/ Let's just cancel Brexit

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
The Ice Doctor - on 18 Jun 2017
Let's face it, now we know what we know, like no one actually knows how to do it, or what they want, it makes perfect sense to forget about it.
bouldery bits - on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I agree.
Miranda on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Pity that all the money that's been wasted on it so far wasn't given to the NHS instead
Post edited at 21:20
Greasy Prusiks on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

This is all Camerons fault for putting a yes/no answer on a hugely complicated question.

I've no idea if we could realistically back out now but we should definitely find Cameron, a set of stocks and a large radish and....
Wainers44 - on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

> Let's face it, now we know what we know, like no one actually knows how to do it, or what they want, it makes perfect sense to forget about it.

Nope, sorry, "we" all pressed the button clearly labelled "do not press this button".

Now it's all too late to change course. Lucky we have a leader on top of their game, empathetic with the needs of others, strategic in their thinking and having a frankly mystical ability to see into the future and gauge the consequences of their own actions. Lucky, really lucky....
Crewey-Rob on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

"Let's face it, now we know what we know, like no one actually knows how to do it, or what they want, it makes perfect sense to forget about it." would look great sprawled across the side of a big red bus. Now we just need a catchy name for it that everyone can get behind (Broops! Or something like that)
Greasy Prusiks on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

Bruck up?
wiwwim - on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

a right brambles
Crewey-Rob on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Dropping a Brollock
Dave the Rave on 18 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I would happily swap Brexit for a Labour government.
Pekkie - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I made a prediction on here, shortly after the result and to much scoffing, that we won't leave - the price in economic terms will prove to be too high.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Pekkie:

> I made a prediction on here, shortly after the result and to much scoffing, that we won't leave - the price in economic terms will prove to be too high.

It's not a bad theory. Corbyn and May *could* have made a political calculation that the best strategy is to play the Brexit hand out for the crowd because the Brexiters need a good scare from events before they will listen to logical argument. I don't see how anyone with a glimmer of intelligence could actually believe that there isn't going to be massive economic disruption if we leave the single market and customs union.
The Lemming - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

When the EU pulls the banking industry out of the UK because we are no longer in the club then we will be stuffed.

But probably not as stuffed as the EU when they don't have the infrastructure but the USA does and the business goes their way.

It's all digital and boarderless anyway so we all may as well have our noses cut off to spite our faces.

Trangia on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Lemming:



> It's all digital and boarderless anyway so we all may as well have our noses cut off to spite our faces.

More of a case of cutting off our heads to spite our noses.......

The Lemming - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Trangia:

That would be the headless chickens who start the official BREXIT negotiation process today.
Pekkie - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's not a bad theory. Corbyn and May *could* have made a political calculation that the best strategy is to play the Brexit hand out for the crowd because the Brexiters need a good scare from events before they will listen to logical argument. I don't see how anyone with a glimmer of intelligence could actually believe that there isn't going to be massive economic disruption if we leave the single market and customs union.

I think you are on to something. Interesting how Hammond is now talking about a softer Brexit in line with the needs of British job/wealth creating business rather than the tax-dodging, right wing newspaper owners.
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

Headless chickens? Not quite - here's our crack negotiating team on its way to Brussels yesterday:

https://goo.gl/images/5nm65H
tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Headless chickens? Not quite - here's our crack negotiating team on its way to Brussels yesterday:


They should hand the negotiations over to Jeremy Clarkson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzumXyf2ueA
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Hah, yes - they might as well.
jkarran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Pekkie:

> I made a prediction on here, shortly after the result and to much scoffing, that we won't leave - the price in economic terms will prove to be too high.

Establishing a WTO schedule of our own that doesn't leave us set up for decades of dispute and deadlock seems a bigger task than leaving the EU, probably a decade plus of diplomacy in that. Negotiations with the EU will be painfully slow and get nowhere before we're teetering on the edge of crashing out with nothing and nowhere to go. The conversation turns desperately and too late to delays, interim arrangements and the public mood will change one way or another. Hard to say which. Death by misadventure for the UK still seems more likely than not but there are rays of hope.
jk
pasbury on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Our timing is perfect:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/18/brexit-europe-eu-golden-decade-merkel-macron

So far all the other electorates who might have voted to destabilise the EU have refused to do so.
Post edited at 10:48
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:
Maybe they (especially France and Germany) get more from the EU than we do.
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:


> So far all the other electorates who might have voted to destabilise the EU have refused to do so.

They have had national elections, but I bet their pm/President daren't give them an in / out referendum?
Fuchs on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:

Maybe that's because they have actually committed to the project, rather than demanding exceptions and special treatment all the time (pound, Schengen etc.).
pasbury on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

Please don't tell me you think the French and German electorate would vote to leave????
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Fuchs:
Agreed.
pasbury on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:

The more you put in the more you get out
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:
Agreed if the 'putting in' is commitment but not if it's money.
Footloose - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Fascinating to see how many likes there are, and how few dislikes. What happened to all the happy Brexiteers?
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Footloose:
We're too ecstatic to post.
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:
Maybe, if you think only in payments to and from the EU. But we get a lot more from membership. It's difficult to quantity but to start with, we get benefits in terms of trade and investment. Here's what the CBI say:
"The UK’s net budgetary contribution is a small net cost relative to the benefits
The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget is around €7.3bn, or 0.4% of GDP. As a comparison that’s around a quarter of what the UK spends on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and less than an eighth of the UK’s defence spend. The £116 per person net contribution is less than that from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands."

Apart from the larger economic benefits we get all sorts of other things. These include consumer and environmental protections, freer travel, the right to live and work in the UK, greater security and many more benefits. It's not easy to price these things, but it it clearly isn't enough to see things in terms of 'they get more out of it than us.'
Post edited at 12:28
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Agreed. It would be silly to argue that there are not substantial benefits to EU membership.
However, many EU countries have the same benefits as the U.K. with very little if any net monetary contribution.
A major reason for voting leave for some.
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Please don't tell me you think the French and German electorate would vote to leave????

I don't know, but the UK is the only country in the eu that gave it's population a choice. So that is 100% for exiting so far. ;)
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:

A pretty silly reason for voting to leave really - as above, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. It's like saying you'll do without that car because you heard someone else got the same model with a bigger discount.
john arran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> A pretty silly reason for voting to leave really - as above, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. It's like saying you'll do without that car because you heard someone else got the same model with a bigger discount.

... and you'll sell it, no matter at how big a loss, knowing you're only going to get a fraction of its value, even though you still think it's a good car and you can't hope to find a better one.
Graeme Alderson on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

Wrong (according to wiki)

"The United Kingdom is the only EU member state to have held referendums on the issue of continued membership of the European Union and its antecedent organisation, the European Communities. In the first referendum in 1975, continued membership of what was then the European Communities (which included the European Economic Community, often referred to as the Common Market in the UK)[nb 1] was approved by 67.2% of voters, while in its second referendum in 2016 voters voted by 51.9% to leave the European Union."

Score draw at the moment.
john arran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Score draw at the moment.

Best of three, anyone?
jkarran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
> They have had national elections, but I bet their pm/President daren't give them an in / out referendum?

They specifically elected leaders who weren't promising an in-out referendum, not those that were. The way you can twist reality to suit your world view is really impressive.
jk
Post edited at 14:14
jkarran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:
> We're too ecstatic to post.

Are you really, honestly, happy with how this is panning out? This is what you wanted, chaos, currency devaluation, inflation, no plan? Because I can't see how anyone, whatever their views on the EU could be pleased with the way this is going. You've been lied to, used and let down by the people who asked for your trust. They should be ashamed and you should be utterly f***ing raging!

For you it seems to all be about the money but what if as looks to be the case by saving £350M (to completely make up a nice round number) we end up losing £400M elsewhere and in exchange for little to nothing of any value beyond short term party political gaming. Worth it?
jk
Post edited at 14:17
Roadrunner5 - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Pekkie:

> I think you are on to something. Interesting how Hammond is now talking about a softer Brexit in line with the needs of British job/wealth creating business rather than the tax-dodging, right wing newspaper owners.

I think its going to pan out as most thought it would. We will remain in the single market, essentially open borders, pay millions in to the EU and get little out in terms of subsidies and get little say in the EU's future direction.

Then after a decade or so realise we may as well just go back in and actually have some control over our future involvement and the direction of the EU.

Either that or in 18 months realise nothing is going to change and just cancel brexit.

Roadrunner5 - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:

> Agreed. It would be silly to argue that there are not substantial benefits to EU membership.

> However, many EU countries have the same benefits as the U.K. with very little if any net monetary contribution.

> A major reason for voting leave for some.

Who?

Norway pay in billions, less than the UK but get much less back, so in terms of net monetary contribution its pretty similar.
jkarran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> I think its going to pan out as most thought it would. We will remain in the single market, essentially open borders, pay millions in to the EU and get little out in terms of subsidies and get little say in the EU's future direction.

I hope so (at worst) but perhaps as we here in Britain missed Trump's appeal you may be missing the pig headed belligerence that will stem from not wishing to be seen to be wrong and will likely drive us on to oblivion. It's worth remembering that those who will benefit from the bonfire of regulation, taxes and spending that brexit heralds still have a lot of influence over the British people. Again, easy to miss if you don't have to walk past the big stacks of Daily Mail and their vile headlines every day.
jk
Post edited at 14:27
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Wrong (according to wiki)

> "The United Kingdom is the only EU member state to have held referendums on the issue of continued membership of the European Union and its antecedent organisation, the European Communities. In the first referendum in 1975, continued membership of what was then the European Communities (which included the European Economic Community, often referred to as the Common Market in the UK)[nb 1] was approved by 67.2% of voters, while in its second referendum in 2016 voters voted by 51.9% to leave the European Union."

> Score draw at the moment.

I think it's fair say, the eec in 1975 was a little different to the eu in 2016, so I would not say the votes were over the same thing.
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:
> They specifically elected leaders who weren't promising an in-out referendum, not those that were. The way you can twist reality to suit your world view is really impressive.

> jk

May fence sat. Cameron was pro. Sturgeon is pro eu, no one knows what Corbyn wants etc.. but the country still voted out.
Post edited at 14:38
zebidee - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> I think its going to pan out as most thought it would. We will remain in the single market, essentially open borders, pay millions in to the EU and get little out in terms of subsidies and get little say in the EU's future direction.

> Then after a decade or so realise we may as well just go back in and actually have some control over our future involvement and the direction of the EU.

> Either that or in 18 months realise nothing is going to change and just cancel brexit.

Here's hoping.

Toby_W on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Every MP goes on about the people have spoken. In the last election however there was a huge youth vote and almost without exception all the 18-25s I saw interviewed said they wished they had voted in the referendum and they would have voted to stay in.
So I agree, why are we ploughing ahead, if we had the vote again tomorrow it would be a landslide to stay?

Cheers

Toby
jkarran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> May fence sat. Cameron was pro. Sturgeon is pro eu, no one knows what Corbyn wants etc.. but the country still voted out.

Wow, it really is astonishing your ability to deliberately misunderstand. The party leader we voted for, David Cameron clearly and unambiguously offered an in-out referendum to fix a niggling internal party problem and duly got himself elected. Others in the EU that have made similar offers have (in light of our disaster) been resoundingly rejected in favor of leaders not making that offer. Perhaps it's only shit leaders that gamble their nation's security and prosperity for small gains, perhaps the other Europeans just aren't quite so fixated on their own imagined specialness.
jk
Post edited at 15:01
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> ... the country still voted out.
No it didn't. Some people voted out. Not 'the country'. Hence the continuing arguments...

summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> No it didn't. Some people voted out. Not 'the country'. Hence the continuing arguments...

A majority of those who could be bothered to vote in a democratic nation.
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Isn't that democracy?

You think a good leader is one who won't give the electorate a choice?
ads.ukclimbing.com
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:
About 20 of the 27 Euro countries.
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
Which is still not 'the country'.

Oh, and don't forget about all the people who were disenfranchised.
Post edited at 15:00
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:
Chaos, etc seems a little harsh given negotiations haven't started yet.
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> , perhaps the other Europeans just aren't quite so fixated on their own imagined specialness.

Tell that to the French?

summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Which is still not 'the country'.

?? All those eligible to vote? Is democracy that tough a concept?
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Not the best analogy but to stick with the car theme I wouldn't want to pay for a car and also pay for other people's as well.
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:
"Chaos, etc seems a little harsh given negotiations haven't started yet."

Give it time... Boris, Liam and Dave are on their way:

https://goo.gl/images/XxEi3e
Post edited at 15:02
jkarran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Tell that to the French?

The French who recently and resoundingly rejected an anti EU nationalist in favour of an pro-European internationalist, what would be the point?
jk
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:


> Oh, and don't forget about all the people who were disenfranchised.

The closeness of indef1, the eu ref and the general election would indicate there is ever reason to vote. The choice of what was on offer were very black and white to. There is no excuse not to vote.

Disen-bollocks more like, many are likely just too lazy to care.
Timmd on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Isn't that democracy?

> You think a good leader is one who won't give the electorate a choice?

''Others in the EU that have made similar offers have (in light of our disaster) been resoundingly rejected in favuor of leaders not making that offer.''

You'll notice he wrote the above which is in quotes? Within the French democracy, it seems that people didn't vote for being able to decide to leave the EU. It's nice when people get to decide things in a democratic way. ;-)
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> ?? All those eligible to vote? Is democracy that tough a concept?

Don't be cheeky. "The country" does not equal 'all those eligible to vote'. Please remember that democratic legitimacy increases with the number of people allowed to vote.
jkarran - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:

> Not the best analogy but to stick with the car theme I wouldn't want to pay for a car and also pay for other people's as well.

