Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

View wrote: »

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”.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you haven't really replied to my post. I gave several reasons as to why EU migration is inherently different to non-EU migration that you've not engaged with.

You're repeating the idea that because leave voters support controls on EU migration that that means that they are somehow "discriminatory" towards immigrants. Perhaps some are, but there's no generalised reason to say this is true of all leave voters. This is an interesting assertion, but it is ultimately baseless.

Brexit is an opportunity to address what many people felt was wrong with the immigration system in a fair way. After the UK leaves the European Union immigration policy will be a matter for continued discussion in the House of Commons. In my post, I quoted a previous post where I discuss light touch immigration control on low wage labour. I think that's probably all that would be required.

Howling about racism isn't helpful or useful.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Firblog wrote: »

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



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

Did you notice the sentence I've highlighted?

Don't flatter yourself. I don't know if you have an agenda or not. All I've seen from you so far is confusion about the role of the European Court of Justice.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!



I'm not trying to be rude, but you haven't really replied to my post. I gave several reasons as to why EU migration is inherently different to non-EU migration that you've not engaged with.

You're repeating the idea that because leave voters support controls on EU migration that that means that they are somehow "discriminatory" towards immigrants. Perhaps some are, but there's no generalised reason to say this is true of all leave voters. This is an interesting assertion, but it is ultimately baseless.

Brexit is an opportunity to address what many people felt was wrong with the immigration system in a fair way. After the UK leaves the European Union immigration policy will be a matter for continued discussion in the House of Commons. In my post, I quoted a previous post where I discuss light touch immigration control on low wage labour. I think that's probably all that would be required.

Howling about racism isn't helpful or useful.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What specifically under the current rules prevented the UK from dealing with those 'concerns' right now. Whilst still a member?

Im intrigued for a response on this because its come up several times as a bug bear of yours. Immigration.

What specifically under current allowed rules that the UK can deploy at anytime is preventing them from handling immigration 'better'.

Firblog

Really Interested wrote: »

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?

Will you be ok if the UK courts have a reciprocal role in protecting the rights of UK citizens resident in the EU? Just to make sure that the their citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they had when they moved to the EU?

First Up

Firblog wrote: »

Will you be ok if the UK courts have a reciprocal role in protecting the rights of UK citizens resident in the EU? Just to make sure that the their citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they had when they moved to the EU?

That is also an agenda item for the Brexit negotiations. One assumes whatever is agreed will be reciprocal.

LeinsterDub

The government will be forced to delay bringing the EU withdrawal bill back to the House of Commons for a second time, as it struggles to respond to hundreds of hostile amendments, Labour sources expect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/18/brexit-strategy-in-paralysis-as-eu-withdrawal-bill-delayed

Brexit has often been called a slow motion car crash. Well given the continuous dire political and economic news emerging from the UK this week. I think we can't officially say the bumper of the brexit car has made contact with the concrete wall and the air bag has failed to deploy. All the while no one is steering but several feet are on the accelerator.

Firblog

First Up wrote: »

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?

I think that British domestic law defines the rights that non British residents have when residing in the UK? i.e. Anyone who is not a UK citizen who is legally resident in the UK has certain rights, and those rights can be upheld by the UK court system - and they pertain to everyone regardless of their nationality.
The EU does not want its citizens to be subject to the same laws as them, and wants the ECJ to be the protector of their rights, therefore it would be intruding into British domestic law as it relates to persons of non British nationality resident in the UK

First Up

Firblog wrote:

I think that British domestic law defines the rights that non British residents have when residing in the UK? i.e. Anyone who is not a UK citizen who is legally resident in the UK has certain rights, and those rights can be upheld by the UK court system - and they pertain to everyone regardless of their nationality. The EU does not want its citizens to be subject to the same laws as them, and wants the ECJ to be the protector of their rights, therefore it would be intruding into British domestic law as it relates to persons of non British nationality resident in the UK

More nonsense.

Everyone is subject to the law of the land and nobody is looking to be exempt from any of it.

The only "laws" relevant to this are to do with rights of residency, employment and entitlement to social services that will apply to EU citizens in the UK and vice versa after the circumstances in which they took up such residence (in good faith) are changed.

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

Will you be ok if the UK courts have a reciprocal role in protecting the rights of UK citizens resident in the EU? Just to make sure that the their citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they had when they moved to the EU?

But the U.K. want the ECJ to protect U.K. citizens rights in the EU. The UK citizens will be resident in the EU, so ECJ will make sure their rights are protected. By asking the question as you have show little understanding of both the EU and the law.

