Brexit discussion thread III

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

Also, I see The Sun sold the removal of workers rights as freedom from working hour restrictions. Yes, working too long is a positive, you don't need rest and should work as long as you possibly can.

The logical extension of that would be.

The justice secretary has said more inmates should be allowed to "commute" to work from jail.

joeysoap

Re The EU budget:

Accepted that the budget will be approx €15 - €20b short from 2021 onwards - if it remains at current amount.


But by 2021 will Poland ( appears to be biggest beneficiary) and other net beneficiary countries not be in a better position than they are now?

Should there be a need for other net contributors ( and shouldn’t this group of countries be increasing?) to increase their contribution or could their current contribution suffice if the the beneficiary countries received less?

Professor Moriarty

Barnier being as plain as plain can be:

Britain cannot have a special deal for the City of London, the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator has told the Guardian, dealing a blow to Theresa May’s hopes of securing a bespoke trade agreement with the bloc.

Michel Barnier said it was unavoidable that British banks and financial firms would lose the passports that allow them to trade freely in the EU, as a result of any decision to quit the single market.

“There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn’t exist.” He said the outcome was a consequence of “the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport.”

So that's Canada +++ down the tubes.


Even more definitive rebuttals from Barnier:

""A trade deal could be agreed within a two-year transition period, but would have to be ratified by more than 35 national and regional parliaments."
Jaysus. More vetoes. Walloons anyone?

"The UK could not stop Brexit unilaterally, arguing that overturning the decision to leave would require the consent of 27 EU member states – a view at odds with one of the authors of article 50, Lord Kerr."
So Ireland gets a reverse veto. Handy.

"The UK must follow all rules and regulations of the EU during the transition period, including new laws passed after the UK has left."
Jacob and Boris will go bananas.

"The UK could negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world during the transition, but they could not come into force."
Will be very difficult to negotiate any kind of a deal with anyone else until you know under what rules and regulations you'll eventually be operating. Even harder for putative trading partners.

"He would not confirm British estimates that the final Brexit bill – the UK’s outstanding obligations to the EU – would be no more than €45bn (£39bn)."
Well, one can assume it won't be less.

Leroy42

I find the talk of Canada + or special deals as strange.

Why would EU give this to the UK? They would need to get something in return but I have not seen anything even mentioned about what that would be.

And no point mentioning the trade as the UK are so fond of telling everyone that a hard brexit will not have much impact and thus not offering a better trade deal won't have any negative effect on EU.

Just to think about it dispassionately, why would they want to leave passporting rights in the UK? What advantage is there to that from an EU perspective? Would it not make more 'sense' to have it within the EU. Of course I get it that London is a major financial hub and not everything will move but I don't see any advantage to leaving it thre.

Would the UK allow the EU to have oversight through ECB?

Consonata

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a "fact". It is a matter to be conclusively dealt with in phase 2.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It has been dealt with in phase one.

By agreeing there will be no regulatory unalignment between the 2 nations, the UK has accepted that they will be remaining a part of the single market

steddyeddy

EU rules out special deal for the city. Services make up 60-80% of the UK's economy. This would be the most devastating effect of Brexit IMHO.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/18/uk-cannot-have-a-special-deal-for-the-city-says-eu-brexit-negotiator-barnier

Water John

Davis thinks financial services go hand in hand with goods.
But it simple, the SM and CU are about goods. There is no agreement in relation to financial services.
Cuckoo land.

I mentioned the blunt instrument that is the referendum in an earlier post. Here's what David Davis said about them in the House of Commons on 26 November 2002. It's worth quoting at length. (I've bolded what I think are the relevant bits).

David Davis: There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all. Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

Oh David why did you bother having one in the first place..............

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021126/debtext/21126-17.htm

Oddly enough it was a piece I saw in the Telegraph of all papers that mentioned it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/14/incredible-quote-15-years-ago-coming-back-haunt-david-davis/

We cannot blame Davis for the referendum.

It was Cameron's dangerous attempt at a sop to the right of the party.

All Out War explains very well the problems that Cameron had, and the 'solution' he came up with was the poorly structured, poorly thought out, in-out referendum that will be a defining point of UK history and politics for the coming decade.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

We cannot blame Davis for the referendum.

It was Cameron's dangerous attempt at a sop to the right of the party.