Even if without a little bit of support from you for growing car ownership elsewhere there wouldn't be a useful road network on which to use your car and the little you've saved won't come close to allowing you to develop it?

This is the point of developing and ultimately equalising the economies of Europe, long run we all benefit in economic performance, security and stability. We're throwing that away for a short term gain that probably won't even materialize anyway. Reducing wealth gradients in Europe is how you solve the 'problem' of people moving en masse to live and work, not fences and visas.
jk
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> The French who recently and resoundingly rejected an anti EU nationalist in favour of an pro-European internationalist, what would be the point?

> jk

I meant in terms of think they are a little special in view of their own nationality etc. Ever listen to French radio? Or ask the french if they think Strasbourg should be closed to save the eu some money. Or a French farmer about why they get the lions share of CAP, or where their fishing fleets go...

In the UK, UKIP were the only real anti eu party, 3m votes at peak , 1 mp , but the voters still went for Brexit.

Who the people think is capable of running their country doesn't necessarily show their thoughts on the eu. Otherwise Nigel farage might have been PM in 2010 (scary thought).
Roadrunner5 - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:

> About 20 of the 27 Euro countries.

Oh I see what you mean.

But that's the beauty of the EU. Its pouring money into infrastructure throughout the EU. That won't happen forever and eventually these countries will become net contributers.

Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:
Argument by analogy always has limitations, not that that's ever stopped anyone on here .
You might not want to pay for other people's cars, but people do pay to subsidise other people in different ways because it adds to the common good, including one's own. Paying taxes is based on that logic.
stevieb - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Our timing is perfect:


> So far all the other electorates who might have voted to destabilise the EU have refused to do so.

I'm a staunch remainer (we'll definitely in terms of the single market) but I found this article odd.
It seems to be saying, we are missing out on ever closer union, but that is something even a large number of remainers don't want. It's a strange way to try to win round the leavers.
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
> Disen-bollocks more like, many are likely just too lazy to care.
Not the ex-pats who were denied a vote because the postal vote system failed, or those who weren't allowed a vote.
Post edited at 15:23
Sir Chasm - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:

> Not the best analogy but to stick with the car theme I wouldn't want to pay for a car and also pay for other people's as well.

You’re not paying for other people’s cars, you’re paying for use of a shared car. After brexit you’ll still want to use a car, but you won’t have any say in what model car, what direction it’s driven in, you won’t get dropped off at home after getting pissed and you’ll still have to pay for your use of the shared car because you can't afford your own. Still, nothing wrong with a horse and cart, or even Shank’s pony.
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Don't be cheeky. "The country" does not equal 'all those eligible to vote'. Please remember that democratic legitimacy increases with the number of people allowed to vote.

It's not cheek. I just don't see what your problem is with democracy? if the vote went the other way, you'd be quite happy?
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Not the ex-pats who were denied a vote because the postal vote system failed, or those who weren't allowed a vote.

What percentage? Do you know how they planned to vote? Who wasn't allowed, british citizens is all encompassing?
Footloose - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> You think a good leader is one who won't give the electorate a choice?

Actually, yes. That's why we elect them: they have (or we should expect them to have) the intelligence, the dedication and the access to experts and other sources of rigorously-examined information to make these decisions on our behalf. Why would we entrust important, life-changing decisions like Brexit to anyone else?
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Footloose:
> Actually, yes. That's why we elect them: they have (or we should expect them to have) the intelligence, the dedication and the access to experts and other sources of rigorously-examined information to make these decisions on our behalf. Why would we entrust important, life-changing decisions like Brexit to anyone else?

Trump?
Cameron?

Or should sturgeon just take Scotland out of union if she thinks it is right?
Post edited at 15:42
Doug on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

I wasn't allowed, along with all other British citizens who have been living elsewhere in the EU for over 15 years. If its a hard Brexit I will probably loose my job & have to return to Scotland several years earlier than planned
The Ice Doctor - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

This argument is flawed. Who gives a shit what people voted if we are all worse off and will suffer as a result. If all TM is bothered about is seeing this through because people voted for it it does show how weak she is. A decision and actions of such magnitude like this should not depend on the ballot box, but the common good.
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

I don't have 'a problem with democracy'. You should stop conflating 'democracy' with one particular vote. I don't. And no, I wouldn't be happy with any big decision based on such a narrow margin. I don't think making huge decisions with such massive potential outcomes should be decided on the basis of such narrow margins, and that applies whether the vote is for or against. A supermajority is the sane way to go. Required to overturn fixed term parliaments and to support trade union strike action, and in the business and legal sectors, eg. for takeover bids.
The Ice Doctor - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

The French go out and shut their country down through protest. The government has to listen. What do we do? Moan on UKC? Lol
Bob Kemp - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

> This argument is flawed. <
Which particular argument? And what's the flaw? Are you just saying this shouldn't have been put to a vote anyway?


pasbury on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

That's not how it works dear.
bouldery bits - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

E0.

Def E0
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Doug:

> I wasn't allowed, along with all other British citizens who have been living elsewhere in the EU for over 15 years. If its a hard Brexit I will probably loose my job & have to return to Scotland several years earlier than planned

I will lose mine when i reach my 15yr point. I think the theory is if you have lived overseas continuously for 15years then you are considered to have laid your hat elsewhere. Not perfect I know.
summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

> The French go out and shut their country down through protest.

And bizarrely they are still more productive then the UK.

summo on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> That's not how it works dear.

Apologies for not being as wise as your good self.
baron - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yes, I'm paying as are a couple of others for our 'shared car'. Twenty others are using the car without paying a penny.
I'd rather walk!
Dave Garnett - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to baron:
> Yes, I'm paying as are a couple of others for our 'shared car'. Twenty others are using the car without paying a penny.

> I'd rather walk!

That's fine if you aren't in a hurry and don't have far to go. For your job, for instance.

And you'd rather walk everywhere than risk ever having to help anyone out by giving them a lift.

Post edited at 19:26
bouldery bits - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:


You're right.

I'd rather have a fancy car and no mates.
krikoman - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Looks like we don't need to cancel it, we're just going to surrender, by the looks of things.
Wainers44 - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Looks like we don't need to cancel it, we're just going to surrender, by the looks of things.

Or maybe we just finally realise that we aren't actually as important to them, as they are to us?
krikoman - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to Wainers44:

David Davis, has preformed admirably so far FFS!

at this rate we'll give them everything they want and we'll still be paying them to do it, probably more.

This wind and piss speech on Peston, has just evaporated ( day one !)
Wainers44 - on 19 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> David Davis, has preformed admirably so far FFS!

> at this rate we'll give them everything they want and we'll still be paying them to do it, probably more.

> This wind and piss speech on Peston, has just evaporated ( day one !)

Sorry I'm the last one to be able to explain our negotiating strategy, way too complicated for simple little me.

So far all the run up to here has been exactly as I expected....instability of government....public handwringing about whether "we" all did the right thing....sabre rattling from the Brexit supporters...blame being readied to pile on all involved etc etc.

Now is the time for an actual change, a new deal, a full divorce maybe? Now things get proper hard and the end of my ability to predict stuff is reached.
Roadrunner5 - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> It's not cheek. I just don't see what your problem is with democracy? if the vote went the other way, you'd be quite happy?

Votes change. They aren't set in stone. That's what democracy is. And no, I don't think any long term change should be on a +50% vote and then it's final. Forming 3-5 year government terms is one thing. Making generational changes is another.
Jim Fraser - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Two choices.

1. Be Europe's biggest joke for generations to come but be safely in the union and secure enough to laugh about it with them.

2. Be Europe's biggest joke for generations to come but never know it because the we are the shameful secret over there with the wrecked economy that it's not polite to talk about .
pasbury on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

hear hear - that's why these things should be left to parliament - they can change their minds.
jkarran - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Well listening to Mark Carney this morning he seems to think brexit is going swimmingly, that we're headed for a bright prosperous future and and the BoE will be able to easily paper over any little cracks that might form. /sarcasm

Experts eh, what do they know...
jk
Trevers - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Yep.
Trevers - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I believe there are various pro-EU marches and rallies planned for this weekend to mark the year anniversary of the referendum. If, like me, you believe in democracy and don't think we should shoot ourselves in the head in the name of a facade of democracy, get yourself down there!
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> hear hear - that's why these things should be left to parliament - they can change their minds.

The main parties ran with a brexit manifesto. Lib dems were pro eu and got 12 MPs. The public had a choice.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Votes change. They aren't set in stone. That's what democracy is. And no, I don't think any long term change should be on a +50% vote and then it's final. Forming 3-5 year government terms is one thing. Making generational changes is another.

I presume the vote in 1975 despite its generational influence was acceptable because that one went in the direction you agreed with, but not the 2016 referendum?

I agree partially though. I think some long term issues should be managed by permanent cross party committees, to avoid the problems of parliamentary terms, but the public should still have choice, provided they are given the facts to vote on. Which neither side did well last year.
The Lemming - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> but the public should still have choice, provided they are given the facts to vote on. Which neither side did well last year.

The facts were emblazoned in bold for all to see.

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/08/31/1...

The Ice Doctor - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim Fraser:
It's embarrassing and true that we are perceived as a joke, it's hardly surprising really is it? 26 countries Vs one. The odds are stacked against you before you even start, yet our government fails to see this somehow.
Post edited at 11:04
pasbury on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> The main parties ran with a brexit manifesto. Lib dems were pro eu and got 12 MPs. The public had a choice.

I think they felt they had to because of this whole toxic, irreversible 'the people have spoken' shtick.
ads.ukclimbing.com
fred99 - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Miranda:

> Pity that all the money that's been wasted on it so far wasn't given to the NHS instead

Ah, but there are those who say it should all be given to the Police.

And maybe it should be spent on rehabilitating our military heroes.

And what about education.

Then there are those who want it to be spent on building houses.

Then again shouldn't it all have gone to aid the starving in Africa.

And of course all those underpaid civil servants.



Too many wants, not enough money to go round.
Mike Stretford - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to fred99:

> Ah, but there are those who say it should all be given

If the economy takes a hit it we will be discussing were money should be taken from, not given to.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

> The facts were emblazoned in bold

Or stated publically by Osbourne.

summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> I think they felt they had to because of this whole toxic, irreversible 'the people have spoken' shtick.

So just under 400 MPs were elected by people who didn't agree with their eu stance?

The lib dems had a more sound taxation and funding plan for nhs, plus they were pro eu and they still sadly only accrued 12 MPs. I don't really grasp what a large proportion of the UK think or expect anymore.
jkarran - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> The main parties ran with a brexit manifesto. Lib dems were pro eu and got 12 MPs. The public had a choice.

Yes and no. Under FPTP and in a well established political landscape not prone to earthquakes the choice was an avowed 'hard', ideologically driven, swivel eyed brexit under the Conservatives and UKIP or a little hope of something else from: Labour, LibDem, SNP, CoOp, Plaid, Green, SinnFein, SDLP, Aliance etc.

The electorate chose and if nothing else it chose a change of tack.

Voting LibDem in my constituency would very likely have returned a Conservative. Ideology and principals are fine but they collide with a very messy reality which needs to be understood if you wish to get things done (or opposed). Under a PR system I have little doubt we'd be seeing a Lib-Lab coalition, quite possibly with Labour the junior party.

Again 10/10 for willful misunderstanding. I just wonder do you believe what you write or is it just a rhetorical tool?
jk
Trevers - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> So just under 400 MPs were elected by people who didn't agree with their eu stance?

There are not 400 pro-Brexit MPs. My local Labour MP is definitely pro-EU.

> The lib dems had a more sound taxation and funding plan for nhs, plus they were pro eu and they still sadly only accrued 12 MPs. I don't really grasp what a large proportion of the UK think or expect anymore.

As many have said, although the Tories attempted to frame it as a mandate for their Brexit, Labour managed to shift the debate towards basically everything else. The wave of hope that Corbyn rode (for want of a better way of putting it) was focused around domestic policy and investment.

The Lib Dem campaign never really got off the ground, and I suspect that tactical voting meant many potential Lib Dem voters went for Labour instead.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/06/result-happen-post-vote-survey/#more-15330

64% of Labour voters had voted to Remain in the referendum, as compared with 30% for Cons, so there is a clear difference. Meanwhile 43% of Labour voters were resistant to Brexit, 10% more than were enthusiastic.

I suspect enthusiasm for Brexit will wane further following the election and as talks progress.
jkarran - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
> The lib dems had a more sound taxation and funding plan for nhs, plus they were pro eu and they still sadly only accrued 12 MPs. I don't really grasp what a large proportion of the UK think or expect anymore.

This might help. Apologies for the facebook link, I can't find the original Economist piece online. https://www.facebook.com/scientistsforeu/photos/a.644219952346684.1073741828.642444842524195/1075856...

TLDR: Brexit driven tactical voting on a grand scale
jk
Post edited at 12:15
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> The electorate chose and if nothing else it chose a change of tack.

If people voted for what they do want, rather then what they don't, or tactical voting, then perhaps a greater proportion will get the policies they desire? Rather then stagnation, which is where it's heading for the next 5 years.

> Again 10/10 for willful misunderstanding. I just wonder do you believe what you write or is it just a rhetorical tool?

Sorry I don't share your wisdom, I was schooled until aged 16 years in a comp. in Blair's constituency, so you'll have to make allowances.

summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:


> TLDR: Brexit driven tactical voting on a grand scale

See above. The end result is nobody gets what they want in trying to avoid something else.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Trevers:

My point is they ran on Brexit manifesto. Parties traditionally get slammed for changing course on key manifesto points, so will this change be acceptable, where as tuition fees weren't?
Trevers - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> My point is they ran on Brexit manifesto. Parties traditionally get slammed for changing course on key manifesto points, so will this change be acceptable, where as tuition fees weren't?