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

I think that British domestic law defines the rights that non British residents have when residing in the UK? i.e. Anyone who is not a UK citizen who is legally resident in the UK has certain rights, and those rights can be upheld by the UK court system - and they pertain to everyone regardless of their nationality.
The EU does not want its citizens to be subject to the same laws as them, and wants the ECJ to be the protector of their rights, therefore it would be intruding into British domestic law as it relates to persons of non British nationality resident in the UK

When it comes to criminal law or family law or contract law then the U.K. laws apply. It is only when it comes to free movement will EU law continue to apply.

Firblog

Really Interested wrote: »

When it comes to criminal law or family law or contract law then the U.K. laws apply. It is only when it comes to free movement will EU law continue to apply.

I may be showing more ignorance here, but surely one of the main reasons people in the UK voted to leave the EU was to put a stop the free movement of people.

murphaph

Firblog wrote: »

I may be showing more ignorance here, but surely one of the main reasons people in the UK voted to leave the EU was to put a stop the free movement of people.

You can stop free movement and still ensure the rights of those EU citizens who moved to the UK before Brexit to be protected by the ECJ. That's what this is all about. Anyone moving to the UK after Brexit would not be protected by the ECJ.

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

I may be showing more ignorance here, but surely one of the main reasons people in the UK voted to leave the EU was to put a stop the free movement of people.

Yes and once they have left the EU free movement will stop. But what do you do with the millions of UK citizens living in EU and the millions of EU citizens living in UK, how do you protect the rights they currently have, their right to have pension paid in the new country the right to medical care in host country the right to only be excluded in limited circumstances. You do so by saying any people in the EU or the UK on a certain date retain the rights they had untill that date, and any dispute the final court is the ECJ, there is noting stoping the UK courts dealing with any free movement issue, once the final court is the ECJ.

For any EU citizens who enter the UK after that agreed date then UK law fully applies and the UK can limit the ability to own property, work study and stay, the UK can limit the situations that family members can join each other and require if they wish that people pass a English history and language test if they wish. Also if they want to deport any person the final court can be if the UK wishes the Supreme Court. This is how do the UK and Eu deal with people who have in many cases years ago gone to live in the other country knowing that the decision to do so carried certain protections.

In fact in many cases many of the millions of EU citizens living in the UK are entitled to UK citizenship or long term leave to remain, there is no real problem with the UK saying we will for all persons who in UK before Article 50 invoked or finalised agree that EU rules apply same for all UK Citizens in EU. I cant see why this is difficult to agree.

Firblog

Really Interested wrote: »

But the U.K. want the ECJ to protect U.K. citizens rights in the EU. The UK citizens will be resident in the EU, so ECJ will make sure their rights are protected. By asking the question as you have show little understanding of both the EU and the law.

Apologies for asking a question, but hey I'll risk your ire again by asking another one to demonstrate my little understanding a little more..

Of course the UK wants the ECJ to protect its citizens that are resident in the EU, it is supposed to be the ECJ's job to ensure that the rights of everyone resident in the EU are protected by the applicable EU laws

Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would

murphaph

Firblog wrote: »

Apologies for asking a question, but hey I'll risk your ire again by asking another one to demonstrate my little understanding a little more..

Of course the UK wants the ECJ to protect its citizens that are resident in the EU, it is supposed to be the ECJ's job to ensure that the rights of everyone resident in the EU are protected by the applicable EU laws

Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would

Both sets of citizens moved abroad under European law. The ECJ should continue to enforce this in case of dispute until all those people have either left for home or died. It would not apply to citizens moving abroad post Brexit.

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

Apologies for asking a question, but hey I'll risk your ire again by asking another one to demonstrate my little understanding a little more..

Of course the UK wants the ECJ to protect its citizens that are resident in the EU, it is supposed to be the ECJ's job to ensure that the rights of everyone resident in the EU are protected by the applicable EU laws

Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would

OK lets take that to the next step would you be happy with Spanish courts protecting the rights of UK citizens living in Spain post brexit. Just think about that for a minute. Say Spain in 5 years to deflect from a movement for independence, starts up a issue with UK over Gibraltar, lets say it introduces a new property tax of €100,000 a year for UK citizens in Spain, and anyone who failes to pay it can be deported as non payment is a criminal offence, would you like the Spanish courts as the final say on that?

Now say the UK introduce a law that all non UK citizens must pass a test (legal under domestic law not EU law) anyone who fails the test can be deported and can not take more than £1,000 out of the country, would you be happy with those issues being decided by as the final court the UK courts.