All Out War explains very well the problems that Cameron had, and the 'solution' he came up with was the poorly structured, poorly thought out, in-out referendum that will be a defining point of UK history and politics for the coming decade.

Indeed we can't, but what he said is turning out to be pretty accurate. Some of the comments in the Telegraph piece are quite eye opening. The third one is unbelievable tbh.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

Davis thinks financial services go hand in hand with goods.
But it simple, the SM and CU are about goods. There is no agreement in relation to financial services.
Cuckoo land.

No, in principle the SM covers both goods and services.

What Davis wants is an FTA that covers both goods and services, but doesn't include free movement, ECJ jurisdiction, financial contributions or regulatory compliance.

The EU has been saying for well over a year that this is absolutely not possible, and even David Davis the famous genius must have noticed this. Which means that the fact that he is now demanding it is rather worrying. It may suggest that the UK has abandoned the idea of targetting an attainable trade deal, and has instead decided to target one they know to be unattainable, while positioning themselves to blame the EU when they don't attain it.

This would not bode well for Ireland, but solo will rush to assure us that in adopting this position the UK is displaying nothing but friendship towards Ireland, and isn't it such a shame that we won't reciprocate?

Consonata

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, in principle the SM covers both goods and services.

What Davis wants is an FTA that covers both goods and services, but doesn't include free movement, ECJ jurisdiction, financial contributions or regulatory compliance.

The EU has been saying for well over a year that this is absolutely not possible, and even David Davis the famous genius must have noticed this. Which means that the fact that he is now demanding it is rather worrying. It may suggest that the UK has abandoned the idea of targetting an attainable trade deal, and has instead decided to target one they know to be unattainable, while positioning themselves to blame the EU when they don't attain it.

This would not bode well for Ireland, but solo will rush to assure us that in adopting this position the UK is displaying nothing but friendship towards Ireland, and isn't it such a shame that we won't reciprocate?

It allows him to keep an appearance of being "thrown out" of the EU, even though he clearly so desperately wants to keep to the Phase 1 Agreement. *sarcasm*

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Not accurate. She said that all EU labour law would become UK law and after the law is repatriated.

It's disingenuous to say that she wants to revoke the working time directive. Moreover even if she did want to it would have to be voted on in parliament.

It's even more disingenuous, surely, to imply that Vronsky said that May wants to revoke the working time directive? He didn't say or imply that; he said that, when asked, May wouldn't confirm that it wouldn't be revoked, which is correct.

The whole point of Brexit, and of transposing EU law into UK law, is so that the UK can revoke it if they wish, solo. Which means that the question posed to May, (does she propose to revoke it?) and her repeated refusal to commit to not revoking it, coupled with the UK's strong opposition to the Directive when it was adopted, do raise a serious question mark over HMG's intentions in this regard.

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

An interesting comment here from Michel Barnier . . . This would appear to be a very different perspective that what the UK have. And certainly no possibility of the UK parliament voting on the final deal before they leave.

There are to be two separate agreements.

The first is the withdrawal agreement, which will regulate the UK's withdrawal from the EU, the financial settlement, the Irish border, the ongoing rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, that kind of thing. That agreement must enter into force by 29 March 2019, which means it must be negotiated, settled and approved by all parties before that date. The working timetable is to negotiate the terms of the agreement by October 2018 (but that might slip a bit) and then spend from then until March 2019 getting sign-off from the various stakeholders. That's the agreement that the House of Commons has just decided to give itself a "meaningful vote" on. The "meaningful vote", obviously, has to happen before March 2019.

The other is a future trade agreement between the EU and the UK. As of March 2018 the UK and the EU will begin "preliminary and preparatory" talks on the framework for future trade between them, but detailed negotiation of the trade agreement won't begin until after March 2019, and it's likely to be some time after that before a trade agreement is actually concluded. Barnier's comments relate to the trade agreement.

The result is that when the UK Parliament has it's "meaningful vote" on the withdrawal agreement, they will not know what, if any, trade agreement the UK will conclude with the EU at some point in the future. At best, they may gave have some sense of what kind of future trade agreement is possible, based on (a) the progress to date of the "preliminary and preparatory" discussions about the framework for trade, (b) the degree of regulatory freedom that the UK is retaining for itself in the draft withdrawal agreement, and (c) the public statements of both the UK and the EU as to what they will or will not agree to.

