Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

No it isn't. You're all talking about obeying the law wherever you live.

The issue is reciprocal rights under an international agreement. Reciprocal - " bearing on or binding each of two parties equally". You can't leave it to national courts (or ECJ versus UK Supreme Court) to ensure those rights are the same in each country.

It's no good just saying they're here, obey the law here, because that's exactly why all the negotiations could collapse on that sort of facile / "go whistle" response.

'a compromise over the vexed issue of EU citizens’ future rights in the UK, suggesting they could be guaranteed in the international court of justice in The Hague.' this could be the alternative to that ?. it would be ridiculous for the ecj to have say over citizens living in Britain. we could use this compromise for a few years, but british courts should have full say over anyone living in britain. if you live in britain, you should be subject to british law and british courts, i dont really see a problem with that. its the same for any other country outside the eu.

 

[BobKowalski]

'a compromise over the vexed issue of EU citizens’ future rights in the UK, suggesting they could be guaranteed in the international court of justice in The Hague.' this could be the alternative to that ?. it would be ridiculous for the ecj to have say over citizens living in Britain. we could use this compromise for a few years, but british courts should have full say over anyone living in britain. if you live in britain, you should be subject to british law and british courts, i dont really see a problem with that. its the same for any other country outside the eu.

EU citizens arriving after Brexit will not be subject to ECJ jurisdiction. It only applies to EU citizens already resident here or arrive prior to any Brexit cut off date. EU citizens arrived and settled here with specific rights and with the legitimate assumption that these rights would not be infringed or taken away at a future date. It is the protection of these rights that the EU wish to see retained and protected against any future UK actions on immigration.

Any EU citizen arriving after Brexit will do so on a different criteria and be fully aware of that criteria prior to making a decision to settle here. They will also be subject to UK jurisdiction as would anyone arriving from a non EU country.

Essentially it is a transitional arrangement and will be one of many transitional arrangements that we will no doubt have with the EU. I doubt if the EU is going to back down on this but may accept some form of separate tribunal arrangement with judges from the UK and EU plus an outside judge. Suspect there will be a lot of these 'tribunals' presiding over us for years to come.

 

[smudgedj]

No it isn't. You're all talking about obeying the law wherever you live.

The issue is reciprocal rights under an international agreement. Reciprocal - " bearing on or binding each of two parties equally". You can't leave it to national courts (or ECJ versus UK Supreme Court) to ensure those rights are the same in each country.

It's no good just saying they're here, obey the law here, because that's exactly why all the negotiations could collapse on that sort of facile / "go whistle" response.

They will be foreign citizens and will come under British law, it's ridiculous to think they wouldn't come under the laws of the country they live in. There can be no pleading of civis europae sum.

 

[BobKowalski]

They will be foreign citizens and will come under British law, it's ridiculous to think they wouldn't come under the laws of the country they live in. There can be no pleading of civis europae sum.

They do come under the laws of the UK. Equally the basis of their residency was agreed under an international treaty to which the UK is a signatory and this grants them certain rights. The EU wishes these citizens to retain these rights and ensure they are fully protected going forward. UK citizens in the EU also have the same rights which the EU has agreed to maintain after Brexit. Given this agreement the EU cannot allow existing EU residents in the UK to have less rights and protections than UK residents in the EU. Again this only applies to current EU citizens residing here. It does not apply to EU citizens who arrive after Brexit.

The FT is also running a story tonight that the UK has accepted we will have to pay an exit bill. I guess the whistling stopped. No other details on this as behind a paywall so anyone with details or corrections etc feel free to pile in.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

They do come under the laws of the UK. Equally the basis of their residency was agreed under an international treaty to which the UK is a signatory and this grants them certain rights. The EU wishes these citizens to retain these rights and ensure they are fully protected going forward. UK citizens in the EU also have the same rights which the EU has agreed to maintain after Brexit. Given this agreement the EU cannot allow existing EU residents in the UK to have less rights and protections than UK residents in the EU. Again this only applies to current EU citizens residing here. It does not apply to EU citizens who arrive after Brexit.

The FT is also running a story tonight that the UK has accepted we will have to pay an exit bill. I guess the whistling stopped. No other details on this as behind a paywall so anyone with details or corrections etc feel free to pile in.

The FT is one of the most pro EU papers. I wouldn't take any notice of them on Brexit issues as they have an agenda.

 

[smudgedj]

The FT is one of the most pro EU papers. I wouldn't take any notice of them on Brexit issues as they have an agenda.

It's a non-story. The UK Government has simply reiterated what it has said before, i.e. that there are obligations on both sides.

“On the financial settlement, as set out in the prime minister’s [Article 50 letter] the government has been clear that we will work with the EU to determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of our continuing partnership”.

“The government recognises that the UK has obligations to the EU, and the EU obligations to the UK, that will survive the UK’s withdrawal — and that these need to be resolved,” the minister added.

 

[Gabriel]

In the opinion of the FT

willing to reach a “fair settlement” of unspecified obligations.

is not as strong as

“that the UK has obligations to the EU . . . that will survive the UK’s withdrawal — and that these need to be resolved”.

Difficult to know if that is a reiteration or repackaging, and of course every source, and indeed poster, is prejudiced.

 

[Vic]

...

Essentially it is a transitional arrangement and will be one of many transitional arrangements that we will no doubt have with the EU. I doubt if the EU is going to back down on this but may accept some form of separate tribunal arrangement with judges from the UK and EU plus an outside judge. Suspect there will be a lot of these 'tribunals' presiding over us for years to come.

It's crazy. There's no need to invent (at some cost) a new tribunal when there's a perfectly good court. The only reason not to use the ECJ (even without a British judge) would be to disadvantage EU citizens in the UK relative to UK citizens abroad. Any ruling by the ECJ would apply to both groups. What's wrong with that? - if you intend to play fair. But it's obvious that some Brexiteers (edited!) have no interest in playing fair, and have no problem abrogating our treaty obligations. Perfidious Albion is reborn.

 

[i kne albert davy]

It's crazy. There's no need to invent (at some cost) a new tribunal when there's a perfectly good court. The only reason not to use the ECJ (even without a British judge) would be to disadvantage EU citizens in the UK relative to UK citizens abroad. Any ruling by the ECJ would apply to both groups. What's wrong with that? - if you intend to play fair. But it's obvious that some Remainers have no interest in playing fair, and have no problem abrogating our treaty obligations. Perfidious Albion is reborn.

Them remainers have a lot to answer for you're right.

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

It's crazy. There's no need to invent (at some cost) a new tribunal when there's a perfectly good court. The only reason not to use the ECJ (even without a British judge) would be to disadvantage EU citizens in the UK relative to UK citizens abroad. Any ruling by the ECJ would apply to both groups. What's wrong with that? - if you intend to play fair. But it's obvious that some Remainers have no interest in playing fair, and have no problem abrogating our treaty obligations. Perfidious Albion is reborn.

Late night and the drinks cabinet has been left unlocked methinks :)