I thought you were arguing that Labour voters were specifically signalling their approval of Brexit.

They didn't win so they don't get to implement their manifesto. And yes, there are now many ways they could change their stance on Brexit, which admittedly wasn't too solid to begin with, without getting egg on their collective faces. If the Tories are seen to be making a meal of Brexit negotiations, I very much doubt Labour would be under pressure if they start to reel back their stance towards soft/no Brexit.
Doug on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> The main parties ran with a brexit manifesto. Lib dems were pro eu and got 12 MPs. The public had a choice.

depends what you mean by 'main parties' but the SNP were clearly against Brexit & although they lost some seats are still have the overwhelming majority of Scottish seats (35 of 55) and are the largest anti Brexit party in the Commons
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Trevers:

No, but it was in essence a Brexit election and I think that was Labour's stance. Corbyn's is open to interpretation.
jkarran - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> See above. The end result is nobody gets what they want in trying to avoid something else.

We'll see.

As I said, voting LibDem would almost certainly have achieved the polar opposite of what I wanted so instead I take the small risk in voting for my pro-EU Labour MP in the hope she can shape policy to bring about a second chance. I have *way* more hope than I did a month ago that the tide is turning against this madness. The self righteous glow of a wasted LibDem vote would be cold comfort were it to mean I was writing to a Conservative MP in a Conservative majority this week rather than a newly emboldened Labour MP.

Reality. It's messy.
jk
Trevers - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> No, but it was in essence a Brexit election and I think that was Labour's stance. Corbyn's is open to interpretation.

But as I pointed out, it didn't play out as a Brexit election, and Labour voters weren't voting for that.

I agree Corbyn's stance is murky, but it seems clear that the way forward for Labour to increase their support is to oppose hard Brexit.

This election is yet another example of just how badly FPTP is letting the country down.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Doug:

Whilst EW and NI were Brexit elections, I think Scotland was more of unionism/ indef election. So their eu stance was possibly less relevant.

summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Trevers:

I don't think the Tories are negotiating towards a hard Brexit, they were just unwilling to show their hand towards the eu. It won't matter soon, as I doubt all the eu nations will hold information in strictest confidence for long.
Graeme Alderson on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> I presume the vote in 1975 despite its generational influence was acceptable because that one went in the direction you agreed with, but not the 2016 referendum?

Except that the 1975 vote was overwhelmingly in favour of Yes, over 67% in fact with a decent turnout.

summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Except that the 1975 vote was overwhelmingly in favour of Yes, over 67% in fact with a decent turnout.

But it was in essence a vote for a trading agreement and nothing else.
Andy Hardy on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

This perspective puzzles me. What cards do we have to play that the EU don't know about?
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> This perspective puzzles me. What cards do we have to play that the EU don't know about?

So called red lines, or what we are prepared to flex on and how far. Fisheries? Migration? Banking/passporting , eu nationals rights, travel health costs /e111, Asylum seeker sharing agreements?
krikoman - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> If the economy takes a hit it we will be discussing were money should be taken from, not given to.

IF!!!
Andy Hardy on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

Various red lines have been announced during the year, it wouldn't be too hard for the EU to work out what our red lines are, and hence what they'll cost us.
MG - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> So called red lines, or what we are prepared to flex on and how far. Fisheries? Migration? Banking/passporting , eu nationals rights, travel health costs /e111, Asylum seeker sharing agreements?

Given May's complete inability to talk to: the electorate, the DUP, victims of a fire, her cabinet unless through two hench(wo)men, what makes you think she has some brilliant master plan for negotiating with the EU? Is it not more likely she will completely screw that up too while repeating "brexit means brexit" ad nauseum?
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to MG:

> Given May's complete inability to talk to: the electorate, the DUP, victims of a fire, her cabinet unless through two hench(wo)men, what makes you think she has some brilliant master plan for negotiating with the EU? Is it not more likely she will completely screw that up too while repeating "brexit means brexit" ad nauseum?

Because thankfully she will spend very very little time in the actual negotiations.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Various red lines have been announced during the year, it wouldn't be too hard for the EU to work out what our red lines are, and hence what they'll cost us.

I expect in the backroom various advisors will constantly be re-doing the maths, looking at which nations will approve of X, or veto Y and what it will take to bring them onside.

These meetings don't just pop up instantly with a UK MP pitching up at reception at 9am on Monday. There will have been masses of communication between aids and advisors already. Setting agendas, scope etc.. so what is red or grey, currently off topic will be known by both sides.
jkarran - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Because thankfully she will spend very very little time in the actual negotiations.

But if it was to be Corbyn spending very little time in negotiations... ARRRGHHH! THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

I actually don't understand what you mean by your list of negotiating 'cards', it's just a list of things to be agreed, they don't represent much if anything by way of leverage. Sure the EU wants access to UK waters but what if we refuse, what is our fallback position... No deal is better than a bad deal? Bollocks it is so with some huffing and puffing we roll over on the fisheries because finance, Euro clearing, security cooperation, a fence across Ireland and a truck park from Dover to London... Next topic: immigration. Next topic...
jk
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> But if it was to be Corbyn spending very little time in negotiations... ARRRGHHH! THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Did I say that? I'd rather he was at the other end of the country. Given that he couldn't get past year 1 of polytechnic because he argued with his lecturers about the syllabus, the more distance between him and the negotiations the better. I hear the good people of Cape Wrath are deeply upset with the heat wave down South, perhaps he needs to dash up there for an out pouring of sympathy.

> I actually don't understand what you mean by your list of negotiating 'cards', it's just a list of things to be agreed,.

But, the list of what the eu wants, won't mirror the UKs. Otherwise there would be no need for a negotiation in the first place. We'd already be out, decree absolut. Job done!
Bob Kemp - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

You don't seem to understand that voting in a general election is not a single issue affair. You can't draw any conclusions about the popularity or otherwise of Brexit from the general election vote. It's interesting that May's original pretext for calling the election was securing a mandate for Brexit, but she and her colleagues barely mentioned it in the Conservative campaign.
Sir Chasm - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Did I say that? I'd rather he was at the other end of the country.

Which country is that then? Or have you forgotten that you live in Sweden, a country remaining in the eu, while you cheerfully voted for us, people who actually live in the UK to leave the eu.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> You don't seem to understand that voting in a general election is not a single issue affair. You can't draw any conclusions about the popularity or otherwise of Brexit from the general election vote. It's interesting that May's original pretext for calling the election was securing a mandate for Brexit, but she and her colleagues barely mentioned it in the Conservative campaign.

It isn't single issue, but it's certainly a primary one. I draw no firm conclusion only observing the Brexit stance on their manifesto. May said little about anything at all during her whole campaign (Or lack of one).

I think Labour couldn't decide if it wanted to appeal to the 48 or 52, but given that it had voted in favour of article 50 it had little choice. Hoping that many lifelong supporters would never read the manifesto anyway and if you promised the world to new voters they might ignore your eu stance. It clearly worked.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> Which country is that then? Or have you forgotten that you live in Sweden, a country remaining in the eu, while you cheerfully voted for us, people who actually live in the UK to leave the eu.

I'm still British, with British kids and house in Britain, plus my family. I think that entitles me to a voice?

I wouldn't mind if Sweden left and in the exceedingly unlikely event of Sweden considering the euro i would have to evaluate my position here. Major meaningful EU reform would be my preferred choice, but they seem too arrogant to event admit that change might be needed, let alone carry it out. At least if the UK is out and Sweden has it's own currency then the impact from an eu collapse is as low as practically possible (bar moving out of europe).

Edit. He is welcome to go up north here, but I think even the mine workers union at kiruna might not be far enough left for his liking.
Post edited at 16:54
Sir Chasm - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> I'm still British, with British kids and house in Britain, plus my family. I think that entitles me to a voice?

Oh I freely accept you had a "right" to vote, even as an absentee landlord.

> I wouldn't mind if Sweden left and in the exceedingly unlikely event of Sweden considering the euro i would have to evaluate my position here. Major meaningful EU reform would be my preferred choice, but they seem too arrogant to event admit that change might be needed, let alone carry it out. At least if the UK is out and Sweden has it's own currency then the impact from an eu collapse is as low as practically possible (bar moving out of europe).

So move then. I grudgingly, and with bad humour, accept people who live here choosing to take us out of the eu, but tw*ts living in the eu voting for a country they don't live in to leave I find reprehensible.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> Oh I freely accept you had a "right" to vote, even as an absentee landlord.

Judging by recent events I think I look after my tenants better than some landlords living in the UK.

> So move then. I grudgingly, and with bad humour, accept people who live here choosing to take us out of the eu, but tw*ts living in the eu voting for a country they don't live in to leave I find reprehensible.

We all have an opinion, only some people are more accepting of other peoples opinion than others. We all have different experiences in life that form our views. Anyway I'll exit now as I see no reason to debate if you can't be remotely civil.
Post edited at 17:02
Jim C - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
>

> ... I grudgingly, and with bad humour, accept people who live here choosing to take us out of the eu, but tw*ts living in the eu voting for a country they don't live in to leave I find reprehensible.

Maybe those living in the EU voting out thought that it was the right thing to do for the country and were not voting go suit their own particular situation.

I have even seen EU citizens living in the UK ,interviewed on TV saying that they ( had they had a vote) would have voted out, so there are a range of views and everyone is entitled to vote for what they think is the best, that might be to suit their situation, or for the bigger picture of the future of the country, either way whether that vote is remain or leave, there is nothing reprehensible about it.
Post edited at 17:08
andyfallsoff - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> I wouldn't mind if Sweden left and in the exceedingly unlikely event of Sweden considering the euro i would have to evaluate my position here. Major meaningful EU reform would be my preferred choice, but they seem too arrogant to event admit that change might be needed, let alone carry it out. At least if the UK is out and Sweden has it's own currency then the impact from an eu collapse is as low as practically possible (bar moving out of europe).

Do you really still think there is a chance of an EU break-up? It seems to me to be exceedingly unlikely that the EU will collapse; rather, they seem to be doing quite well (even Greece is looking to be doing better). Perhaps you have a different perspective to me, but I find it odd that you are referring to this as a serious consideration.
summo on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Do you really still think there is a chance of an EU break-up? It seems to me to be exceedingly unlikely that the EU will collapse; rather, they seem to be doing quite well (even Greece is looking to be doing better). Perhaps you have a different perspective to me, but I find it odd that you are referring to this as a serious consideration.

Never said it was serious, high or low risk. I don't personally think anything is solved. For the eu to continue after Brexit other nations must pay in more. Greece is not solved, the loans are only covering the interest payments. Trump is pushing new sanctions on Russia that will impact Germany and others. There are problems caused by this which effect the new gas pipe line being built. Growth etc.. is minimal. The refugee problem hasn't gone away, they are still arriving, but eastern Europe refuses to accept any. Turkey is another issue.... the eu' s future is not secure yet.
andyfallsoff - on 20 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
OK - it was implied that it was a serious consideration given you raised it. I think your view on the situation is overly pessimistic, though.

Re. your first point - there isn't necessarily a need for higher payments from elsewhere (although that is likely); equally, reductions in expenditure could achieve the same thing (as in any tax / spend situation).

Greece has reached a point where it no longer needs to impose further cuts to balance the budget, and there are signs of employment growth as well as industrial. Yes, the next bail-out does kick the can down the road with respect to the interest, but the debt relief package is now on such terms that the bill doesn't really keep mounting up to any great degree, so they should be better capable of paying as growth develops.

As for growth being minimal - it is better than the UK because we're starting to suffer from the reduction in investment coming about from Brexit.

As to the refugee crisis, I agree this is still an issue, but the influx has at least slowed. I don't know much about the impact of Russian sanctions so won't comment on those.

More to the point, even if these issues weren't improving (as I would argue they each are), the EU (apart a vocal minority the UK) have tended to look at crises and decide it's safer together. A characteristic that I hugely admire, and wish we had also adopted.
Post edited at 17:31
neilh - on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

The eu economy is turning positive and in a few years time if that continues all current woes will be forgotten .
jkarran - on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> I have even seen EU citizens living in the UK ,interviewed on TV saying that they ( had they had a vote) would have voted out, so there are a range of views and everyone is entitled to vote for what they think is the best, that might be to suit their situation, or for the bigger picture of the future of the country, either way whether that vote is remain or leave, there is nothing reprehensible about it.

Everyone is entitled to vote except of course the 3M EU citizens who've made the UK home. Sure some would have voted out but then some turkeys always vote for Christmas, it's baffling but there we go.

I guess this inflation is going to be bad for your savings. How much will you lose before you start to wonder if you might not have made the best choice? Hiking interest rates in a consumer debt fueled economy isn't going to fix anything. How much compromise will the government make before you begin to wonder in despair what the point of this was, what you're paying for? 'Fight of the summer' was over and lost in a day, still think we're holding all the cards, that the EU will be buying us out of our share in their assets and granting us all the perks of single market membership with none of the costs or responsibilities as Davis foolishly offered?
jk
summo on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Everyone is entitled to vote except of course the 3M EU citizens who've made the UK home. Sure some would have voted out but then some turkeys always vote for Christmas, it's baffling but there we go.

Just like British citizens living in other countries can't vote in national elections unless they take citizenship of said country.

jkarran - on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Just like British citizens living in other countries can't vote in national elections unless they take citizenship of said country.

Nor here. I know that but I don't believe it's right and fair.
jk
summo on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Nor here. I know that but I don't believe it's right and fair.

It is question of how you set the criteria, that makes it accountable. Perhaps in our more modern global jobs market, some form of permanent residency would be enough, rather then full nationality. Or say possession of a UK NI number.

