's and Oz's as their measurements of weight if they so choose, EU/foreign boats will not be allowed fish in UK waters if they so choose etc

Your focus is too much on the EU and less on what this present UK govt is intended to do with all the rights the people have in the UK which is overseen by the ECJ and this is a point one shouldn´t neglect. Because it affects everybody once the UK has left the EU, cut off every bounds to EU legislation and, that´s the point, simply doesn´t transfer EU law into national law which is what they intend to do. That is the power grab the media was reporting in recent weeks. The Tory Party is apparently very keen to use Brexit just for that and it´s not hard to guess who´s going to pay for that. It is more than just one step backwards, some may say that it´s even "a revolution backwards".

murphaph

Solo's contention that this would all be put to bed if the result had gone the other way with that tight margin is incorrect. Farage assumed they'd lose and clearly stated the leave side would immediately begin work on another referendum if they did.

The remain side have just as much a right to do this too!

But I believe it is pointless having another referendum unless it's clear remain would win by a good margin. Otherwise it will be Britain's Compiègne. If such a majority in favour of remain can't be achieved the UK "needs" to be beaten by Brexit (which it will be). If Germany had been properly beaten and occupied after WWI, WWII would not have happened. Brexit needs to occupy the UK if they still can't clearly see what an unmitigated disaster it's going to be.

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

Solo's contention that this would all be put to bed if the result had gone the other way with that tight margin is incorrect. Farage assumed they'd lose and clearly stated the leave side would immediately begin work on another referendum if they did.

The remain side have just as much a right to do this too!

But I believe it is pointless having another referendum unless it's clear remain would win by a good margin. Otherwise it will be Britain's Compiègne. If such a majority in favour of remain can't be achieved the UK "needs" to be beaten by Brexit (which it will be). If Germany had been properly beaten and occupied after WWI, WWII would not have happened. Brexit needs to occupy the UK if they still can't clearly see what an unmitigated disaster it's going to be.

Remember that petition of 3 million-odd signatures started as just such a contingency?

For me, it is not "another referendum", it is a vote on a defined vision of Brexit and Britain's future relationship with its closest neighbours. Democratic referenda are supposed to operate on the basis of a clearly defined choice on the ballot, not a sea of wild promises, lies and fearmongering.

demfad

murphaph wrote: »

Solo's contention that this would all be put to bed if the result had gone the other way with that tight margin is incorrect. Farage assumed they'd lose and clearly stated the leave side would immediately begin work on another referendum if they did.

The remain side have just as much a right to do this too!

But I believe it is pointless having another referendum unless it's clear remain would win by a good margin. Otherwise it will be Britain's Compiègne. If such a majority in favour of remain can't be achieved the UK "needs" to be beaten by Brexit (which it will be). If Germany had been properly beaten and occupied after WWI, WWII would not have happened. Brexit needs to occupy the UK if they still can't clearly see what an unmitigated disaster it's going to be.

Unfortunately the climate change disaster is looming. We are out of time for the years needed for lessons from mistakes like Brexit to be learned.
We don't have time. I think there will be a majority for a referendum particularly of Govt release impact papers.

Look at this hidden in the Business section of Daily Telegraph last week:

Britain's missing billions: Revised figures reveal UK is £490bn poorer than previously thought

Article 50 is unilaterally revocable in good Faith.
I hope they learn.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

Solo's contention that this would all be put to bed if the result had gone the other way with that tight margin is...

...completely risible.

I mean, come on. The idea that the hardcore paleoskeptics would have just shut up about the UK leaving the EU is one that nobody - nobody can even pretend to believe.

There are people for whom there is literally nothing more important; for whom there is literally no price too high to pay for leaving the EU. Losing the referendum would have been the briefest of setbacks, and Tory policy would still centre around appeasing that wing of the party.

murphaph

I think the ECJ would need to be convinced that it was in good faith though. I don't see how a government can do that without the clearest of mandates through a convincing referendum result to revoke.

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

I think the ECJ would need to be convinced that it was in good faith though. I don't see how a government can do that without the clearest of mandates through a convincing referendum result to revoke.

I don't see how the current government can do that, without even with the clearest of mandates through a convincing referendum result to revoke. They've long burnt their bridges in the good faith department. Juncker, for all his God-level trolling capacity, is a useful high-visibility barometer in that respect.

IMHO there would need to be another GE first, or instead of, that notional further referendum.

And if that happened to put Labour into No.10, I don't reckon we'd be out of those woods yet, because Labour is no clearer about Brexit than the Tories are: they're just not under the spotlight about it like the Tories are.

