Current Affairs EU In or Out

[hullefc]

My post was from real life experience, not from a google inspired reply we voted OUT and if we have to leave on WTO rules so be it - you will see a big EU climb down as they will lose out more than us on tariffs as you put it - the way they are dictating terms shows them how pathetic they are wanting a divorce bill - we have clearly stated we will settle up on what we owe - end of and why should that come first? trade deal should have been first the latter at the end!

The UK agreed to discuss citizens rights, Ireland and the divorce settlement. The EU negotiators asked the government for their thoughts on those issues and none was forthcoming. So they asked again and yet again none was put forward. Finally, the UK government presented its' 'position papers', which bore no resemblance to the reality on the ground. The position paper on Ireland has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Never mind Citizens rights - which the EU doesn't trust the UK to deliver considering the Home Office is sending letters out threatening to deport people. And as far as the divorce settlement - May never gave a monetary figure during her Florence speech.

If the EU had come along and said, when you leave this and that will happen and it will cost this, there would have been an almighty hullabaloo that the 'EU are dictating terms to us and not asked for our opinions'. These negotiations should have been done by Christmas. The 'no deal resort to WTO tariffs' is a sign that they have lost touch with reality. The Tories promote themselves are non tariffs free traders. It wont look good for them, in any trade negotiations with other countries, if they are seen to resort to tariffs as a threat. The EU may well 'climb down', in fact they most certainly will agree to non tariff free trade in goods. If not the UK can't use tariff money to give to for insatnce the car industry as it is against WTO rules.

But that will be against a back drop of evermore trade war tensions including EU industry with the UK's. The fallout to the financial sector is uncertain and the amount of jobs moved to the EU is still unknown, but there will be jobs moved abroad. Not good news for UK.

 

[Joey66]

The UK agreed to discuss citizens rights, Ireland and the divorce settlement. The EU negotiators asked the government for their thoughts on those issues and none was forthcoming. So they asked again and yet again none was put forward. Finally, the UK government presented its' 'position papers', which bore no resemblance to the reality on the ground. The position paper on Ireland has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Never mind Citizens rights - which the EU doesn't trust the UK to deliver considering the Home Office is sending letters out threatening to deport people. And as far as the divorce settlement - May never gave a monetary figure during her Florence speech.

If the EU had come along and said, when you leave this and that will happen and it will cost this, there would have been an almighty hullabaloo that the 'EU are dictating terms to us and not asked for our opinions'. These negotiations should have been done by Christmas. The 'no deal resort to WTO tariffs' is a sign that they have lost touch with reality. The Tories promote themselves are non tariffs free traders. It wont look good for them, in any trade negotiations with other countries, if they are seen to resort to tariffs as a threat. The EU may well 'climb down', in fact they most certainly will agree to non tariff free trade in goods. If not the UK can't use tariff money to give to for insatnce the car industry as it is against WTO rules.

But that will be against a back drop of evermore trade war tensions including EU industry with the UK's. The fallout to the financial sector is uncertain and the amount of jobs moved to the EU is still unknown, but there will be jobs moved abroad. Not good news for UK.

Same retric was used in the Brexit campaign!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Same retric was used in the Brexit campaign!

The earth is round Joe. You know that, right?

 

[tsubaki]

The UK agreed to discuss citizens rights, Ireland and the divorce settlement. The EU negotiators asked the government for their thoughts on those issues and none was forthcoming. So they asked again and yet again none was put forward. Finally, the UK government presented its' 'position papers', which bore no resemblance to the reality on the ground. The position paper on Ireland has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Never mind Citizens rights - which the EU doesn't trust the UK to deliver considering the Home Office is sending letters out thretening to deport people. And as far as the divorce settlement - May never gave a monetary figure during her Florence speech.

The Irish situation is a mess - and will be until they accept freedom of movement, and by extension a free trade area, has to exist - but the EU stance on citizen's rights (specifically around the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU citizens in dispute with the UK Government) is deliberately designed to prevent agreement; no government should ever sign up to that.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The Irish situation is a mess - and will be until they accept freedom of movement, and by extension a free trade area, has to exist - but the EU stance on citizen's rights (specifically around the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU citizens in dispute with the UK Government) is deliberately designed to prevent agreement; no government should ever sign up to that.