The Ice Doctor - on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:
Why is it blindingly obvious to me, (not to the swathes of Jo public) and has been from the start of this escapade that the UK has a lot more to lose than it has to gain from 'exit'?
Post edited at 12:16
fred99 - on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

> Why is it blindingly obvious to me, (not to the swathes of Jo public) and has been from the start of this escapade that the UK has a lot more to lose than it has to gain from 'exit'?

Unfortunately we have universal suffrage from the age of 18.
Now if there was some form of exam one had to take to prove competence in voting then maybe, just maybe, a good percentage of those with the vote would not pass.
In that situation the vote could well have gone the other way.

They say turkeys wouldn't vote for Xmas - but how many people whose jobs are at or depend on Japanese car firms did just that.
Stig - on 21 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Because you are well educated? (the data is very clear that in/out divided across educational level; as well as age etc).

Like any vote, vote leave was a broad coalition:

- manual workers, many outside SE/London, howl of pain and disgust against austerity/community,industry decline; read the Sun and the shite therein - 'nothing to lose' 'it couldn't be any worse'

- Older generation, often rural, distrustful of social change and diversity, did well out of the baby boom/welfare state (ironically not sharing progressive views of state/social contract represetned by EU); but not necessarily well educated (missed out on expansion of HE), read the Daily Mail or Express and the shite therein. 'Make Britain great again/pull up the drawbridge'

- a whole mass of people who don't seem to fit either of the above, do ok in life, very a-political, don't read newspapers or watch BBC news, but are swayed by propaganda/lies on social media. Didn't really know how to vote but were swayed by the opinions of friends and the seemingly reasonable/persuasive rhetoric (lies) of Gove, Johnson, Leadsom etc. Naive voters easily swayed by appeals to emotion: 'security' 'take back control' '£350m for the NHS'

- clever, quite well educated but somewhat blinkered single issue voters: 'immigration is simply too high'; 'the vote was only about sovereignty' 'EU is falling apart anyway/flawed project, so we should go our own way' [this group I still find utterly baffling]

Remain side never tackled any of these with clear differentiated message of why they are ALL false, or at least much more complex and nuanced in reality AND communicated the clear reality of how intimately connected to the EU (and therefore the real damage/costs of leaving NOR the contribution the EU makes to our society and vice versa.

Re the OP. My current view is that we will leave in some form of soft Brexit - either in the SM or with a transitional agreement - which is clearly a fudge (and a very costly one at that) but will hopefully be enough to take the sting out of enough Leave sentiment. It clearly won't satisfy committed leavers but they are a small constituency.
Jim C - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> So called red lines, or what we are prepared to flex on and how far. Fisheries? Migration? Banking/passporting , eu nationals rights, travel health costs /e111, Asylum seeker sharing agreements?

It is interesting that both sides have said that EU/UK nationals rights is the FIRST thing to be agreed .

However, the EU say :- nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so what then of removing the concerns of citizens on both sides at an early date in the process, that is impossible if it will not be agreed until everything is agreed ( which is a min of two years ahead)

It seems the EU have unwittingly boxed themselves into a corner, and may have to concede that some things ARE agreed before the rest is agreed.
Roadrunner5 - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim C:
But then if other parts fail it all fails.

That seems pretty logical. There's either a complete deal or no deal.

When you negotiate you compromise, give and take do if the EU give abit say on citizens rights and the U.K. Doesn't give back elsewhere then that part of the deal breaks down.

TBH the U.K. Has no idea what it wants.. as we said all along. It's why areas who voted brexit then voted labour derailing this process.
Post edited at 04:09
Dax H - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> But then if other parts fail it all fails.

> That seems pretty logical. There's either a complete deal or no deal.

> When you negotiate you compromise, give and take do if the EU give abit say on citizens rights and the U.K. Doesn't give back elsewhere then that part of the deal breaks down.

Or you break things down in to small bite sized chunks rather than one massive negotiation.
There is nothing stopping the UK and the EU agreeing right now that foreign nationals from the EU that have moved to the UK can stay in the UK with the same rights as the UK population and that UK folks who have moved to a member country can stay there with the same rights as their population.

Actually there is one thing stopping that happening.
The EU it's self.

summo on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> TBH the U.K. Has no idea what it wants.. as we said all along. It's why areas who voted brexit then voted labour derailing this process.

I think the UK does know. You have an ideal goal of tariff free trade and rights of UK citizens in Europe. It is just a question of what the UK concedes to reach this point. One will certainly be eu citizen rights in the UK. The rest is what the negotiations are all about.

The eu might like to keep migration, fisheries.. but I think because it refuses to economise and keeps expanding its budget etc.. hard cash to keep the wheels on its wagon might be more persuasive.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jim Fraser - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I listened to Morning Ireland on RTE today. Listening in on the neighbours talking about us! The UK is comedy gold.
jkarran - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Stig:

> Remain side never tackled any of these with clear differentiated message of why they are ALL false, or at least much more complex and nuanced in reality AND communicated the clear reality of how intimately connected to the EU (and therefore the real damage/costs of leaving NOR the contribution the EU makes to our society and vice versa.

'Stronger In' did actually do a pretty good job of targeting literature at each of those groups but it didn't reach many or cut through. Leave did a better job of stirring emotions and somehow managed to make people genuinely angry about the EU (though most I met could rarely explain why they were so angry) which effectively inoculated them against boring reasoned messages about the benefits of the EU and the risks in leaving.
jk
andyfallsoff - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> You have an ideal goal of tariff free trade and rights of UK citizens in Europe.

That isn't the ideal. A mere absence of tariffs would still be incredibly economically damaging, given the main benefit of the single market is the removal of non-tariff barriers.

Roadrunner5 - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Dax H:

> Or you break things down in to small bite sized chunks rather than one massive negotiation.

> There is nothing stopping the UK and the EU agreeing right now that foreign nationals from the EU that have moved to the UK can stay in the UK with the same rights as the UK population and that UK folks who have moved to a member country can stay there with the same rights as their population.

> Actually there is one thing stopping that happening.

> The EU it's self.

That's not true. The UK can just agree with the EU on this. May is the one who wants to chip away at the rights of EU citizens here.
Jim C - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> I listened to Morning Ireland on RTE today. Listening in on the neighbours talking about us! The UK is comedy gold.

Although when I travelled round Ireland North and South Pre Referendum, all I heard was people moaning about the EU and how badly treated they felt, that was not just on TV either.
Jim C - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> That's not true. The UK can just agree with the EU on this. May is the one who wants to chip away at the rights of EU citizens here.

The point is, that yes they can both agree a deal on citizens rights in principal ( at the moment) but the citizens cannot possibly have that ratified for two years due to the EU's rule that nothing is is agreed until everything is agreed, so it is NOT true that they can agree on it now , they can only give assurances that IF there is an overall deal (in two years) then any ' agreement ' reached on citizens rights at the start will be honoured.
If there is no deal then nothing is agreed,so that 'agreement' falls by the wayside.
So the uncertainty will not disappear right away it will linger on for two years thanks to the EU rule.
summo on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Think TM just pi$$ed on a few UKc ccontributors fires.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40376083

Sir Chasm - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Think TM just pi$$ed on a few UKc ccontributors fires.


Why on earth do you think that would piss on people's fires?
summo on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Because a lot of people claimed she wouldn't protect eu citizen rights in the UK. The ball is in the eu court.
Sir Chasm - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Because a lot of people claimed she wouldn't protect eu citizen rights in the UK. The ball is in the eu court.

And you think those "people" are going to be upset that May has made this sort of offer? What a strange view.
jkarran - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

I've seen nobody claim she will deliberately and openly seek to attack the rights of EU residents. Lots of people fear deportation through impossible or inept overbearing beauracracy and it seems to me tonight's announcement will have done nothing at all to allay their fears.
Jk
john arran - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Because a lot of people claimed she wouldn't protect eu citizen rights in the UK. The ball is in the eu court.

Last time, as I recall, she didn't promise anything of the sort, but people negotiating on her behalf unofficially proposed such a stance, to be told that no agreements could be made until the negotiating period had officially commenced. This was widely mis-reported by the mis-media as her being rebuffed by EU officials who had rejected any such non-proposal.
It's good to know that May appears now to be prepared to personally stand by what, in reality, is a common-sense proposal that I wouldn't have thought the EU would have any problem at all with reciprocating. What I do wonder though, is why she seems to have imposed this arbitrary 5-year qualification duration, rather than being fair to all residents. Seems like getting blood out of a stone.
summo on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> And you think those "people" are going to be upset that May has made this sort of offer? What a strange view.

No many here ranted about how TM was going to threaten them with deportation etc.. she has made the offer, which is actually the 2nd time the UK has offered. Lets see if the eu is willing to honour it the other way.
summo on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to john arran:

5 years is pretty standard in many eu countries for people to apply for citizenship or permanent residency. It's likely to correlate with other small print.
Sir Chasm - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> No many here ranted about how TM was going to threaten them with deportation etc.. she has made the offer, which is actually the 2nd time the UK has offered. Lets see if the eu is willing to honour it the other way.

But why would it piss on the fires of those "many" ranters that she has made this offer? You think they're upset the offer has been made?
john arran - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> 5 years is pretty standard in many eu countries for people to apply for citizenship or permanent residency. It's likely to correlate with other small print.

By the sound of it she isn't promising citizenship or permanent residency eligibility after 5 years. The issue is of people who moved to the UK within the last 5 years with a legal and reasonable expectation of being able to reside and work here indefinitely. For such people, no assurance has been given at all.
Dax H - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> And you think those "people" are going to be upset that May has made this sort of offer? What a strange view.

Considering there seems to be a contingent of this forum that hovers on every word TM utters in the hope they can use something against her then yes they will be upset.
They won't mention it again though they will just look for the next thing to jump on to paint the UK in a bad light and the EU to be paragons of virtue and light.
Big Ger - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> And you think those "people" are going to be upset that May has made this sort of offer? What a strange view.

Yes, they will be VERY upset.

You see there are a small coterie, here and in the general public, who have been robbed of one of their shibboleths. To them Theresa may is evil incarnate, and wants to punish European citizens and the EU above all, and to make the UK a racist fortress within which she rules from the top of Barad-dûr, cackling evilly while throwing baby kittens onto a roaring fire.

One of their prime virtue signals has been a weeping and moaning and a rendering of hair, about the rights of EU citizens in the UK, the poor souls not being allowed to vote in referendums etc. By offering this as a negotiation point May has pissed on their fireworks.

They will now have to find another bête noire to pin to their flag of "me, me, me, me, me, look at me, me, me, I'm so virtuous!!"



Jim Fraser - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Although when I travelled round Ireland North and South Pre Referendum, all I heard was people moaning about the EU and how badly treated they felt, that was not just on TV either.

The Irish having a good moan? Who would credit it? But they're not the ones who took a good moan and turned it into something feckin horrendously stupid, now are they?
krikoman - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> And you think those "people" are going to be upset that May has made this sort of offer? What a strange view.

To be honest, she should have done this f*cking ages ago, and saved a lot of fear and worry for a lot of people.

As for J Arran; "people negotiating on her behalf", who's in charge!
krikoman - on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Yes, they will be VERY upset.

I think this says more about you then the people you're speaking for.

Apart from the racists of course, but they'll get used to it.
RomTheBear on 22 Jun 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> Why on earth do you think that would piss on people's fires?

Indeed pissed of but not really surprised. It was totally predictable that she would make such a disgusting, underwhelming offer, given her obsession over net migration. I didn't expect it to be THAT bad though. The simplest, fairest solution would have been to simply freeze the rights of eu citizens so that nobody loses out. But no, instead it seems they'll have to "build up" their rights over many years, living in constant fear of falling out of the rules.


I really hope the EU drives a hard bargain.
Post edited at 23:46
Big Ger - on 23 Jun 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Indeed pissed of but not really surprised. It was totally predictable that she would make such a disgusting, underwhelming offer, given her obsession over net migration. I didn't expect it to be THAT bad though. The simplest, fairest solution would have been to simply freeze the rights of eu citizens so that nobody loses out. But no, instead it seems they'll have to "build up" their rights over many years, living in constant fear of falling out of the rules.

Good old Rom, as predictable as the tides.

> I really hope the EU drives a hard bargain.

You've always wanted the worse for the UK haven't you Rom? Nicer people would want an equitable agreement for all.

Dax H - on 23 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> To be honest, she should have done this f*cking ages ago, and saved a lot of fear and worry for a lot of people.

I seem to remember various headlines f*cking ages ago where she was trying to push this through and the EU refused to talk about it.

summo on 23 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> To be honest, she should have done this f*cking ages ago, and saved a lot of fear and worry for a lot of people.

Given that negotiations began this week, isn't this exactly the right time to say it? It is probably in relation to events in non public negotiations and has put the eu on the back foot, in this particular round. They'll no doubt agree, but then try and add in some caveat, on it will continue.
Post edited at 06:19
Dave Garnett - on 07:21 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:

> Nicer people would want an equitable agreement for all.

I have to say I have more confidence that the EU will ensure this than the shower of incompetents in charge of the political decisions on our side.
RomTheBear on 07:24 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:
> You've always wanted the worse for the UK haven't you Rom? Nicer people would want an equitable agreement for all.

How would that be bad for the UK if they just guaranteed to rights of all EU citizens in the UK prior brexit date and the same for UK citizens in the EU ? How on earth is that not equitable !