On edit: In the comments they are reported as making, both Barnier on the one hand and Davis//May on the other are jockeying for position before the start of the "preliminary and preparatory" discussions in March, so I suggest that (on both sides) you shouldn't treat what they are saying now as representing their final position; these are their opening shots. Both sides will move somewhat from the positions that they are staking out now, although both a strategic analysis of their relative bargaining positions and the course of the Brexit negotiations to date suggest that the UK will move a lot further than the EU.

Samaris

March 18: Davis will present what the UK want. Barnier will produce what is possible, assuming that the UK has found reality and knows what it wants. Davis will want to talk trade and the EU will want to discuss transition.

March ends with impasse and a tangle of red lines.

June/July: Flailing sets in and we revisit Phase 1 bits. Ireland gets annoyed.

August - more threats of no deal. Ireland informs the air near a reporter that Ireland has a veto on the deal. The Daily Mail produces a "TRAITORS to the Empire!" headline with a map of the Republic. Everyone outside Britain looks confused.

October: sudden realisation of how close brexit day is. Panic sets in, the folding starts and eventually it looks like the UK have capitulated.

March 19: "It's all the EU's fault we don't have a deal!"

Or so my crystal ball tells me. Caveat of May's government collapsing at some point though.

Peregrinus

Whereas my crystal ball says:

- There will be a Brexit deal.

- It will be pretty much on the terms that the EU wants.

- By the time it is hammered out, talks about a trade deal will not have progressed very far. The UK will still be peddling a have-cake-and-eat-it approach for domestic consumption, with a view to securing acceptance of the Brexit deal within the UK. This stance by the UK will have prevented any real progress on a possible trade deal.

- At some point after the Brexit deal has been safely locked in, the UK will finally exercise "control" by opting either to have their cake, or to eat it, and a trade deal will be settled accordingly.

- If they jump one way, they'll get a Canada-style trade deal; if the other, something a bit closer to Norway.

- Which way will they jump? I say towards Norway. The commitments they have already given in relation to the Irish border effectively preclude the kind of regulatory freedom that the Canada option would open up for them. And they are likely to have to reaffirm and intensify those commitments in order to nail down the Brexit deal. So they are effectively giving away already whatever benefits they might hope to achieve by confining themselves to a Canada-style trade deal, which suggests they don't intend to confine themselves to that.

- There is a possibility, though, that Baldrick's cunning plan is to honour the commitments they have given to the EU (full regulatory alignment across the Irish border) but not the commitments they have given to the DUP (regulatory alignment as between NI and GB). Obviously HMG ought to honour the commitments that they have given to the DUP but equally obviously the EU won't be greatly fussed if they don't. So if they can finesse their parliamentary numbers embarrassment and shaft the DUP they could still pull off an open border and a significant degree of regulatory freedom for GB, And that would push their trade deal in the Canada direction rather than the Norway direction. However that's all a bit speculative and for the time being my crystal ball is saying no, it'll be a high degree of regulatory alignment with the EU for the whole of the UK, and a closer-to-Norway style trade deal.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's even more disingenuous, surely, to imply that Vronsky said that May wants to revoke the working time directive? He didn't say or imply that; he said that, when asked, May wouldn't confirm that it wouldn't be revoked, which is correct.

The whole point of Brexit, and of transposing EU law into UK law, is so that the UK can revoke it if they wish, solo. Which means that the question posed to May, (does she propose to revoke it?) and her repeated refusal to commit to not revoking it, coupled with the UK's strong opposition to the Directive when it was adopted, do raise a serious question mark over HMG's intentions in this regard.

Revoking the Working Time Act would surely push Labour back towards the EU, and even Corbyn would have to advocate membership of the SM and CU in order to protect workers' rights.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whereas my crystal ball says:

- There will be a Brexit deal.

- It will be pretty much on the terms that the EU wants.

- By the time it is hammered out, talks about a trade deal will not have progressed very far. The UK will still be peddling a have-cake-and-eat-it approach for domestic consumption, with a view to securing acceptance of the Brexit deal within the UK. This stance by the UK will have prevented any real progress on a possible trade deal.