This is getting to play out like the best of thrillers: pragmatically, the clock is now very fast running out on all of these alternatives, and probably already run out for the '2nd GE + 2nd referendum' approach I mooted above. It'd long be run out for many businesses and 'paused FDIs' anyway, by the time a 2nd GE or 2nd referendum campaign even starts.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

I think the ECJ would need to be convinced that it was in good faith though. I don't see how a government can do that without the clearest of mandates through a convincing referendum result to revoke.

Actually I think it would need a General Election with a clear majority for another party - possibly Labour but with a clear mandate to not leave the EU, not just a Labour majority with Corbyn ambivalent on the EU. A coalition of Labour with the LibDems plus he SNP might be enough to look like a genuine effort to refute Brexit.

View

To respond to Solo:

1) At no stage have I suggested that all immigration controls are inherently racist. This is a “paper tiger” you have created.

2) Nor is it in anyway racist for the EU member states to give each others’ citizens preference for immigration and/or having different criteria for such immigration. EU citizens share a common citizenship of the European Union. EU citizens giving other EU citizens preference within the EU is no more racist than US citizens giving US citizens preference in the USA.

3) The UK is and always has been free to control non-EU immigrants as it sees fit. It has chosen to repeatedly admit the highest number of non-EU immigrants for every year of its membership. Indeed in 2014, it admitted almost as much as the combined total for Germany, France & Italy.

4) Anyone in the U.K. with a problem with immigration was and is free to campaign to reduce that extraordinary level of non-EU immigration. Yet it was and is largely ignored in favour of bashing the minority of immigrants who arrive in the U.K. from EU countries.

5) Any person who has a problem with a minority of immigrants to a country but simultaneously ignores the majority of them, clearly has a problem with the minority. That clearly is a discriminatory/racist attitude.

Indeed the mere fact that Leave voters themselves cited “immigration” as a key issue in a vote related to the EU (only) shows that their problem was and is with EU immigrants, since their vote, either way, would not impact non-EU immigration. The blunt reality is that, since the referendum result, those voters have expressed no interest whatsoever in reducing non-EU immigration, so clearly their problem isn’t with “immigration” but rather with “immigration from the EU”.

A Little Pony

First Up wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.

So what sort of cooperation do you approve of?

The same way the UK cooperates with Australia on all matter of issues from foreign policy and security to immigration. You do not need to be in the European Union to be able to cooperate with member states in the European Union.

Really Interested

A Little Pony wrote: »

The same way the UK cooperates with Australia on all matter of issues from foreign policy and security to immigration. You do not need to be in the European Union to be able to cooperate with member states in the European Union.

In what way does the UK cooperate with Australia on immigration, do UK citizens have free movement in Aus or the other way around?

First Up

View wrote:

The blunt reality is that, since the referendum result, those voters have expressed no interest whatsoever in reducing non-EU immigration, so clearly their problem isn’t with “immigration†but rather with “immigration from the EUâ€.

Either that or they are too thick to understand that Brexit has no impact on non- EU immigration.

But no doubt some Brexiteers (including non-EU immigrants) will be happy with less competition from hard-working and skilled EU migrants who contribute a lot to the British economy.

Firblog

First Up wrote: »

Mistaken in what belief?

You complained that the ECJ was intruding in domestic UK law and I pointed out that the ECJ is only involved in adjudicating on laws agreed between EU members.

If that is all it is concerned with why do people/EU think it should have any role in the oversight of the rights afforded to EU citizens' in the UK?

First Up

A Little Pony wrote:

The same way the UK cooperates with Australia on all matter of issues from foreign policy and security to immigration. You do not need to be in the European Union to be able to cooperate with member states in the European Union.

What about economic cooperation like free movement of capital and goods, common standards and unrestricted access to the largest single market on the planet? Does any of that sort of thing appeal?

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

If that is all it is concerned with why do people/EU think it should have any role in the oversight of the rights afforded to EU citizens' in the UK?

Because they moved to the UK with those rights, just like the English person who moved and retired to spain, post Brexit do you think it would be OK for Spain to take the holiday home from every British person and refuse to pay pensions to UK immigrants or to just decide to deport such people home with out recourse to the rules as they exist at the moment or the protection of the ECJ decisions?

Firblog

Yes:

You quoted the posting by mountaintop below.

Originally Posted by mountaintop
I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored

And you responded to it with

First Up wrote: »

I have no expectations of enlightening the posters who have an obvious agenda to pursue. However no harm in correcting their more obvious fallacies, in case others mistake them for facts.

I think anyone reading that would take from it that you believe I have some agenda

First Up

Firblog wrote:

If that is all it is concerned with why do people/EU think it should have any role in the oversight of the rights afforded to EU citizens' in the UK?

Those rights were in force under ECJ jurisdiction when those citizens came to the UK. The EU is correctly looking to ensure their interests are looked after as part of the Brexit arrangements.

But what does that have to do with the ECJ intruding into British domestic law?