May I point out that groups of UK citizens in the EU had deemed the EU offer on EU citizens broadly satisfying. Why does May insists on making a very underwhelming offer which is almost guaranteed to screw many of them ?
Post edited at 07:27
baron - on 07:35 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
The EU will demand that the European Courts have the final say on disputes involving EU citizens in the UK.
This is most likekly to scupper any agreement.
The EU is unable to grasp the idea that the UK is leaving and doesn't want any EU intervention in it's law.
BnB - on 07:37 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> How would that be bad for the UK if they just guaranteed to rights of all EU citizens in the UK prior brexit date and the same for UK citizens in the EU ? How on earth is that not equitable !

> May I point out that groups of UK citizens in the EU had deemed the EU offer on EU citizens broadly satisfying. Why does May insists on making a very underwhelming offer which is almost guaranteed to screw many of them ?

Jeez Rom. For a bright fellow you don't understand politics very well. May is trying to appease multiple interest groups, not just you personally. Not everyone in the UK wants the same thing even if you or are are immigration fans. Her offer is a pretty good fudge very much in the spirit of the organisation she's negotiating with. It offers much needed clarity and comfort to EU nationals while offering a nod to the less tolerant with some apparent hurdles that I bet won't ever get two feet off the ground.
RomTheBear on 07:46 Fri
In reply to BnB:
> Jeez Rom. For a bright fellow you don't understand politics very well. May is trying to appease multiple interest groups, not just you personally. Not everyone in the UK wants the same thing even if you or are are immigration fans. Her offer is a pretty good fudge very much in the spirit of the organisation she's negotiating with. It offers much needed clarity and comfort to EU nationals while offering a nod to the less tolerant with some apparent hurdles that I bet won't ever get two feet off the ground.

No, I understand perfectly that she's trying to appease a tiny minority of bigots, that's exactly the problem.
If she had said everyone in the UK before brexit can stay with the same rights as before, I'm pretty sure that most British people would agree with it, and it would have gone through parliament easily.

I frankly don't see how you can say her offer is a "fudge". It's pretty crystal clear that not all EU citizens in the UK will qualify. I unfortunately expect more bad news on Monday when the full details are published.
Post edited at 07:49
BnB - on 07:51 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, I understand perfectly that she's trying to appease a tiny minority of bigots, that's exactly the problem.

Yes them. Or perhaps the millions of "ordinary people" concerned about immigration and pressure on jobs and services? I can't be sure.

RomTheBear on 07:54 Fri
In reply to baron:
> The EU will demand that the European Courts have the final say on disputes involving EU citizens in the UK.

> This is most likekly to scupper any agreement.

> The EU is unable to grasp the idea that the UK is leaving and doesn't want any EU intervention in it's law.

No they grasp it very well, it's seems it's you who doesn't grasp the idea that the whole point of a "reciprocal deal" is that it ensures everybody has the same rights. She could have fudged the ECJ thing by simply asking for an new independent arbitration court to arbitrate any disputes or differences in implementation
Post edited at 08:00
RomTheBear on 07:56 Fri
In reply to BnB:
> Yes them. Or perhaps the millions of "ordinary people" concerned about immigration and pressure on jobs and services? I can't be sure.

Well some people are concerned about aliens and witches. Do we need to listen to them as well or do we have evidence-based policy ?

Btw I don't believe she's addressing any concerns here, all the polls show that a large majority of brits would be happy letting all EU citizens in the UK stay, even the leave campaign pledged it.
She is simply pursuing her own pet obsessions.
Post edited at 08:01
summo on 08:03 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I frankly don't see how you can say her offer is a "fudge". It's pretty crystal clear that not all EU citizens in the UK will qualify.

Which is exactly how it works for British citizens in many European countries right now, even as an eu member.

Come to Sweden, you won't get a personal number (essential for normal life), healthcare etc unless you have either a job, income or savings (£20k), even with this many are forced to take out private healthcare insurance until they've started paying tax here. If you are jobless and cashless then you'll get zero help and after 90days your right remain as an eu traveller/job seeker ends and technically you should leave depending on the discretion of migration, although it's not enforced. Initial Residency won't usually be permanent either, after given length of time you can apply for permanent residency(circumstances depending) or citizenship (5yrs).

The new rules that TM proposed level the playing field a little, of the fudge that is eu migration work force regs.
baron - on 08:15 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

But it's the EU who want the european courts involved.
Said it before and I'll say it again,
If UK nationals living in EU countries don't like what's offered to them then they can leave.
As can EU nationals living in the UK.
Dave Garnett - on 08:16 Fri
In reply to baron:
> The EU is unable to grasp the idea that the UK is leaving and doesn't want any EU intervention in it's law.

And some people seem unable to grasp the idea of international law and that, for example, many UK citizens are subject to some aspects of US law.

If we completely reject ECJ jurisdiction a lot of bad things are likely happen to our economy, especially the financial and legal sector.
Post edited at 08:17
RomTheBear on 08:24 Fri
In reply to baron:

> But it's the EU who want the european courts involved.
> Said it before and I'll say it again,

So ? I'm pretty convinced they would easily compromise on a new arbitration court instead, as long as it achieves the same thing I don't see the problem.

> If UK nationals living in EU countries don't like what's offered to them then they can leave.

They probably will.

> As can EU nationals living in the UK.

They probably will. Many do already, unfortunately.

baron - on 08:24 Fri
In reply to Dave Garnett:
It should be that people living in any country are subject to the laws of said country.
Then there is international law.
The european courts don't need to have any say in UK law after Brexit.
TobyA on 08:25 Fri
In reply to baron:
Do you know the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ?
Post edited at 08:26
RomTheBear on 08:30 Fri
In reply to summo:

It's theoretically similar in the UK, it's the same laws.
That's not the point though, the point is that with what may suggests, many people who lived in the UK for most of their lives but don't have 5 years continuous residency will be left high and dry. Of all the ones I know in the UK I think it's pretty much 50% in this situation.
RomTheBear on 08:34 Fri
In reply to baron:
> It should be that people living in any country are subject to the laws of said country.

Always been the case in the uk. International law is implemented in UK law.
But what you are suggesting is that somehow we could sign international treaties and breach them in their implementations without any consequences.

That's not how things work in the real world.
Post edited at 08:35
summo on 08:35 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

What would happen to a British citizen living in mainland Europe today, with intermittent residency, if they applied for citizenship or permanent residency tomorrow?
cb294 - on 08:38 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:

What a load of shit, poor trolling even by your standards!

CB
RomTheBear on 08:44 Fri
In reply to summo:

> What would happen to a British citizen living in mainland Europe today, with intermittent residency, if they applied for citizenship or permanent residency tomorrow?

They would be denied, as they would in the UK. That's exactly the problem.
john arran - on 08:50 Fri
In reply to summo:

> What would happen to a British citizen living in mainland Europe today, with intermittent residency, if they applied for citizenship or permanent residency tomorrow?

Wilfully missing the point. Working people currently have indefinite right of residency and have no need to apply for citizenship or permanent residency. It's this current existing right that will be removed. May and the gutter press have been talking for ages about maintaining residence rights for existing residents, as long as it was reciprocated, and pretending that the EU was somehow thwarting noble UK efforts to achieve that. Now it seems that either she was bluffing or she's had a change of heart (does she even have one?) because she's now restricting it to the small minority of existing residents who can demonstrate 5 years continuous residence. For the rest, probably the majority, there are now only empty words. As u-turns go, this is another biggie.
RomTheBear on 08:54 Fri
In reply to john arran:
The worst thing is that even the Nigel Farages and other bigots of the leave campaign said they wanted to effectively freeze the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.
So the argument that somehow Theresa May is just playing politics and trying to address the concerns of this hardcore minority doesn't really hold. She's pursuing her own narrow-minded, ideological agenda, against those "citizens of the world" she clearly despises.
Somehow that should have been clear to her after the general election, but it looks like she doesn't want to listen.
Post edited at 09:00
Nikki Hawkins - on 09:01 Fri
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

It IS possible to back out. The EU, in particular Macron, have just confirmed this. A petition is circulating for this now!
baron - on 09:02 Fri
In reply to TobyA:
Yes, would you like me to expain it to you?
baron - on 09:04 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm suggesting that it's not acceptable to some people in the UK that the ECJ has any say in UK law.
RomTheBear on 09:06 Fri
In reply to baron:
> I'm suggesting that it's not acceptable to some people in the UK that the ECJ has any say in UK law.

The ECJ doesn't have any say in UK law, its UK law that gives the ECJ its role.
Bit of course if we sign international agreement we should respect them, that means making laws that are in conformity with those agreements. That you don't get that somehow suggest you're either being stupid or pretending to be. I'll bet on the later.
Post edited at 09:08
ads.ukclimbing.com
baron - on 09:08 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
Then they won't need to have any say on the treatment of EU nationals within the UK.
Glad we got that sorted.
Nikki Hawkins - on 09:10 Fri
In reply to baron:

The UK hasn't had as much money from the EU as it could have had as it has refused to play the game from the start and has always been negative. We have missed many regional funding opportunities. We need to get stuck in and help run the EU not quit. We should be more like France and get what we can from it instead of just complaining all the time.
RomTheBear on 09:11 Fri
In reply to baron:
> Then they won't need to have any say on the treatment of EU nationals within the UK.

> Glad we got that sorted.

Ok, so what happens when inevitably one country breaches the agreement or dilutes it with non compliant laws ? Without an arbitration system of some sort it's not sustainable, such an agreeement wouldn't last long.

Like it or not you need some kind of arbitration systems to make these deals enforceable and realistic. I can't think of any major international agreement on migration or trade that don't have one.

That you don't want the ECJ because it has "European " in th name, fine, I'm quite sure the EU would be fine with a new had-hoc structure, as long as it works.
Post edited at 09:16
andyfallsoff - on 09:13 Fri
In reply to baron:

> I'm suggesting that it's not acceptable to some people in the UK that the ECJ has any say in UK law.

Out of interest - why, and what do you mean by "has any say in UK law"?

Nikki Hawkins - on 09:14 Fri
In reply to Roadrunner5:

The latter, I hope!
> I think its going to pan out as most thought it would. We will remain in the single market, essentially open borders, pay millions in to the EU and get little out in terms of subsidies and get little say in the EU's future direction.

> Then after a decade or so realise we may as well just go back in and actually have some control over our future involvement and the direction of the EU.

> Either that or in 18 months realise nothing is going to change and just cancel brexit.

summo on 09:15 Fri
> because she's now restricting it to the small minority of existing residents who can demonstrate 5 years continuous residence. For the rest, probably the majority,

Speculation or evidence based? Genuine question, I'd of thought that most apart from agricultural pickers for example were more long term?
summo on 09:17 Fri
In reply to Nikki Hawkins:

Everyone can't be a net beneficiary of eu hand outs though. Someone has to fund it.
baron - on 09:18 Fri
In reply to andyfallsoff:

The EU wants the final say over EU nationals who will reside in the UK after Brexit.
As in the ECJ and not UK courts will decide how these people are treated.
Nikki Hawkins - on 09:18 Fri
In reply to jkarran:

> I hope so (at worst) but perhaps as we here in Britain missed Trump's appeal you may be missing the pig headed belligerence that will stem from not wishing to be seen to be wrong and will likely drive us on to oblivion. It's worth remembering that those who will benefit from the bonfire of regulation, taxes and spending that brexit heralds still have a lot of influence over the British people. Again, easy to miss if you don't have to walk past the big stacks of Daily Mail and their vile headlines every day.

> jk

Exactly! Most cafes have only right wing papers in them spewing vitriol over any politician with any sense. Murdoch's muppets are trying to ruin our country by being gullible and taking on board his lies!
baron - on 09:20 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

If I live in the UK I should expect to be subject to UK law.
Why is this difficult?
baron - on 09:22 Fri
In reply to Nikki Hawkins:
This would be good except that the EU is pushing for more and more integration and I feel that even some remainers might be unhappy with this.
john arran - on 09:28 Fri
In reply to summo:

> Speculation or evidence based? Genuine question, I'd of thought that most apart from agricultural pickers for example were more long term?

Educated guesswork. It's the ability to demonstrate longer-term residence that I expect would be extremely difficult for many, given that it's so easy to come and go nowadays. When the UK government inevitably decides it wants to present some lower-looking figures to parliament it will be very easy for them to exclude a great number of people simply because they don't have extremely detailed records of travel and residence over a period far longer than people would usually be expected to keep such detailed records for.
MG - on 09:29 Fri
In reply to baron:

> If I live in the UK I should expect to be subject to UK law.

> Why is this difficult?

Perhaps because there is no such thing as UK law? We have English, Scottish law etc. If you are happy with this (I assume you are as I am not aware of any serious suggestion they should be combined), why the objection to some laws being at EU level?
RomTheBear on 09:30 Fri
In reply to summo:
> Speculation or evidence based? Genuine question, I'd of thought that most apart from agricultural pickers for example were more long term?

We don't know as the U.K. Government has never been bothered tracking who comes and goes in the country (which partly led to the distrust towards immigration).
From what I know from my social circles anyway, I would say about half are dead worried because they never had five years continuous residence. Most lived in the UK most of their adult lives but the timer was effectively reset by a year or two abroad for work at some point, and even for those who have five years, proving it will be extremely difficult as they did not have any particular reason to accumulate evidence.

Their expectations was that somehow as long as they were living in the UK at some point before art50, nothing would change for them, but it's becoming increasingly clear that is not going to be the case, only those with five years continuous residence (which you need to be able to prove) would be allowed to stay, which effectively is not more different than if there was no deal, given that you can get citizenship after 6 years.
Post edited at 09:34
RomTheBear on 09:31 Fri
In reply to baron:
> If I live in the UK I should expect to be subject to UK law.

> Why is this difficult?