- At some point after the Brexit deal has been safely locked in, the UK will finally exercise "control" by opting either to have their cake, or to eat it, and a trade deal will be settled accordingly.

- If they jump one way, they'll get a Canada-style trade deal; if the other, something a bit closer to Norway.

- Which way will they jump? I say towards Norway. The commitments they have already given in relation to the Irish border effectively preclude the kind of regulatory freedom that the Canada option would open up for them. And they are likely to have to reaffirm and intensify those commitments in order to nail down the Brexit deal. So they are effectively giving away already whatever benefits they might hope to achieve by confining themselves to a Canada-style trade deal, which suggests they don't intend to confine themselves to that.

- There is a possibility, though, that Baldrick's cunning plan is to honour the commitments they have given to the EU (full regulatory alignment across the Irish border) but not the commitments they have given to the DUP (regulatory alignment as between NI and GB). Obviously HMG ought to honour the commitments that they have given to the DUP but equally obviously the EU won't be greatly fussed if they don't. So if they can finesse their parliamentary numbers embarrassment and shaft the DUP they could still pull off an open border and a significant degree of regulatory freedom for GB, And that would push their trade deal in the Canada direction rather than the Norway direction. However that's all a bit speculative and for the time being my crystal ball is saying no, it'll be a high degree of regulatory alignment with the EU for the whole of the UK, and a closer-to-Norway style trade deal.

Do you think they will be able to obtain passporting rights for services?
As an aside, the EU should offer EU citizenship for about a thousand pounds per family. There are two birds here, firstly, if say, ten million remainers apply, that's ten billion straight away to the eu coffers, on top of whatever the UK government pays. It'll make a lovely headline.
Secondly, there are millions of British children who were born as citizens of the EU, had no say in this madness, but will shoulder the burden of this folly of a degenerating old blinkered and prejudiced generation (I include May, Davis and the voting demographic in this).
They ought not have their European citizenship ripped from them by these venal and soon to be irrelevant fools.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Revoking the Working Time Act would surely push Labour back towards the EU, and even Corbyn would have to advocate membership of the SM and CU in order to protect workers' rights.

Labour would presumably be in opposition at the time, and could advocate what they liked.

By the time this can actually happen, the UK has left the EU, hasn't joined the EEA or the Customs Union, and the transitional period has now passed. If Labour were to advocate rejoining the SM and the CU and to run on that policy in the next election and to win, the UK would that have to apply, as an outsider, for admission. Very big deal. Not a commitment the Labour party is likely to make on the back of the revocation of just one directive.

If they were that spooked at the possibilty of just one directive being revoked, they wouldn't be endorsing Brexit in the first place.

Far more likely that Labour would just commit to reinstating the working time directive when next returned to power.

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

Do you think they will be able to obtain passporting rights for services?
As an aside, the EU should offer EU citizenship for about a thousand pounds per family. There are two birds here, firstly, if say, ten million remainers apply, that's ten billion straight away to the eu coffers, on top of whatever the UK government pays. It'll make a lovely headline.
Secondly, there are millions of British children who were born as citizens of the EU, had no say in this madness, but will shoulder the burden of this folly of a degenerating old blinkered and prejudiced generation (I include May, Davis and the voting demographic in this).
They ought not have their European citizenship ripped from them by these venal and soon to be irrelevant fools.

Anyone with any sense will get over to NO to have their babies once Brexit comes in. Free membership of the EU.

It also brings up the very strange issue that one part of the UK will have more rights as citizens that other parts. If they are EU citizens, can they bring a case to the ECJ whilst a Scottish person can't?

Tell me how

flatty wrote:

Secondly, there are millions of British children who were born as citizens of the EU, had no say in this madness, but will shoulder the burden of this folly of a degenerating old blinkered and prejudiced generation (I include May, Davis and the voting demographic in this). They ought not have their European citizenship ripped from them by these venal and soon to be irrelevant fools.

You could say that about any referendum, the children will live with the result but do not get to vote.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

Do you think they will be able to obtain passporting rights for services?

No. The UK will not acheive tariff-free frictionless trade in both goods and services without also accepting free movement. There are obvious reasons why the EU would never concede this and no reasons at all why even the most deluded consumer of the Brexit kool-aid would imagine for an instant that they would.

flatty wrote: »

As an aside, the EU should offer EU citizenship for about a thousand pounds per family. There are two birds here, firstly, if say, ten million remainers apply, that's ten billion straight away to the eu coffers, on top of whatever the UK government pays. It'll make a lovely headline.