There is a reason that the trump and Brexit supporters attack the courts, and dont think these situations are outlandish, history is full and recent events are full of such situations.

Capt'n Midnight

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/18/brexit-strategy-in-paralysis-as-eu-withdrawal-bill-delayed

Brexit has often been called a slow motion car crash. Well given the continuous dire political and economic news emerging from the UK this week. I think we can't officially say the bumper of the brexit car has made contact with the concrete wall and the air bag has failed to deploy. All the while no one is steering but several feet are on the accelerator.

It's car crash for the bottom half of the population too.


Unemployment drops by 52,000 but pay squeeze continues

Charity Relate said rising levels of household debt and stagnating wages could be putting a strain on marriages.

For NI
Northern Ireland's unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest level in almost 10 years. ... However, the employment rate also fell and the economic inactivity rate rose.


Interest rates are predicted to rise in the UK soon.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41665590

Half of us are "vulnerable" when it comes to our monthly finances.

An extra bill, a period of illness meaning we are unable to work, an increase in interest rates on our mortgages, higher rents - all could lead to financial problems.

If debt or rent bills went up by £100 a month, nearly half said they would "struggle" with payments.
...
And "among those paying mortgage or rent, one in six state they would struggle if monthly payments increased by less than £50," the FCA survey revealed.
...
Falling real incomes, low productivity and lack of wealth creation in the economy has left people with few options.

Using up their savings and taking on more debt is the one many have plumped for.

Firblog

Really Interested wrote: »

Yes and once they have left the EU free movement will stop. But what do you do with the millions of UK citizens living in EU and the millions of EU citizens living in UK, how do you protect the rights they currently have, their right to have pension paid in the new country the right to medical care in host country the right to only be excluded in limited circumstances. You do so by saying any people in the EU or the UK on a certain date retain the rights they had untill that date, and any dispute the final court is the ECJ, there is noting stoping the UK courts dealing with any free movement issue, once the final court is the ECJ.

I cant see why this is difficult to agree.

I think I can see why it's difficult to agree, would the EU be willing to agree to the courts in the UK having the final decision? I don't think so, then why are people surprised that the UK has a problem with the ECJ being the final court?

Surely the compromise should be an independent court? Perhaps one UK judge, a judge from the EU, and a third judge from a panel of high ranking judges from US/Canada/Oz etc ?

Although I wouldn't be surprised if that would be a step too far for some of the more ardent Brexit supporters.

Jim2007

Firblog wrote: »

Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would

It comes down to a matter of trust and we don't trust the U.K.:
- we don't trust them not to change the laws later
- we don't trust them to abide by U.K. court rulings
- the proposed rights are not exactly the same as a U.K. citizen
- there will be a new category for those people making it easier to target them with legislation etc..

I would suggest the only acceptable alternative to ECJ supervision would be for the U.K. to grant these people irrevocable citizenship.

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

I think I can see why it's difficult to agree, would the EU be willing to agree to the courts in the UK having the final decision? I don't think so, then why are people surprised that the UK has a problem with the ECJ being the final court?

Surely the compromise should be an independent court? Perhaps one UK judge, a judge from the EU, and a third judge from a panel of high ranking judges from US/Canada/Oz etc ?

Although I wouldn't be surprised if that would be a step too far for some of the more ardent Brexit supporters.

So in the quest to no longer answer to other courts its proposed to create a new court just to deal with this issue, a court that would have to implement EU law and the case law of the ECJ to protect the citizens who have taken advantage of EU law.

Just think through your proposal and the only logical way is ECJ, to implement EU law, it may have to be EU law frozen in time where any advances are not taken in to account.

But we have such a situation Turkish citizens who are lawfully in the EU under the Ankara Agreementhave their right protected by the ECJ and it works very well but is limited to the agreement.

Really Interested

Jim2007 wrote: »

It comes down to a matter of trust and we don't trust the U.K.:
- we don't trust them not to change the laws later
- we don't trust them to abide by U.K. court rulings
- the proposed rights are not exactly the same as a U.K. citizen
- there will be a new category for those people making it easier to target them with legislation etc..

I would suggest the only acceptable alternative to ECJ supervision would be for the U.K. to grant these people irrevocable citizenship.

The problem with UK citizenship for some would be that some countries do not allow dual citizenship. The Dutch have recently announced they will make an exception for their citizens who wish to get UK citizenship.