This is already the case, always been the case, always will be the case. You're are entirely missing the point. It's about making sure UK law is compliant with the treaties we ratify, it's not really that hard to understand, make an effort.
Post edited at 09:32
baron - on 09:33 Fri
In reply to MG:

Why not invite any country that has a national living innthe UK to have an input?
It's an unnecessary interference.
baron - on 09:37 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
Maybe I am missing the point so how about clarifying the EU's position?
Do they, the EU, want to continue to have the final say in how EU nationals will be treated and to have the ability to over rule UK court decisions?
jkarran - on 09:37 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:

> One of their prime virtue signals has been a weeping and moaning and a rendering of hair, about the rights of EU citizens in the UK, the poor souls not being allowed to vote in referendums etc. By offering this as a negotiation point May has pissed on their fireworks.

Hardly. Of my European friends and family some fall within and some without the 5 year window, all will doubtless still be faced with reams of immigration service forms then a rushed and capricious assessment of their eligibility under the agreed terms on the basis of evidence submitted, evidence they never expected to have to collect and keep. I suspect several of them won't bother and will simply take their talent and training elsewhere. I know one already has cut her losses. For what? That's what's f****g infuriating about this, the utter pointlessness of it.
jk
MG - on 09:39 Fri
In reply to baron:

> Why not invite any country that has a national living innthe UK to have an input?

Because we have been a member of the EU for years with an agreement that EU nationals can live here!

> It's an unnecessary interference.

No it's not. It's quite necessary, as Rom has explained. This vision of the UK (or any country) operating without any reference to anyone else is a fantasy.

Do you want to pull out of all other over-arching arbitration agreements, in for example trade agreements too? If not, why not?

RomTheBear on 09:40 Fri
In reply to baron:

> Maybe I am missing the point so how about clarifying the EU's position?

> Do they, the EU, want to continue to have the final say in how EU nationals will be treated and to have the ability to over rule UK court decisions?

They want some sort of arbitration system to make sure that the agreement we ratify is implemented by the courts the same way across 28 countries, to make sure it's fair. How is that unreasonable ?
john arran - on 09:48 Fri
In reply to jkarran:

> For what? That's what's f****g infuriating about this, the utter pointlessness of it.

Sadly, we seem to reached the point of haggling over the colour of the noose we're using to hang ourselves.
baron - on 09:53 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
So, help me out again.
If I go to live in the USA is there some arbitration system that looks after my interests?
Or am I under the control of the US legal system?
TobyA on 09:53 Fri
In reply to baron:

But we will still be under the jurisdiction of the ECHR post Brexit. Or are you suggesting we leave the convention too?

Lots of people seem fuzzy on this.
tony on 09:53 Fri
In reply to baron:

> Maybe I am missing the point so how about clarifying the EU's position?

In the event of disputes, the EU position is:
"IV. Enforcement and dispute settlement rules
(1) The Commission should have full powers for the monitoring and the Court of Justice of the European Union should have full jurisdiction corresponding to the duration of the protection of citizen's rights in the Withdrawal agreement.
(2) Citizens should thus be able to enforce their rights granted by the Withdrawal Agreement in accordance with the same ordinary rules as set out in the Union Treaties on cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, i.e. including a mechanism analogous to Article 267 TFEU for preliminary reference from UK courts to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This is in respect of the citizen's rights as they currently exist under the freedoms of movement, work and residency. In other words, in the event of dispute, the first port of call is UK courts, with subsequent reference to the ECJ if a satisfactory outcome is not achieved.
tony on 09:54 Fri
In reply to baron:

> So, help me out again.

> If I go to live in the USA is there some arbitration system that looks after my interests?

> Or am I under the control of the US legal system?

The difference is that you don't go to the USA on the same terms as EU citizens coming to the UK.
RomTheBear on 09:57 Fri
In reply to baron:
> So, help me out again.

> If I go to live in the USA is there some arbitration system that looks after my interests?

> Or am I under the control of the US legal system?

There is no mutual agreement on the rights of US and UK citizens, so I'm not sure what kind of comparison this is.

Basically what you want is no agreement, with EU citizens falling under the same rules as current non-EU. Of course this would cause a massive exodus of people and chaos, and significant hurt for those affected, but don't be shy to say it if that's what you want, at least that's a coherent position.
Post edited at 09:59
baron - on 09:57 Fri
In reply to MG:
I see the need to ensure that countries comply with treaties.
Excuse my ignorance but which organisation(s) arbitrate such treaties?
As a UK citizen I am happy for an English court to have the final say on how I am treated under English law.
Why should an EU national be treated differently?
Doug on 10:01 Fri
In reply to john arran:

> ... because they don't have extremely detailed records of travel and residence over a period far longer than people would usually be expected to keep such detailed records for.

especially as until now, no one needed to keep such records. I would struggle to account for all my travels in/out of France over the last 5 years & there is no official record to compare my memory against (other than when I go to the UK assuming that records are kept when they scan passports)
RomTheBear on 10:03 Fri
In reply to baron:
> Why should an EU national be treated differently?

You would not be treated any differently. UK citizens exercising the same rights under a potential agreement would have the same final recourse to independent court, as it is the case now.

It's not about giving EU citizens special rights over UK citizens, it's about giving uk citizens AND eu citizens who would fall under a new agreement the same rights under this agreement. How is that unacceptable is beyond me.

If we follow your reasoning we pretty much have to leave WTO has well, because companies can also sue the UK government in WTO courts if they feel they are being unfairly treated. This happens all the time BTW, there are hundreds of cases, many of which we lost.
Post edited at 10:09
tony on 10:03 Fri
In reply to baron:
> As a UK citizen I am happy for an English court to have the final say on how I am treated under English law.

> Why should an EU national be treated differently?

At the moment, EU citizens enjoy certain rights (freedom of movement, residency, work, pensions and so on) living in the UK. Those rights were freely granted as a result of the UK's membership of the EU. After withdrawal, the possibility exists that those rights will be taken away from EU citizens through no fault of their own. Governments of EU member states want to see those rights preserved (in the same way as the EU is proposing that UK citizens rights in the EU are preserved).
baron - on 10:06 Fri
In reply to TobyA:
The ECHR exists somwhy do we, the UK, need the ECJ?
baron - on 10:07 Fri
In reply to tony:

I think that the ECJ is one of the government's red lines.
baron - on 10:08 Fri
In reply to tony:
Yes, sorry, not a good comparison.
baron - on 10:10 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

We don't have any disagreement on citizen's rights but we do disagree as to who should oversee those rights.
I'm happy for English law and the ECHR to be arbitrators but the ECJ isn't acceptable.
baron - on 10:11 Fri
In reply to tony:
Isn't this what Mrs May has just proposed?
andyfallsoff - on 10:16 Fri
In reply to baron:

> The ECHR exists somwhy do we, the UK, need the ECJ?

Because they're entirely different - the ECHR is a human rights court, with judges and staff who are competent in that area.

Otherwise its a bit like saying "I have a GP, why do I need to see a dentist when I could go there"? They're both medical professionals but they don't do the same thing.
Dave Garnett - on 10:18 Fri
In reply to MG:

> This vision of the UK (or any country) operating without any reference to anyone else is a fantasy.

Yes, it really is very depressing that there are still people who seem to want to live on a hermetically sealed island where we don't need to interact with or care about anyone else; the Royston Vasey of Europe.

tony on 10:20 Fri
In reply to baron:

> Isn't this what Mrs May has just proposed?

The details of her proposal haven't been published yet - we'll have to wait until Monday, apparently. The EU proposal was published on June 12.

I think one of the problems we have at the moment with all the negotiations is that there seems to be an expectation of immediate results, and if a statement is made on one side or another, it's taken as the definitive outcome. Of course the reality is that most public statements will be temporary positions, open for discussion, and the real final outcome won't be known for some time. There's an awful lot of froth and bubble on both sides which really doesn't help matters - all it does is encourage entrenched positions to be dug even deeper.
RomTheBear on 10:26 Fri
In reply to baron:

> We don't have any disagreement on citizen's rights but we do disagree as to who should oversee those rights.

> I'm happy for English law and the ECHR to be arbitrators but the ECJ isn't acceptable.

The ECHR has a totally different purpose. It did prove useful in immigration cases by forcing the government to give some non-EU nationals a right of appeal to immigration decision from the home office (otherwise they would be pretty much excluded of the justice system).

But that's just not the right tool here, it's pretty much unrelated.
andyfallsoff - on 10:27 Fri
In reply to tony:

Juncker is not reported as being overwhelmed by the offer (from the FT):

> After Mrs May said on Thursday night that Britain to guarantee the rights of three million EU citizens living in the UK, Mr Juncker described the prime minister’s offer as a “first step” but one that was “not sufficient”.
tony on 10:31 Fri
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Juncker is not reported as being overwhelmed by the offer (from the FT):

That's pretty much a perfect example of what I was saying about all the public pronouncements. I think it would be far more useful if he kept quiet and let the negotiators get on with their jobs, particularly on this topic, when people's lives are very directly affected.
RomTheBear on 10:39 Fri
In reply to tony:
Yes, but that's the one issue that was supposed to be easy.
The EU offer was basically perfectly acceptable, detailled, and ready to go. UK citizens in the EU said they liked it, and EU citizens in the UK as well.
It definitely would have a majority in parliament as well, as the proposals were likely acceptable to the vast majority of the tories, the lib dems, the snp, labour and the DUP.

The rational thing would have been to just take it and move on to other things, especially given the tight timetable.
Instead she decided to make an "offer" that is so hardline it even falls short of what UKIP had in mind. I strongly suspect that when the details come out on Monday it will confirm many of the fears.
Post edited at 10:47
RomTheBear on 10:48 Fri
In reply to tony:

> That's pretty much a perfect example of what I was saying about all the public pronouncements. I think it would be far more useful if he kept quiet and let the negotiators get on with their jobs, particularly on this topic, when people's lives are very directly affected.

Disagree with that. The negotiations should be as transparent as possible.
tony on 10:48 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Instead she decided to make an "offer" that is so hardline it even falls short of what UKIP had in mind. I strongly suspect that when the details come out on Monday it will confirm many of the fears.

Alternatively, we could wait until Monday and see what the proposal actually says. Given May's incompetence, it's not impossible she's f*cked up this announcement.

And then once the proposal has been published, we could even try waiting for some proper negotiations, instead of both sides grand-standing in their efforts to burnish their image.
tony on 10:50 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Disagree with that. The negotiations should be as transparent as possible.

To what end? I don't know how Juncker's public pronouncements help anyone. The outcomes are not going to be achieved through megaphone diplomacy.
Post edited at 10:50
RomTheBear on 10:53 Fri
In reply to tony:
> To what end? I don't know how Juncker's public pronouncements help anyone. The outcomes are not going to be achieved through megaphone diplomacy.

To what end ? The outcome of these negotiations will impact our lives significantly for the foreseeable future. Don't you agree that they should be conducted in a democratically accountable and transparent manner, instead of being effectively conducted behind closed doors by the executive powers at be ?

We need to know what our government position is, what they are doing, and they need to be held accountable. Conducting these negotiations in secret would be a democratic outrage, and anyway, it's practically impossible, with so many people and countries involved everything will leak anyway, so they might as well play the transparency card.
Post edited at 11:01
tony on 10:58 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> To what end ? The outcome of these negotiation will impact our lives for the foreseeable future. Don't you agree that they should be conducted in a democratically accountable and transparent manner, instead of being effectively conducted being closed doors by the executive powers ?

> Sorry but we need to know what our governments position is and they need to be held to account on that.

We do need to know what the government position is, which is why waiting to see what it really is might be a good idea. And what good is Junckers doing with his pronouncement this morning?
RomTheBear on 11:01 Fri
In reply to tony:
> We do need to know what the government position is, which is why waiting to see what it really is might be a good idea. And what good is Junckers doing with his pronouncement this morning?

Well we know the broad outline which is they don't intend to guarantee the rights of all EU citizens as was promised by all the leavers, instead they just want to avoid any cliff edge by giving people more time to assess their situation and either apply for PR if they can or leave the country. Very underwhelming, to say the least, but I guess it fits with the overall commitment to reduce net migration, which is achievable only if many people leave over the next few years.

Managing expectations and clarity are rather useful, don't you think ? Anyway I'm not sure what's so bad about what Juncker said, it was a statement of the blindingly obvious.
Post edited at 11:13
summo on 11:10 Fri
In reply to john arran:

Evidence of residence, NI number and payments to HMRC.?
tony on 11:12 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well we know the broad outline which is they don't intend to guarantee the rights of all EU citizens as was promised by all the leavers, instead they just want to avoid any cliff edge by giving people more time to assess their situation and either apply for PR if they can or leave the country.

And who knows what the end position of either side will be? We may have some starting positions, but we don't have the final outcome or even any idea of what may be up for compromise.

I think the only thing that can be guaranteed about the next two years is that neither side is going to get everything it wants.
summo on 11:13 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> We don't know as the U.K. Government has never been bothered tracking who comes and goes in the country (which partly led to the distrust towards immigration).

And had the government suggested years ago that it wanted to track everyone, introduce ID cards etc... Many would have complained it impinged their free movement etc.. big brother watching them, treating eu workers differently and so forth.

RomTheBear on 11:18 Fri
In reply to summo:

> And had the government suggested years ago that it wanted to track everyone, introduce ID cards etc... Many would have complained it impinged their free movement etc big brother watching them, treating eu workers differently and so forth.

Exactly, it pretty much highlights the deep contradictions within the electorate, which have been stirred by ideologues and the tabloid press for decades. Unfortunately politicians in the Uk have played on those myths and fears instead of debunking them, which leaves them in a very delicate position having to effectively deliver policies that are contradictory.
baron - on 11:20 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
It (ECHR) might be all you end up with.
Doug on 11:22 Fri
In reply to summo:

> Evidence of residence, NI number and payments to HMRC.?