Absolutely not. Citizenship is not a tradeable commodity. If you want EU citizenship and you are not a citizen of a member state, campaign to have your country join the EU. If you can't wait for that, then you need to take steps to have yourself naturalised as a citizen of a member state. You shouldn't be allowed to buy your way around that.

flatty wrote: »

Secondly, there are millions of British children who were born as citizens of the EU, had no say in this madness, but will shoulder the burden of this folly of a degenerating old blinkered and prejudiced generation (I include May, Davis and the voting demographic in this).
They ought not have their European citizenship ripped from them by these venal and soon to be irrelevant fools.

We all have to live with the consequences of our parents' mistakes, just as our children will have to live with the consequences of ours. It is the human condition. What the next generation of Britons will have to do is to rectify their parents' mistake by applying for admission to the EU.

You don't get EU citizenship separated from citizenship of a member state any more than you get free trade in goods and services separated from free movement of labour.

Really Interested

flatty wrote: »

Do you think they will be able to obtain passporting rights for services?
As an aside, the EU should offer EU citizenship for about a thousand pounds per family. There are two birds here, firstly, if say, ten million remainers apply, that's ten billion straight away to the eu coffers, on top of whatever the UK government pays. It'll make a lovely headline.
Secondly, there are millions of British children who were born as citizens of the EU, had no say in this madness, but will shoulder the burden of this folly of a degenerating old blinkered and prejudiced generation (I include May, Davis and the voting demographic in this).
They ought not have their European citizenship ripped from them by these venal and soon to be irrelevant fools.

Without doing much research I do not believe the EU would have the power to give EU passport to UK citizens. While all Citizens of member states have EU citizenship the granting of member state citizenship is a matter for the member state The European Court of justice has been clear on that.

So in effect to have EU citizenship you must be a citizen of a member state after UK exit such UK citizens would not be members.

flatty

Which will be denied them.
We are not talking about buying anything here. We are talking about children, born citizens of the EU, having this revoked. They should, at the very least, be given the chance to maintain this. They are citizens now, have been since birth, and should be allowed to maintain this.
I'm irish, so it's of less relevance, but ireland has freely accepted as citizens the children of one of my neighbours, who have never been to Ireland, nor has he, nor has his wife. A neighbour who trumpeted and voted brexit, and promptly invoked a maternal grandparent and they now have irish passports.
There are millions of pro European families and children who could not, and cannot.
It's high time Ireland only allowed one passport, just for people like this.

flatty

PS Ireland were selling passports until recently enough, so I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from.
A million I think was the price

flaneur

There's no way they'll get unfettered access for financial services, particularly since the 2008 crisis. The EU and ECB is moving towards things like a unified banking market, harmonised financial services regulations and putting a lot of measures in place to ensure stability of the Eurozone.

The British have basically expressed a desire to make London an even bigger tax and more importantly, a light touch regulatory haven for financial services. They simply isn't compatible with the EU.

Why would we want to have our economy exposed to that? It benefits nobody, except a narrow group of speculators.

The EU and ECB will likely take Brexit as an opportunity to grow a properly regulated European financial services sector that's a buffer against the chaos that arrives from London and Wall Street.

I think the British are very confused here again. They're demanding access to a market and basically offering little or nothing in return. The EU isn't desperate to open itself to anymore "regulatory paradise" (parasites) and even the Swiss are getting a heavy dose of reality on the one.

Brexit has given the EU a huge opportunity to remove a lot of crazy from the system and not have to compromise because the UK has volunteered to leave the bloc entirely anyway.

Brexit has been a massive own goal for "The City" not matter how you look at it. Never again will it have open access to the EU and never again will it have those kind of convoluted loopholes and exceptional arrangements they allowed it to operate as a system within a system and all of that.

Really Interested

flatty wrote: »

PS Ireland were selling passports until recently enough, so I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from.
A million I think was the price

That was back in 80’s it was dropped pretty quickly major backlash when an investor in Albert's factory got passport.