There needs to be an impartial body though doesn't there? I mean lets say the government agrees to treat all current EU migrants living in the UK as they do currently under EU law, then they decide a year down the road that they don't want that to apply to unemployed or retired migrants. Are those migrants to trust the UK courts to provide a fair hearing?

 

[hullefc]

The Irish situation is a mess - and will be until they accept freedom of movement, and by extension a free trade area, has to exist - but the EU stance on citizen's rights (specifically around the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU citizens in dispute with the UK Government) is deliberately designed to prevent agreement; no government should ever sign up to that.

Ireland - the Good Friday Agreement guarantees free movement of people on the island of Ireland so there can't be any checks on people moving throughout the island. This by extension will mean no border for goods so Northern Ireland will stay in the customs union and the single market.

In the Northern Ireland Act 1989 there is a provision for ECJ intervention in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Also some Northern Irish citizens have Irish citizen rights, as dual passport holders and therefore come under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. There will be a special arrangement for the island of Ireland. Something the DUP are venomously against, as they want Brexit means Brexit.

As far as the wider issue of ECJ and EU citizens in the UK. The tale so far is that the EU just does not trust the UK to not renege on any agreement depending on the political situation in this country. That is why they want the ECJ to still have a say. A joint body would be similar to the UK/Chinese agreement over Hong Kong.

 

[peteblue]

The Irish situation is a mess - and will be until they accept freedom of movement, and by extension a free trade area, has to exist - but the EU stance on citizen's rights (specifically around the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU citizens in dispute with the UK Government) is deliberately designed to prevent agreement; no government should ever sign up to that.

Indeed. The EU are playing games here.....

 

[Anders_Limpar]

Really what planet where you living on?
the £8 million Gideon, and Cameron Brochure delivered through our door spelling out the doom , and gloom if we voted leave - the proposed emergency Budget if we dared to vote OUT!
The economy would fall over a cliff the very next day if we voted OUT
The propaganda from both sides was about even, personally I had seen it all before this time I got my vote right in voting OUT -
PM resigned then stated he would stay on =lies he landed a top earner as a after dinner speaker + he will have a PM pension!
Gideon could not accept the verdict left for another job to add to his other FIVE!
Corbyn who had half heartedly campaigned remain was almost ousted as opposition leader, and moves his views on a deal most weeks yet backed all Government policies for the signing of article 50 -
personally the gloom about us leaving on a no deal WTO rules does not bother me in the slightest as we will gain on tariffs, The EU is going to fail anyway so lets take the opportunity, and get out the cheapest way possible either deal or no deal if the EU want to play silly games!

Apologies - should have made that clearer for you (but I really think it was)- the idea of leaving with no deal was not mentioned by people campaigning for leave. It was obviously spoke about a lot by remainers. Leaving with no deal was dismissed as project fear.

It's only now that this becomes a very real possibility that suddenly an 8% drop in GDP and moving onto WTO is seen as great by leave zealots.

That was my only point - it's interesting to me that as the goalposts change, as it becomes clearer and clearer that new trade deals can't be negotiated over night, you lot refuse to even look at different options and simply change what becomes acceptable.

It was a 'small amount of economic pain' now it's up to 8% GDP, at what point does it have to get to for you to begin to think that economic suicide is worth it in the name of sovereignty?

 

[tsubaki]

There needs to be an impartial body though doesn't there? I mean lets say the government agrees to treat all current EU migrants living in the UK as they do currently under EU law, then they decide a year down the road that they don't want that to apply to unemployed or retired migrants. Are those migrants to trust the UK courts to provide a fair hearing?

Well, for a start it is a bit much to expect the ECJ to be an impartial body and then suggest the UK courts wouldn't be independent.

Secondly, what allowing the ECJ to have jurisdiction over the relationship between EU citizens and the UK government means that the EU can actively intervene in every interaction between an EU citizen and the British state and expect to have its rulings followed. Without the UK having legal primacy over its own affairs, you would inevitably end up with the rights of an EU citizen being defined as those that he or she enjoyed in their own EU member state (or at best, a commonly agreed set of rights across the EU). The system could work in no other way.