That would seem reasonable to give evidence of residency, but the current forms for applying for permanent resident status in the UK asks for details of all travel in/out of the UK over the last 5 years (or maybe longer). It also wouldn't work for people still working for a company etc elsewhere but physically in the UK. That's close to my position as although I'm physically in France on secondment to an EU institute, I still get my salary paid into a Scottish Bank account & pay tax & NI in the UK - will I qualify to stay in France ? up until now, its never been an issue but I suspect it will be
RomTheBear on 11:30 Fri
In reply to tony:

> And who knows what the end position of either side will be? We may have some starting positions, but we don't have the final outcome or even any idea of what may be up for compromise.

Yes, sure, but I don't really see the point of bargaining so low on something that essentially would have gone through parliament without problems, reflects the views of the electorate, is good for us, and was deemed satisfactory by all those involved.
I could have understood some argument around the jurisdiction of the ECJ and/or the cut off date, but frankly the expectation was that at a minimum the rights of EU nationals in the UK would be guaranteed.
RomTheBear on 11:31 Fri
In reply to baron:

> It (ECHR) might be all you end up with.

Which would be an absolute disaster for about 4 millions people.
tony on 11:39 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, sure, but I don't really see the point of bargaining so low on something that essentially would have gone through parliament without problems, reflects the views of the electorate, is good for us, and was deemed satisfactory by all those involved.

No, well, trying to work out what's going in Downing Street these days is a mystery to us all.
baron - on 11:45 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

Why?
RomTheBear on 11:48 Fri
In reply to Doug:
> That would seem reasonable to give evidence of residency, but the current forms for applying for permanent resident status in the UK asks for details of all travel in/out of the UK over the last 5 years (or maybe longer). It also wouldn't work for people still working for a company etc elsewhere but physically in the UK. That's close to my position as although I'm physically in France on secondment to an EU institute, I still get my salary paid into a Scottish Bank account & pay tax & NI in the UK - will I qualify to stay in France ? up until now, its never been an issue but I suspect it will be

> That would seem reasonable to give evidence of residency, but the current forms for applying for permanent resident status in the UK asks for details of all travel in/out of the UK over the last 5 years (or maybe longer). It also wouldn't work for people still working for a company etc elsewhere but physically in the UK. That's close to my position as although I'm physically in France on secondment to an EU institute, I still get my salary paid into a Scottish Bank account & pay tax & NI in the UK - will I qualify to stay in France ? up until now, its never been an issue but I suspect it will be

It just doesn't work in practice.

My wife was refused PR because of a technical administrative problem out of her control. She worked full time in the UK continuously for over 10 years, most of the time earning a 6 figures salary. She's never been unemployed, not even for a single day, never claimed anything, not even used the NHS once.

Basically just working our asses off paying loads of taxes and taking almost no holidays so that 52% of the voters who essentially spat on our face on the 23rd of June can have their benefits, nhs and schools, all of this whilst being reminded every day by the right wing media that we are a problem the country needs to get rid of.

Frankly we just felt disgusted by the whole thing, and it was a big motivator to finally leave the country to greener pastures. I still struggle to see what anybody has to gain from this.
Post edited at 11:53
andyfallsoff - on 11:55 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm sorry to hear that Rom. I'm sure it won't be much consolation but there are still a lot of us who find this treatment of and attitude towards anyone who isn't originally a UK citizen disgusting.
andyfallsoff - on 12:03 Fri
RomTheBear on 12:12 Fri
In reply to tony:
> No, well, trying to work out what's going in Downing Street these days is a mystery to us all.

Actually it's pretty much not a mystery if like I did you followed very closely what Theresa May did at the home office for about 10 years, down to every single bit of policy. I totally expected her approach to be authoritarian, uncompromising, and narrow minded, because that's exactly how she worked in the home office.

She's just a weirdo and a xenophobe, and she's really good at clinging to power. It's hard to admit for many tories, because it doesn't really represent their party overall or their views, and they are in full cognitive dissonance mode on the issue.

Basically she just needs to go, she doesn't have the skills required, the ability to think deeply and broadly and to make valuable compromises. Even getting Boris would be a relief at this point.
I do believe the UK could come out not too badly out of brexit if done right, but with her, I just don't see it.
Post edited at 12:27
tripehound - on 12:16 Fri
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The EU have repeatedly said they will take us back. Just do it!
tripehound - on 12:18 Fri
In reply to Pekkie:

> I made a prediction on here, shortly after the result and to much scoffing, that we won't leave - the price in economic terms will prove to be too high.

I so hope you are right, otherwise this country is heading for deep do do's.
tripehound - on 12:24 Fri
In reply to summo:

> Tell that to the French?

Touch of Racism here.? Thats what got us into this shit in the first place.
baron - on 12:29 Fri
In reply to tripehound:
What got us into this situation was the failure of politicians to understand the depth of feeling among the majority of those who voted in the referendum.
RomTheBear on 12:40 Fri
In reply to baron:

> What got us into this situation was the failure of politicians to understand the depth of feeling among the majority of those who voted in the referendum.

Or rather, some politician understood it very well and very cynically exploited it.
baron - on 12:45 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
Politician, cynical exploitation of people? Surely not!
summo on 12:53 Fri
In reply to tripehound:

> Touch of Racism here.? Thats what got us into this shit in the first place.

Hardly, I hope you've read the entire thread and aren't plucking out little bits out of context. It was meant in terms of French nationalism and protectionism.
Dave Garnett - on 13:48 Fri
In reply to baron:
> What got us into this situation was the failure of politicians to understand the depth of feeling among the majority of those who voted in the referendum.

What got us into this mess was decades of governments of both parties who never embraced the EU, let alone adopting any kind of leadership role as our senior partners expected. Even a superficial knowledge of the EU and our role in it was not expected and it wasn't taught as part of the national curriculum. We have never even fulfilled our treaty obligations on metrication.

Instead, all we ever heard was an endless drip of mostly inaccurate negativity from an absurdly biased popular press about decisions over which we could have had considerably more influence if we had chosen to be more engaged. The endless cheap Jeremy Clarkson level xenophobia and lies about the enormous benefits of EU membership eventually persuaded enough turkeys to vote for Christmas.

There's plenty about the EU that doesn't work perfectly, and some of that is our fault for not effectively using our influence to help fix it. Integration per se didn't bother most people but when combined with politically-driven expansion it did. Immigration within an economically balanced EU with effective external borders wouldn't have been an issue but, even so, no-one forced us to join Schengen or the Eurozone and we were completely within our rights to enforced tighter control on benefits tourism (such as it is) than we did.

As with most things, education was the key and we didn't do any.
Post edited at 13:49
Roadrunner5 - on 14:03 Fri
In reply to Jim C:

But that's standard. We either have a deal or we don't. That's compromising which the Tories seem unable to do.

You seem to constantly want to paint the EU as the bad guys when they have been very patient with the absolute f*ck up that is UK politics. They've even said they are open to the UK reversing its decision to ruin its economy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-migrant-workers-fruit-farm-harry-hall...

You couldnt make this shit up. I thought it was a Daily Mash article, Leave voter fruit farm owner who hasnt employed UK fruit pickers for two years realises a lack of EU migrant workers will ruin his business....
RomTheBear on 15:48 Fri
In reply to summo:
> Speculation or evidence based? Genuine question, I'd of thought that most apart from agricultural pickers for example were more long term?

Here you go, answer for you in the FT this morning :

"Whether the cut-off date is March 2017 or 2019 matters because a migrant’s rights in the EU depend on the length of his or her residence. It is a significant issue for the EU side because roughly 1m of the 3m EU citizens in Britain have been there for less than five years, the point at which full EU residence rights kick in."

https://www.google.com.cy/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj84urUm...
Post edited at 15:51
summo on 16:57 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

Without all the data I presume it means that on mar 17, 66.6% will have been here 3years and 2019 the other 33% qualify.

Don't see what difference it makes to TM as even if you said 2019, they must already be in the UK before the referendum, which would be the only fair route to take.

We have to remember this isn't the final deal, it's only week one. The eu will ask for much more, then TM will give a little and so on, eventually there will be a residency deal to suit all parties.
RomTheBear on 17:40 Fri
In reply to summo:
> Without all the data I presume it means that on mar 17, 66.6% will have been here 3years and 2019 the other 33% qualify.

not if they leave in the meantime for whatever reason.

> Don't see what difference it makes to TM as even if you said 2019, they must already be in the UK before the referendum, which would be the only fair route to take.

I think the fairest thing to do would have been to say all EU and UK citizens who exercised EU treaty rights keep exactly the same rights as before, on the day it becomes UK law.

This way nobody gets their rights being retrospectively taken away, you minimise any disruption, it covers pretty much all situations in one go. Essentially freedom of movement would continue exactly the same for those who exercised it before in the UK and vice versa. This would be particularly useful for those UK citizens who have been working in multiple countries over the years, and don't have residence in any of them, or even the thousands who cross an european border every single day to go to work.

The good thing about it for those worried about the evil immigrant benefit scroungers, is that it would also mean that EU citizens would not be entitled to stay forever in the UK. They would have to be working or self sufficient, or student, exactly as they did before.

The irony of Theresa May's proposal is that may end up making some undesirable people impossible to kick out whilst many of those who are highly desirable migrants will leave because of technicalities. It seems to have only on purpose: reduce net migration numbers. Pretty much in line with the rest of the policies she dished out at the home office.

> We have to remember this isn't the final deal, it's only week one. The eu will ask for much more, then TM will give a little and so on, eventually there will be a residency deal to suit all parties.

I wouldn't really bet on Theresa May giving one inch on the particular issue of citizens rights and immigration. She may be coerced by her party but I think she'd rather resign.
Post edited at 17:54
john arran - on 18:24 Fri
In reply to summo:

> We have to remember this isn't the final deal, it's only week one. The eu will ask for much more, then TM will give a little and so on, eventually there will be a residency deal to suit all parties.

So it's true, despite being repeatedly and vehemently denied beforehand, that the rights of EU citizens in the UK is being used as a bargaining chip. Well I never.

baron - on 18:53 Fri
In reply to john arran:

Isn't this negotiating the exact rights of citizens as oppossed to using those citizens rights as leverage in some other part of the Brexit deal?
summo on 19:04 Fri
In reply to john arran:

Or the eu are using the rights of British citizens in Europe? ;)
john arran - on 19:12 Fri
In reply to summo:

> Or the eu are using the rights of British citizens in Europe? ;)

Please read what you just wrote. Then ask yourself who just proposed such a limited reciprocal deal. I think you'll find it was May who is trying to take rights away from existing EU residents, and it's the EU that is disappointed she's being so harsh with people's lives and livelihoods.

Not sure what your smiley face was all about.

You have to be stupendously blind to still interpret this as an EU-proposed deal.
MG - on 22:06 Fri
In reply to john arran:

I see now

May has the support of Victor Orban
Giesla Stuart thinks there shouldn't have been a referendum
Boris think Brexit won't solve are problems.

Going fantastically this Brexit thing, isn't it.
summo on 22:53 Fri
In reply to john arran:

> Please read what you just wrote. Then ask yourself who just proposed such a limited reciprocal deal. I think you'll find it was May who is trying to take rights away from existing EU residents, and it's the EU that is disappointed she's being so harsh with people's lives and livelihoods.

Rather than be 'disappointed', why doesn't the eu promise to maintain the status quo by promising to maintain British citizen rights in the eu, provided the UK does likewise?

john arran - on 23:02 Fri
In reply to summo:

> Rather than be 'disappointed', why doesn't the eu promise to maintain the status quo by promising to maintain British citizen rights in the eu, provided the UK does likewise?

Dare I remind you it's the UK that's being stupid enough to leave? It surely then is incumbent upon the UK to propose terms for agreement. And now we're seeing precisely how little concern May et al have for ordinary working people who just happen to have become caught up in this fiasco. They're pawns to be bargained with, apparently, for personal and party-political advantage. The EU has been very wise not to get drawn into such embarrassing attempts at cattle trading.
Graeme Alderson on 23:26 Fri
In reply to summo:

You started off in the whole Brexit debate as quite a well reasoned person, albeit one I disagreed with on most things. But over the last few months you have turned into a TorypartyBot. What happened?
Roadrunner5 - on 01:03 Sat
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I think they've been backed into the corner like Trump supporters, there's just very little they can point to that suggests the current leadership have any idea what to do and what they actually want. Its like this party just cannot help shooting themselves in the foot or directly contradicting themselves.
summo on 07:01 Sat
In reply to john arran / graeme:

I'm no fan of the Tory leadership, I didn't vote for any of them. But the eu isn't any better, all of Europe citizens are pawns in their game too, I'd don't believe they really care about southern Europe's youth unemployment, average Greeks etc.. they are only interest in the revenue that flows into Brussels. I don't think public jousting of negotiating stances is really the professional way to go either, but leaving the eu has become as much about image, as anything else. They can't afford (in all senses) to let the UK go easily.

RomTheBear on 08:45 Sat
In reply to summo:
> Rather than be 'disappointed', why doesn't the eu promise to maintain the status quo by promising to maintain British citizen rights in the eu, provided the UK does likewise?

Hello, wake up, the EU did months ago.... they made a fully detailled offer.
Of course the UK didn't take it. If fact they barely engaged on the issue.

This is what Dave Spokes, a spokesman for the group Expat Citizen Rights in EU, said in relation to Theresa May' "offer".

"We find it bizarre that she expects the EU to reciprocate to her offer which falls short of their own. Does she expect the EU to water down its offer to match hers?

This is not a negotiation to get the lowest possible price. It is, or should be, a negotiation to gain the best support for real people – a country’s citizens.