Nody

flatty wrote: »

As an aside, the EU should offer EU citizenship for about a thousand pounds per family. There are two birds here, firstly, if say, ten million remainers apply, that's ten billion straight away to the eu coffers, on top of whatever the UK government pays. It'll make a lovely headline.
Secondly, there are millions of British children who were born as citizens of the EU, had no say in this madness, but will shoulder the burden of this folly of a degenerating old blinkered and prejudiced generation (I include May, Davis and the voting demographic in this).
They ought not have their European citizenship ripped from them by these venal and soon to be irrelevant fools.

Simply include UK citizens on the shortlist to become citizens rapidly and let each country set their own requirements as per local law. The potential brain drain of doing so (and the benefit for the member states who'll get highly educated people working there during their prime years but may return home for retirement) is big enough benefit alone without the need for payments.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

PS Ireland were selling passports until recently enough, so I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from.
A million I think was the price

That was outrageous too, which is why it was dropped.

But it wasn't just a case of pay a million, get a passport. You did actually have to develop a connection to Ireland by investing in and owning an Irish business. There may well be EU countries which still operate such schemes.

Tell me how

flatty wrote:

PS Ireland were selling passports until recently enough, so I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from. A million I think was the price

There was outrage about that as well. It's not like it was in a program for government.

flaneur

Peregrinus wrote: »

That was outrageous too, which is why it was dropped.

But it wasn't just a case of pay a million, get a passport. You did actually have to develop a connection to Ireland by investing in and owning an Irish business. There may well be EU countries which still operate such schemes.

Quite a few places do, including Canada using visa for investment type programmes they have citizenship pathways.

Professor Moriarty

flaneur wrote: »

Quite a few places do, including Canada using visa for investment type programmes they have citizenship pathways.

Indeed, but it's an altogether different matter when citizenship is granted to a person who invests a million pounds in the prime minister's dog food factory.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

We are not talking about buying anything here.

So what's the thousand pounds for?

flatty wrote: »

We are talking about children, born citizens of the EU, having this revoked. They should, at the very least, be given the chance to maintain this. . . .

They do have a chance to maintain this. As long as the UK is a democracy, they can campaign to have the UK reverse its decision and apply for EU membership once again.

And, the ethics of selling citizenship aside, from a policy point of view it would be madness for the EU to remove incentives for UK citizens to seek the readmission of the UK, which granting the the benefits of EU citizenship without having any connection to a member state would obviously tend to do.

Plus, it would remove any pressure on the UK government to grant free movement to EU citizens, if UK citizens could get free movement in the EU simply by paying for it.

For both principled and pragmatic reasons, this is a terrible policy idea.

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

Revoking the Working Time Act would surely push Labour back towards the EU, and even Corbyn would have to advocate membership of the SM and CU in order to protect workers' rights.

But But There is an 'Overtime' bonanza awaiting for every worker in 2018.


Well at least according to the Sun. How will the average person decide if that headlines is good or bag for them.

Jayop

Nothing to stop people from England coming to Belfast and having their kids who I assume would automatically be afforded Irish citizenship and the rights that come with it.

Really Interested

Nody wrote: »

Simply include UK citizens on the shortlist to become citizens rapidly and let each country set their own requirements as per local law. The potential brain drain of doing so (and the benefit for the member states who'll get highly educated people working there during their prime years but may return home for retirement) is big enough benefit alone without the need for payments.

Would require the 27 to agree treaty change to allow EU control of national citizenship, I do not see that passing and I for one would not be in favour.

Peregrinus

Jayop wrote: »

Nothing to stop people from England coming to Belfast and having their kids who I assume would automatically be afforded Irish citizenship and the rights that come with it.

Except the thought of having to come to Belfast, of course.

flaneur

Peregrinus wrote: »

So what's the thousand pounds for?

.

Probably a fairly excruciatingly high administration fee to put off legitimate applicants?

They're pushing a policy of discouraging immigration. These kinds of things are often calculated as barrier fees to reduce application volumes.

It may also be a notion that the Home Office immigration service must run at no cost to the state.

Leroy42

Why would the EU grant UK citizens access to free movement? Why not Botswana or Mongolia?

Uk seem to think that because they have been members of the club they should be treated differently.

But it really is no different to letting your membership lapse of any club. Once you stop paying your access rights are revoked. You want to come in then rejoin.