Firblog

Really Interested wrote: »

OK lets take that to the next step would you be happy with Spanish courts protecting the rights of UK citizens living in Spain post brexit. Just think about that for a minute. Say Spain in 5 years to deflect from a movement for independence, starts up a issue with UK over Gibraltar, lets say it introduces a new property tax of €100,000 a year for UK citizens in Spain, and anyone who failes to pay it can be deported as non payment is a criminal offence, would you like the Spanish courts as the final say on that?

Now say the UK introduce a law that all non UK citizens must pass a test (legal under domestic law not EU law) anyone who fails the test can be deported and can not take more than £1,000 out of the country, would you be happy with those issues being decided by as the final court the UK courts.

There is a reason that the trump and Brexit supporters attack the courts, and dont think these situations are outlandish, history is full and recent events are full of such situations.

You're not really comparing like with like there; isn't the law in Europe defined/interpreted by the ECJ? not the Spanish courts? law in the UK will be defined /interpreted by the UK Supreme Court, and I would have every bit as much faith in the fairness of that court as I would in the fairness of the ECJ.

Enzokk

Firblog wrote: »

I think I can see why it's difficult to agree, would the EU be willing to agree to the courts in the UK having the final decision? I don't think so, then why are people surprised that the UK has a problem with the ECJ being the final court?

Surely the compromise should be an independent court? Perhaps one UK judge, a judge from the EU, and a third judge from a panel of high ranking judges from US/Canada/Oz etc ?

Although I wouldn't be surprised if that would be a step too far for some of the more ardent Brexit supporters.

It's a complicated issue because the UK was under the jurisdiction of the ECJ for so many years. The UK in fact won many cases it brought to the ECJ in matters that they handle. I have asked this question before from solo and he couldn't site any cases that showed the ECJ would be biased against the UK as they only look at the law and make an judgement on that.

Firblog

Really Interested wrote: »

So in the quest to no longer answer to other courts its proposed to create a new court just to deal with this issue,

nope, that was only my suggestion, I'm not on any quest

Really Interested wrote: »

Just think through your proposal and the only logical way is ECJ, to implement EU law, it may have to be EU law frozen in time where any advances are not taken in to account.

But we have such a situation Turkish citizens who are lawfully in the EU under the Ankara Agreementhave their right protected by the ECJ and it works very well but is limited to the agreement.

There are many courts of arbitration that rule on disputes between different sides in a contract, these are usually made up of neutral, impartial judges; I don't know if there are many contracts where any disputes are only ruled on by one side alone.

Would you enter in to a contract with anyone/business, where they were the final arbiter of any dispute between you? Where you would have no recourse to an agreed impartial 3rd party?

Jim2007

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.

The ECJ could not care less what kind of faith it is done in! This is a civil law court not a common law court, meaning facts is what counts not opinions! Jurists do not interpret the law, they apply it.

This is a common situation I see often with people coming from a common law background entering civil law courts, they expect intention, natural justice, interpretation etc to count, when in fact it counts for very little.

To have a chance of succeeding the jurists would need to be shown that either A50 itself allows for it's revocation which it does not and it even goes further in suggesting the way back is to reapply... or alternatively that else where in that treaty or a related treaty there is a clear intention that A50 can be revoked.

I'd expect a UKIP type would argue that the treaty is a treaty between the peoples of the member states (which it is) and as such it grants them rights (which it does) and accordingly they are entitled to rely on the actions of the parties - you said you're going, now bloody well go!

This is not the kind of legal uncertainty you want to base a continuing relationship on.

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

You're not really comparing like with like there; isn't the law in Europe defined/interpreted by the ECJ? not the Spanish courts? law in the UK will be defined /interpreted by the UK Supreme Court, and I would have every bit as much faith in the fairness of that court as I would in the fairness of the ECJ.

Its not the Court I dont trust, it is the politicians, nothing stopping the UK changing the laws or the possible outcomes as Parliament is supreme (well when they want it to be.)

The ECHR for example is largely based on UK principles, the UK legal system is one of the best but it has been under attack from politicians for the last few years do you remember the Article 50 case, judges personally attacked by the media.

Its simple if the UK dont agree then its hard brexit and no one protected including the English in spain and that will be funny to see.

Sam Russell

Jim2007 wrote: »

The ECJ could not care less what kind of faith it is done in! This is a civil law court not a common law court, meaning facts is what counts not opinions! Jurists do not interpret the law, they apply it.

This is a common situation I see often with people coming from a common law background entering civil law courts, they expect intention, natural justice, interpretation etc to count, when in fact it counts for very little.