 

[tsubaki]

Ireland - the Good Friday Agreement guarantees free movement of people on the island of Ireland so there can't be any checks on people moving throughout the island. This by extension will mean no border for goods so Northern Ireland will stay in the customs union and the single market.

In the Northern Ireland Act 1989 there is a provision for ECJ intervention in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Also some Northern Irish citizens have Irish citizen rights, as dual passport holders and therefore come under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. There will be a special arrangement for the island of Ireland. Something the DUP are venomously against, as they want Brexit means Brexit.

As far as the wider issue of ECJ and EU citizens in the UK. The tale so far is that the EU just does not trust the UK to not renege on any agreement depending on the political situation in this country. That is why they want the ECJ to still have a say. A joint body would be similar to the UK/Chinese agreement over Hong Kong.

I know, thats why I said the Irish problem is unsolvable without freedom of movement and a free trade area. The ECJ issue is separate, but I would point out that the EU isn't offering a joint body, nor are they offering any kind of reciprocal agreement (ie: that the UK courts would have legal primacy over UK citizens in EU countries).

 

[peteblue]

There needs to be an impartial body though doesn't there? I mean lets say the government agrees to treat all current EU migrants living in the UK as they do currently under EU law, then they decide a year down the road that they don't want that to apply to unemployed or retired migrants. Are those migrants to trust the UK courts to provide a fair hearing?

And, of course, it works both ways Bruce, if the EU decides 12 months down the road to treat our people differently. I think this is being purposely blown up out of all proportion. The U.K. government has said what it will do and the U.K. courts are probably the fairest and most independent in the world, yet it’s being presented as though we can’t be trusted, this from a body consisting of 27 countries with shall we say differing legal standards overseen by an ECJ made up of political judges. I think it’s time we stopped accepting implied criticisms from these people and some remainers who always take the EU side.....

 

[Joey66]

The earth is round Joe. You know that, right?

Did you google that Brucelol

 

[peteblue]

I know, thats why I said the Irish problem is unsolvable without freedom of movement and a free trade area. The ECJ issue is separate, but I would point out that the EU isn't offering a joint body, nor are they offering any kind of reciprocal agreement (ie: that the UK courts would have legal primacy over UK citizens in EU countries).

The EU are making a complete mess of this with their ‘we’re in charge’ approach. They are not dealing with some naughty minnow region of the EU......

 

[hullefc]

I know, thats why I said the Irish problem is unsolvable without freedom of movement and a free trade area. The ECJ issue is separate, but I would point out that the EU isn't offering a joint body, nor are they offering any kind of reciprocal agreement (ie: that the UK courts would have legal primacy over UK citizens in EU countries).

The ECJ will have jurisdiction over the affairs of EU citizens in Northern Ireland and therefore in that part of the UK. The governments ECJ jurisdiction over the UK 'red line' is disingenuous to say the least. The EU negotiators have had to lead their UK counterparts by the nose on the Irish issue. The UK government still refuses to mention that the ECJ will still have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland openly, as it would lead to the DUP bringing the government down.

On the wider issue of the ECJ. It is a matter of trust similar to what the UK demanded from China guaranteeing the rights of UK citizens in Hong Kong. Even those EU citizens legally entitled to stay in this country are becoming uneasy about what their future holds. No wonder they will want ECJ protection.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

And, of course, it works both ways Bruce, if the EU decides 12 months down the road to treat our people differently. I think this is being purposely blown up out of all proportion. The U.K. government has said what it will do and the U.K. courts are probably the fairest and most independent in the world, yet it’s being presented as though we can’t be trusted, this from a body consisting of 27 countries with shall we say differing legal standards overseen by an ECJ made up of political judges. I think it’s time we stopped accepting implied criticisms from these people and some remainers who always take the EU side.....

You say that, yet people are being deported and asked to leave. I'm afraid all of the migrants I know aren't at all confident in their status. Do you think an EU citizen could go into a bank and say "well Teresa said nice things in Florence, give us a mortgage" and have any luck or do you think the bank will want guarantees of status?