I understand that some in the UK will lose out but that is democracy at work. They need to fight to get the rights back from the UK not the EU

flatty

Actually, as a two fingers to hmg.
Also to prevent people doing it "just because"
Scotland must be seriously pissed off at the NI situation. I'd imagine there must be a good chance they'll leave the UK.
Would the EU admit them relatively painlessly I wonder. They must be talking to the EU.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would the EU grant UK citizens access to free movement? Why not Botswana or Mongolia?

Uk seem to think that because they have been members of the club they should be treated differently.

But it really is no different to letting your membership lapse of any club. Once you stop paying your access rights are revoked. You want to come in then rejoin.

I understand that some in the UK will lose out but that is democracy at work. They need to fight to get the rights back from the UK not the EU

Good morning!

Admittedly - this doesn't seem to be a concern for most people at least from what I can see.

It's obvious that if the UK is seeking to apply controls on labour migration that there will be corresponding controls on British citizens in the EU27.

This is one of the headline referendum issues. I think that Brexit is merely a process, it needs to be followed through to its conclusion because the people voted for it.

As for what specific policies get applied after the implementation of Brexit, that will be a matter for the people to decide in respect to the different party platforms that are presented to them in the next general election.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would the EU grant UK citizens access to free movement? Why not Botswana or Mongolia?

Uk seem to think that because they have been members of the club they should be treated differently.

But it really is no different to letting your membership lapse of any club. Once you stop paying your access rights are revoked. You want to come in then rejoin.

I understand that some in the UK will lose out but that is democracy at work. They need to fight to get the rights back from the UK not the EU

Firstly, that generation of kids cannot fight for anything as most remain too young to vote.
Secondly, they were born as EU citizens.

Anita Blow

20 out of 23 current cabinet ministers have either voted or spoken out against the working time directive . The NHS requires all it's doctors prior to starting their intern year to contractually waive their right to the directive.
The dog on the street knows what's going to happen to such protections once the UK leaves

devnull

If you want to hear what the Brexiteers think and the supporters of the Front Page of the Daily Mail and Telegraph among others, Sky News has now called a few of the trolls that were threatening Anna Soubry to get their justification.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/943058758208512000
An insight into the minds of Brexiteers, who state among others: "We should have never done away with hanging."

Shocking as well that the Daily Mail Political editor behind that enemies of the people guy is now working for No10.

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

Firstly, that generation of kids cannot fight for anything as most remain too young to vote.
Secondly, they were born as EU citizens.

They were born as UK citizens with rights to EU Freedom of movement through UK membership of the EU. They are not EU citizens. (at least that is mu understanding of it)

The UK have decided to revoke those rights. Thats democracy.

Water John

UK reverting to type. Cheap food, cheap labour policy, to make the fat cat Tory donors richer.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

Firstly, that generation of kids cannot fight for anything as most remain too young to vote.

Then they're hardly going to have a thousand pounds in their back pockets to buy EU citizenship, are they?

flatty wrote: »

Secondly, they were born as EU citizens.

And their justified outrage at being deprived of it will be directed where it should be, at Brexiters in the UK government and parliament.

I see no reason at all why the EU should wish to intervene there.

Peregrinus

flaneur wrote: »

Probably a fairly excruciatingly high administration fee to put off legitimate applicants?

They're pushing a policy of discouraging immigration. These kinds of things are often calculated as barrier fees to reduce application volumes.

It may also be a notion that the Home Office immigration service must run at no cost to the state.

Flatty is proposing that the EU should sell EU citizenship to UK citizens at a thousand pounds a pop. Nothing to do with the Home Office.

Professor Moriarty

devnull wrote: »

If you want to hear what the Brexiteers think and the supporters of the Front Page of the Daily Mail and Telegraph among others, Sky News has now called a few of the trolls that were threatening Anna Soubry to get their justification.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/943058758208512000
An insight into the minds of Brexiteers, who state among others: "We should have never done away with hanging."

Shocking as well that the Daily Mail Political editor behind that enemies of the people guy is now working for No10.

Fair due to Sky.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

UK reverting to type. Cheap food, cheap labour policy, to make the fat cat Tory donors richer.

It's both amusing and sad that the ordinary unemployed/working man in Britain believes that their interests will be best served by elitist Old Etonians, and their ilk, in thrall to lobbyists.