To have a chance of succeeding the jurists would need to be shown that either A50 itself allows for it's revocation which it does not and it even goes further in suggesting the way back is to reapply... or alternatively that else where in that treaty or a related treaty there is a clear intention that A50 can be revoked.

I'd expect a UKIP type would argue that the treaty is a treaty between the peoples of the member states (which it is) and as such it grants them rights (which it does) and accordingly they are entitled to rely on the actions of the parties - you said you're going, now bloody well go!

This is not the kind of legal uncertainty you want to base a continuing relationship on.

Would the question of good faith apply to the way the referendum was conducted when the issue was grossly distorted by lies and misrepresentations?

Surely, the absence of facts should have a part to play in deciding how mislead voters were.

Calina

Igotadose wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the vote of confidence

Jim2007 wrote: »

The ECJ could not care less what kind of faith it is done in!

I don't know that it will necessarily be a question before the ECJ unless there are objections to the UK withdrawing its Article 50 notification were the UK to decide to follow that route for whatever reason.

I would certainly expect the other 27 member states being interested in the UK demonstrating good faith and sincere cooperation however.

Sand

I don't think good faith comes into it. 52% of people voted for Brexit. That such a bad idea got above the margin of error would be concerning. 52% is an indication of a failure of the British political culture. How can there be good faith from such a culture? Just because a certain subset of the UK are upset on Twitter doesn't signal any serious change in the UK mindset towards the EU. Even UK remainers begin their defence of the EU by attacking it. This was a core problem with the UK Remain campaign. Remain was largely expedient, not actually a passionately held position.

An attempt to halt Brexit now would only paper over the cracks, it wouldn't clean the wound which would continue to fester. Brexit has to be fully implemented so all the poison and stupidity in British politics, media and indeed the average voter is drawn out. There cant be any excuses, Brexit means Brexit. Its tough love.

In any case the UK cant unilaterally rescind Art 50 (The article text is clear, the intent is notified and then the treaties cease to apply 2 years later. An extension is possible, but not cancellation). And there is a significant (and growing) faction within the EU who will be glad to see the back of the UK as a disruptive element. The negotiations, particularly the clearly chaotic British management of them, only serves to reinforce that view.

I think the kindest thing the EU can do for the UK is expedite the UK's transfer into the EEA. The EU may not want the British active in the EU policymaking, but will certainly accept the UK's money and market access. The UK gets to fufill Brexit (out of the EU) whilst limiting the damage to just some political blushes. As and when the grey vote for Brexit dies off (20-30 years), the young British can re-apply for EU membership if they can demonstrate the British political and media culture has matured.

However the view that Brexit can be reversed, or will never happen (I still see this expressed) merely contributes to the UK crashing out of the EU unprepared into no-deal Brexit. Brexit is going to happen - denial is not a part of planning for that.

Really Interested

Sand wrote: »

I don't think good faith comes into it. 52% of people voted for Brexit. That such a bad idea got above the margin of error would be concerning. 52% is an indication of a failure of the British political culture. How can there be good faith from such a culture? Just because a certain subset of the UK are upset on Twitter doesn't signal any serious change in the UK mindset towards the EU. Even UK remainers begin their defence of the EU by attacking it. This was a core problem with the UK Remain campaign. Remain was largely expedient, not actually a passionately held position.

An attempt to halt Brexit now would only paper over the cracks, it wouldn't clean the wound which would continue to fester. Brexit has to be fully implemented so all the poison and stupidity in British politics, media and indeed the average voter is drawn out. There cant be any excuses, Brexit means Brexit. Its tough love.

In any case the UK cant unilaterally rescind Art 50 (The article text is clear, the intent is notified and then the treaties cease to apply 2 years later. An extension is possible, but not cancellation). And there is a significant (and growing) faction within the EU who will be glad to see the back of the UK as a disruptive element. The negotiations, particularly the clearly chaotic British management of them, only serves to reinforce that view.

I think the kindest thing the EU can do for the UK is expedite the UK's transfer into the EEA. The EU may not want the British active in the EU policymaking, but will certainly accept the UK's money and market access. The UK gets to fufill Brexit (out of the EU) whilst limiting the damage to just some political blushes. As and when the grey vote for Brexit dies off (20-30 years), the young British can re-apply for EU membership if they can demonstrate the British political and media culture has matured.

However the view that Brexit can be reversed, or will never happen (I still see this expressed) merely contributes to the UK crashing out of the EU unprepared into no-deal Brexit. Brexit is going to happen - denial is not a part of planning for that.

But the EEA requires free movement! how is that out of EU? I would if I had lived in UK voted remain, i still believe both UK and EU best served if they remain, but it is best now they just leave, its what they want and sooner they out the better.

Firblog

Really Interested wrote: »

Its not the Court I dont trust, it is the politicians, nothing stopping the UK changing the laws or the possible outcomes as Parliament is supreme (well when they want it to be.)

And the politicians in the EU can't change any laws? Are much more trustworthy than their counterparts in the UK?

Really Interested wrote: »

Its simple if the UK dont agree then its hard brexit and no one protected including the English in spain and that will be funny to see.

Surely British people living in Spain will have the same rights as any other foreign nationals who are living in the EU? and quiet possibly near enough the same rights as foreign nationals living in the UK, such as the roughly 150K Spanish people living in the UK?

Given the relative rates of unemployment i'd say that 150,000 Spanish people having to return to Spain without any work and claiming unemployment, would have a less funny effect on the Spanish economy than 300,000 British people (many retired on pensions) returning to the UK.

Really Interested

Firblog wrote: »

And the politicians in the EU can't change any laws? Are much more trustworthy than their counterparts in the UK?



Surely British people living in Spain will have the same rights as any other foreign nationals who are living in the EU? and quiet possibly near enough the same rights as foreign nationals living in the UK, such as the roughly 150K Spanish people living in the UK?

Given the relative rates of unemployment i'd say that 150,000 Spanish people having to return to Spain without any work and claiming unemployment, would have a less funny effect on the Spanish economy than 300,000 British people (many retired on pensions) returning to the UK.

Any change to treaty rights would require the agreement of the 27 countries, also it could be that the agreement allows that the laws as they effect citizens effected after brexit are frozen. Finally and very important the EU politicians can not by a simple act of parliament rewrite the court law.

If the UK does not agree then in a few short months the treaties no loner apply and those UK nationals in spain may very well be told to leave so be it, or they agree a fair treatment and anyone in another country continues with the protections they had.

A Americn living in spin can with ease be deported such a person has no real rights to his family joining him free movement is a important right.

An example a UK national living in London, meets a girl from China wants to marry her well UK law deals with her immigration, she has to be able to speak english and pass a history civics test and then maybe she can live with her spouse in london. If the husband is say spanish and wife is from china then under current EU law none of those impediments to free movement can happen. But if no agreement then no problem UK gets its power back and it can throw who it wants out when it wants.

Sand

Really Interested wrote: »

But the EEA requires free movement! how is that out of EU? I would if I had lived in UK voted remain, i still believe both UK and EU best served if they remain, but it is best now they just leave, its what they want and sooner they out the better.

All the British voted for was out of the EU. There was no 17 page voting ballot seeking the voters instruction on the four freedoms, the ECJ, the customs union or the single market. So EEA membership fufills the democratic mandate of the referendum, and the maintenance of the four freedoms doesnt contradict that mandate.

As it is, EEA membership is likely the most democratic outcome. 48% voted for no Brexit whatsoever. Add in the proportion of the 52% who would accept EEA membership and you have a democratic mandate for EEA membership.

FrancieBrady

How much longer can May last?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/universal-credit-stopped-paused-vote-government-defeat-commons-mp-a8007706.html

What effect do posters think an election would have at this point?

Really Interested

Sand wrote: »

All the British voted for was out of the EU. There was no 17 page voting ballot seeking the voters instruction on the four freedoms, the ECJ, the customs union or the single market. So EEA membership fufills the democratic mandate of the referendum, and the maintenance of the four freedoms doesnt contradict that mandate.

As it is, EEA membership is likely the most democratic outcome. 48% voted for no Brexit whatsoever. Add in the proportion of the 52% who would accept EEA membership and you have a democratic mandate for EEA membership.

Im not sure that many who supported Brexit would support that. Also Article 50 is in or out and not a half way house, my reading is Article 50 only delas with how a country goes out then and only then we get into how its future relationship.

Within EEA will have to contribute to budget, conform to Regulations and Directives and ECJ and allow the freedoms. I really dont think that option is going to fly in the UK.

Sand

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How much longer can May last?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/universal-credit-stopped-paused-vote-government-defeat-commons-mp-a8007706.html

What effect do posters think an election would have at this point?

On Brexit, little or none. Labour has just as negative a view of the EU as the Tories. They only look more reasonable because they are in opposition and so aren't being tested.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

All the British voted for was out of the EU. There was no 17 page voting ballot seeking the voters instruction on the four freedoms, the ECJ, the customs union or the single market. So EEA membership fufills the democratic mandate of the referendum, and the maintenance of the four freedoms doesnt contradict that mandate.

As it is, EEA membership is likely the most democratic outcome. 48% voted for no Brexit whatsoever. Add in the proportion of the 52% who would accept EEA membership and you have a democratic mandate for EEA membership.

Of course. However, I don't think the EEA option is viable politically though I wholeheartedly support it. The problem is that the one thing Theresa May actually seems to be clear on is her obsession with cutting immigration (where she couldn't even come out in favour of Remain without bringing it up). You'll have the likes of Farage, Hannan, Cummings & Co scurrying out from under the rocks quicker than you can say "Undemocratic".

I agree with your point about the societal divisions which made for fertile ground to be exploited by right-wing and subsequently left-wing populists. The problem is that nobody is offering a compelling vision for the future of the UK. This is a conversation where much of the time will have to be devoted to Brexit. Corbyn is walking on eggshells around the issue saying nothing, May is... I don't know, UKIP are being UKIP, the SNP are trying to build credibility as a party of government leaving the Lib Dems who're still out in the cold after the tuition fees fiasco.

In any European country, clear choices and outcomes are offered in referenda. Here, no such outcomes were offered. The ballot mentioned the EU, not the ECJ, Euratom, the single market, the European Patent office, subsidies, etc...

People say that over 80% of the population voted for pro-Brexit parties but that's a fraught statement considering that most MP's were remainers.

ambro25

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What effect do posters think an election would have at this point?

At this moment in time, you'd likely end up with either Labour (who are just as split as the Tories between the various flavours of Brexit...and the leadership leaning towards a harder version of it, arguably), or one of the current Tory headliners (Davis, Johnson...Reese-Mogg: take your pick, all as bad as each other...but enjoying popularity).

So with Labour you'd have the whole brinksmanship re-run from scratch, only with 12 months' worth of lag. And with the Tory figureheads, insta-exit.

So, in answer to your question: terminal meltdown. Exit without deal, mass business exodus, a55 fully removed from GBP, insta-recession, politically irrelevant on international scene, <etc.>

Mostly due to the Art.50 timescale: there's about 12 months left to sort an exit deal.

Sand

Really Interested wrote: »

Im not sure that many who supported Brexit would support that. Also Article 50 is in or out and not a half way house, my reading is Article 50 only delas with how a country goes out then and only then we get into how its future relationship.

Within EEA will have to contribute to budget, conform to Regulations and Directives and ECJ and allow the freedoms. I really dont think that option is going to fly in the UK.

It doesn't need their support. Assuming the UK government (Be it Tory or Labour) got terrified enough by the prospect of a no-deal Brexit to return to the EU Council in a panic, throwing away their ridiculous 'red lines' and desperately pleading for some way to cancel or mitigate Brexit then holding a second referendum would simply not happen. A government convinced of the national interest wouldn't give the average voter the chance to muck it up again. It wouldn't be about popularity at that point.

However, that pre-supposes that the UK government gets terrified enough by the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. The UK government is too stupid to understand what a no-deal Brexit means otherwise they wouldn't be trying to threaten a bemused EU with it.

I don't disagree on Article 50. There's nothing in it that excludes that future relationship being EEA membership, and the EU if asked nicely could likely work to expedite that outcome. It would be a good outcome for the EU: troublesome member removed from policymaking while keeping the money and the market access.The Irish border issue is also neatly solved. Everyone wins. However, UK politics and media is so poisoned, the UK political classes would rather lead their country into ruin rather than backdown, and their media is too stupid to call them on it. So no-deal Brexit it is.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

Because you'd likely end up with either Labour (who are just as split as the Tories between the various flavours of Brexit...and the leadership leaning towards a harder version of it, arguably), or one of the current Tory headliners (Davis, Johnson...Reese-Mogg: take yoyr pick, all as bad as each other).

A seismic change in UK politics is very likely. Brexit will not go well for the Tories for the simple reason they are so divided over it that there is no possible outcome that will satisfy both wings. They will split into god knows what factions and parties.

Labour will be decimated because the economic damage will be felt quickest and deepest by their core vote. That will see the rise of extreme left wing politics so they will split too.

Years of chaos await. There is no prospect of a government of any hue being strong enough to take the hard decisions needed to dig them out of the hole they have made for themselves.

I don't know where or when it will end for the UK but everyone in Europe (Ireland included) is working to get as far away from the wreckage as possible.

FrancieBrady

Sand wrote: »

On Brexit, little or none. Labour has just as negative a view of the EU as the Tories. They only look more reasonable because they are in opposition and so aren't being tested.

ambro25 wrote: »

At this moment in time, you'd likely end up with either Labour (who are just as split as the Tories between the various flavours of Brexit...and the leadership leaning towards a harder version of it, arguably), or one of the current Tory headliners (Davis, Johnson...Reese-Mogg: take your pick, all as bad as each other...but enjoying popularity).

So with Labour you'd have the whole brinksmanship re-run from scratch, only with 12 months' worth of lag. And with the Tory figureheads, insta-exit.

So, in answer to your question: terminal meltdown. Exit without deal, mass business exodus, a55 fully removed from GBP, insta-recession, politically irrelevant on international scene, <etc.>

Mostly due to the Art.50 timescale: there's about 12 months left to sort an exit deal.

Would a significant swing to a Remain campaign or another Ref campaign not have an effect?

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

Would a significant swing to a Remain campaign or another Ref campaign not have an effect?

Who is going to initiate another referendum and what combination of votes could get it through parliament?

ambro25

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would a significant swing to a Remain campaign or another Ref campaign not have an effect?

The toxic combination of pro-leave red tops still stoking anti-EU and anti-immigrant sentiment (which is alive and very well still, including amongst the Labour heartlands oop'north) and the FPTP system would still inhibit that swing too much.

You'd have MPs branded 'traitors' on front pages faster than you can remember Judges merely applying UK constitutional being branded the same. I only know 2 politician of the caliber to stomach that (because they've already long -and consistently- put their careers where their Remain beliefs are, including at the last GE).

If you need a simple barometer, just point your browser to any EU-related article on the BBC news website with a comments section, and sort comments by ratings. I daresay it's representative enough of the average street level perception/feel. The 52% hasn't shrunk that much.

Too much of the electorate is crassly ignorant, seemingly impervious to facts and critical thinking, and gullible in equal measure.

Sand is correct: those need some formative tough love first, a sizeable reality check kicking them where it hurts rather than from the virtual pages of FullFacts and forums (let's not mention Favebook, m'kay?) A sentiment I've long shared (and posted on here before, I believe).

Sand

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would a significant swing to a Remain campaign or another Ref campaign not have an effect?

No, not on EU politics and the EU view of Brexit in my opinion. It would be a bit like May's Florence speech - hugely anticipated in the UK press as a decisive moment, wholly bemusing from the EU perspective. The ideal outcome for many in the EU at this point would be EEA membership. The chaotic, insulting and incompetent British management of the negotiations isnt an advertisement for the EU permitting the UK back into EU policymaking.

And all that said, only the Lib Dems (and the SNP) ran a Remain campaign last election and the the UK voters response was largely indifferent.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

Who is going to initiate another referendum and what combination of votes could get it through parliament?

I wouldn't be surprised to see another election in the next 24 months. It's possible that a coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP MP's along with pro-remain Tories could get a bill for a referendum on the final deal through the Commons. I expect that we will have Jeremy Corbyn as PM. If that's the case, I hope his mainly young supporters and MP's can lobby him to this end.

FrancieBrady

First Up wrote: »

Who is going to initiate another referendum and what combination of votes could get it through parliament?

I was hoping somebody might step up and put country before party. Still finding it hard to believe that there is nobody.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised to see another election in the next 24 months. It's possible that a coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP MP's along with pro-remain Tories could get a bill for a referendum on the final deal through the Commons. I expect that we will have Jeremy Corbyn as PM. If that's the case, I hope his mainly young supporters and MP's can lobby him to this end.

In 24 months the UK will have been outside the EU for six of them.

A Commons vote on the "final deal" would be interesting theatre but the Commons doesn't get to decide if it is put into effect or not.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

I was hoping somebody might step up and put country before party. Still finding it hard to believe that there is nobody.

The country would have to vote them in first. Can you see that happening?

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

In 24 months the UK will have been outside the EU for six of them.

A Commons vote on the "final deal" would be interesting theatre but the Commons doesn't get to decide if it is put into effect or not.

Unless they secure a transition period by obtaining the assent of all 27 EU member states.

First Up wrote: »

The country would have to vote them in first. Can you see that happening?

This statement is predicated on there being a credible, charismatic candidate who can make a case for it and win the requisite votes. Keir Starmer perhaps but Labour is in the midst of another love affair with Socialism.

FrancieBrady

First Up wrote: »

The country would have to vote them in first. Can you see that happening?

I would hope somebody would try if the government falls soon. There's clearly a Remain vote out there.