We are not surprised that Mr Juncker has described Theresa May’s offer on citizens rights as ‘not sufficient’.

This reflects our own assessment. It seems a very odd strategy for the UK to offer less support for citizens than that being offered by the EU. Should they not be encouraging the EU to give more?”
Post edited at 08:54
john arran - on 09:12 Sat
In reply to summo:

> I'm no fan of the Tory leadership, I didn't vote for any of them. But the eu isn't any better, all of Europe citizens are pawns in their game too, I'd don't believe they really care about southern Europe's youth unemployment, average Greeks etc.. they are only interest in the revenue that flows into Brussels.

Taking the longer view, the way to maximise revenue is surely to improve things like youth unemployment and Greek prosperity. Then the EU will have a more productive population which will mean more potential for public funds. It's only the UK's shortsighted, single-parliament view that encourages short term revenue over longer term prosperity.
summo on 10:14 Sat
In reply to john arran:

> Taking the longer view, the way to maximise revenue is surely to improve things like youth unemployment and Greek prosperity. Then the EU will have a more productive population which will mean more potential for public funds. It's only the UK's shortsighted, single-parliament view that encourages short term revenue over longer term prosperity.

I'll agree on the single parliamentary term view of any country being negative. But the eu has caused many of the problems in southern Europe through its lack of enforcement of criteria when nations wished to adopt the Euro. It's also expanded faster than its structure can cope with.

If eu wanted to help people, they could end the monthly gravy train to Strasbourg and spend the eu taxpayers money better?
summo on 10:16 Sat
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Hello, wake up, the EU did months ago.... they made a fully detailled offer.

But that was just rhetoric as they were never actually willing to sign up against it until formal negotiations had begun and the UK' s punishment fine was decided?

RomTheBear on 15:01 Sat
In reply to summo:

> But that was just rhetoric as they were never actually willing to sign up against it until formal negotiations had begun and the UK' s punishment fine was decided?

Sorry mate but that is absolutely nonsense. They put a fully detailed offer on the table, they had to wait for the uk to have a general election to get an answer to it ! And the answer was underwhelming to say the least.
summo on 17:06 Sat
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Sorry mate but that is absolutely nonsense. They put a fully detailed offer on the table, they had to wait for the uk to have a general election to get an answer to it ! And the answer was underwhelming to say the least.

You must have been reading different news to me, all I heard was finance must be concluded before anything else will be decided. Plus why would the UK agree to any agreement, that tied itself to the european courts for life? It might have to anyway, but that is what negotiations are for, rather then rushing to Europe to sign on the line.
Jim C - on 09:41 Sun
In reply to summo:
> You must have been reading different news to me, all I heard was finance must be concluded before anything else will be decided.

Not true of course because as has been pointed out several times ( and ignored)
'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' ( EU rule)

So by the EU's own rule , nothing on finance ( or citizens rights etc. ) can possibly be concluded until everything else is agreed.
Finance can only be agreed in principle, and would need to be ratified in two years ( only IF everything else is agreed)

If not, it's no deal, no money for the EU and no assurances on citizens rights for either side.
Post edited at 09:41
Jim C - on 09:50 Sun
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Hello, wake up, the EU did months ago.... they made a fully detailled offer.
> Of course the UK didn't take it. If fact they barely engaged on the issue.

May offered to enter into negotiations immediately ( this was before A50)
She was rebuffed by the EU and told that there could be no negotiations before A50 was served.

Now she has offered a deal that offers the same rights to the UK and EU citizens which the EU don't like. The EU seem to want the EU citizens living here to have more rights than UK citizens in the UK ( like me for example. ) Why should you come to the UK and have more rights than me ?
Post edited at 09:50
andyfallsoff - on 10:48 Sun
In reply to Jim C:


> If not, it's no deal, no money for the EU and no assurances on citizens rights for either side.

Except that we could make any assurances we want about EU citizens' rights in the UK at any stage, because it is in (or would be in once we leave) our control.
andyfallsoff - on 10:49 Sun
In reply to Jim C:

The EU just wants EU citizens in the UK to not find themselves in a worse position than they were pre-vote. Just because the UK is intent on giving UK citizens fewer rights, why should EU citizens who moved here with certain rights now have those taken away?
Dave Garnett - on 11:37 Sun
In reply to Jim C:

> She was rebuffed by the EU and told that there could be no negotiations before A50 was served.

She wasn't rebuffed, it was pointed out that the rules of the EU, to which we are currently signed up, don't allow such negotiations outside of the mechanism prescribed. It will come as a surprise to people used to the way politics is done here, but the EU has this quaint idea that you have a set of rules and then actually follow them.

summo on 12:04 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> but the EU has this quaint idea that you have a set of rules and then actually follow them.

Unless it involves financial criteria to enter the euro

Or perhaps any of the eastern bloc nations accepting an eu agreed share of refugees...

Or general lack of rule following on mainland Europe in terms of farm regs and animal welfare, which goes unchallenged, whilst the UK and the nordics follow the regs.

Countries not meeting eu air pollution laws or green energy production.

France, spain, portugal.. flexible approach to eu fiscal rules.

Yeah, the eu nations just love to stick to the rules.



Dave Garnett - on 12:43 Sun
In reply to summo:

I was, of course, referring to the European Council and Commission rather than individual states, although a lot of your examples are convenient broad brush Daily Mail smears. You might be surprised how often the UK has ended up on the wrong end of an ECJ decision about not sticking to the rules.

That said, of course not everyone living in a country within the EU sticks to the rules. The point is that if you complain there is a mechanism for enforcing them.

You have a point about the Euro entry criteria but, at least in the case of Greece, that amounted to fraud.
summo on 12:53 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> I was, of course, referring to the European Council and Commission rather than individual states

What is the point though if they are selective with compliance?

> although a lot of your examples are convenient broad brush Daily Mail smears

You mean facts which don't support your argument? The problems in southern European eu nations go right back to the lack of adherence to Euro entry criteria.

> You might be surprised how often the UK has ended up on the wrong end of an ECJ decision about not sticking to the rules.

Like when the UK was trying to meet EU carbon rules, so it took the vat off home insulation as an incentive, thereby breaking eu competition law.

> That said, of course not everyone living in a country within the EU sticks to the rules. The point is that if you complain there is a mechanism for enforcing them.

But they aren't enforced. Classic farming one. Pig stall for sows and litters to stop them being crushed, a 6 year lead in period, on the day the UK had 99% compliance, many countries in Europe less then 50%, the eu solution was a few more years extension, which meant the UK farmers were financially disadvantaged as the new rules pushed up production costs. The eu is teethless.

What about air pollution, refugee quotas, hard borders being rebuilt. People talk about not wanting a hard ni/Ireland border, but seem to forget the iron curtain like fences around the eastern bloc nations to stop migrants.
Post edited at 12:55
summo on 12:58 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:


> You have a point about the Euro entry criteria but, at least in the case of Greece, that amounted to fraud.

It was hardly a secret that them, Italy etc were fudging the figures and eu ignored it. Now the people in those countries and every taxpayer who contributes to Brussels are paying for the eu's lack of action and in the case of Greece will be for decades to come.
Dave Garnett - on 13:17 Sun
In reply to summo:

> But they aren't enforced. Classic farming one. Pig stall for sows and litters to stop them being crushed, a 6 year lead in period, on the day the UK had 99% compliance, many countries in Europe less then 50%, the eu solution was a few more years extension, which meant the UK farmers were financially disadvantaged as the new rules pushed up production costs. The eu is teethless.

This is firstly down to national application of the laws. Yes, if it can be shown that a country is not enforcing a law, action can be taken at the EU level. Actually, that's quite hard to do, but you can't have it both ways - I suspect you'd be the first to complain about direct EU intrusion into domestic issues.

I can assure you that the European Commission is far from toothless, unless you think being fined 10% of your global turnover (not profit) is trivial.

> What about air pollution, refugee quotas, hard borders being rebuilt. People talk about not wanting a hard ni/Ireland border, but seem to forget the iron curtain like fences around the eastern bloc nations to stop migrants.

As you well know, there was a refugee crisis in Europe resulting in, amongst other things, a lot of migrants crossing internal EU borders. I seem to recall this was quite a major issue amongst Brexiteers. The EU agreed some temporary reintroductions of internal border controls:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-132_en.htm

Some countries went some way beyond this, which was against the Schengen rules. Are you saying you'd be in favour of increased migration? It seems an odd thing to complain about from a country that can rely on a pretty effective natural border and which is not a Schengen signatory.

Is your basic problem with the EU that it interferes too much, or not enough?
ads.ukclimbing.com
summo on 14:25 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I can assure you that the European Commission is far from toothless, unless you think being fined 10% of your global turnover (not profit) is trivial.

Having the means to do something, isn't the same as actually do it for real though.

> As you well know, there was a refugee crisis in Europe resulting in, amongst other things, a lot of migrants crossing internal EU borders. I seem to recall this was quite a major issue amongst Brexiteers. The EU agreed some temporary .....

Given that the eu agreed each nation would take a given number, some countries have so far refused, Poland etc.. happy to take the eu hand outs though. Eu response over past 2 years has been strongly worded letters. They should just freeze all development funding Poland gets until it complies.

> Some countries went some way beyond this, which was against the Schengen rules. Are you saying you'd be in favour of increased migration?

Yeah. I have no problem with it, it should shared equally per capita around Europe.

> Is your basic problem with the EU that it interferes too much, or not enough?

Both! It interferes and countries like the UK follow the rules (99% of) then other nations blatantly break, flout and bend, but Brussels does nothing or drags it's heels for years hoping the problem goes away before it eventually does anything.
Dave Garnett - on 14:58 Sun
In reply to summo:

> Having the means to do something, isn't the same as actually do it for real though.

I'd agree to the extent that enforcement actions against companies (recent high profile ones include British Airways, Facebook, Microsoft and currently Google is looking at $1 billion +) are more widely publicised.

> Given that the eu agreed each nation would take a given number, some countries have so far refused, Poland etc.. happy to take the eu hand outs though. Eu response over past 2 years has been strongly worded letters. They should just freeze all development funding Poland gets until it complies.

I agree, they should take action against Poland under Art 7.

> Yeah. I have no problem with it, it should shared equally per capita around Europe.

I agree!

> Both! It interferes and countries like the UK follow the rules (99% of) then other nations blatantly break, flout and bend,

I really don't think there's a policy of only enforcing against countries that are already complying. It's a standard trope of the Eurosceptics to allege we're the only country that obeys the rules. My experience of travelling and working in France, Germany and Netherlands is that they pay at least as much attention to consumer law, heath and safety, and environmental standards as we do.
summo on 15:04 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I'd agree to the extent that enforcement actions against companies (recent high profile ones include British Airways, Facebook, Microsoft and currently Google is looking at $1 billion +) are more widely publicised.

What about nations that don't enforce regulations within their own countries? With say farming or environmental targets and regulations?

> My experience of travelling and working in France, Germany and Netherlands is that they pay at least as much attention to consumer law, heath and safety, and environmental standards as we do.

I would say the UK and the nordics are most observant, then northern mainland Europe, with slide down the scale towards the South and East. Ironically the very nations that are propped up by the wealth from the north are the worst.
Dave Garnett - on 15:23 Sun
In reply to summo:

> What about nations that don't enforce regulations within their own countries? With say farming or environmental targets and regulations?

Well, if you're right, if only there was some way we could make this a more of a priority within the EU. If only there was some mechanism that the UK could use to make its frustration with such an uneven playing field clear, perhaps in cooperation with similarly irritated large industrialised countries within the EU. If only there was some forum in which we could raise all this manifest unfairness as first amongst equals...

summo on 16:18 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:

If only there was. But it's too big an organisation to make any meaningful change happen. It's leaders and supporters are so blinkered towards ever closer integration they won't speak publically or do anything that might make it look like there are areas which aren't working and need reform. So onwards it goes, stumbling forwards. If one country doesn't force the eu to look at fiscal irregularities, then they won't apply too much pressure over their refugee policy.. etc..don't want to rock the boat now do we.
Jim C - on 16:51 Sun
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> The EU just wants EU citizens in the UK to not find themselves in a worse position than they were pre-vote. Just because the UK is intent on giving UK citizens fewer rights, why should EU citizens who moved here with certain rights now have those taken away?

I appreciate that, but how are the UK Gov. going to square that with the rest of the UK population, some of the remainers may be happy to accept that , but I can't see the leavers accepting it ( who are majority of the poulation)
Post edited at 16:58
Graeme Alderson on 17:05 Sun
In reply to Jim C:

You mean the majority of those who voted in the referendum NOT the majority of the population.
Jim C - on 17:09 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> She wasn't rebuffed, it was pointed out that the rules of the EU, to which we are currently signed up, don't allow such negotiations outside of the mechanism prescribed. It will come as a surprise to people used to the way politics is done here, but the EU has this quaint idea that you have a set of rules and then actually follow them.

You can't have it both ways.
May was accused by Rom of being given a detailed offer on citizens right , which( according to Rom ) she did nothing about .
I was just pointing out that on a visit to the parliament pre A50 May offered to discuss the matter, and was told no negotiations before A50, So she did try to resolve it, so it is unfair to knock her for trying. I'm sure if she had not tried, Rom would have criticised her just the same, he can only ever see the EU's position.

On the EU rules that must be followed, I predict the one that is going to come back and bite them , is :- nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Let's see how long the stick to that one.

Edit. It does not bode well that just today Davis was saying that the UK might just have to walk away without a deal.
( that is of course no deal for either side)
Post edited at 17:12
summo on 17:23 Sun
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> You mean the majority of those who voted in the referendum NOT the majority of the population.

You can only please someone if they tell you what they do or don't want.(we've been here before)
Post edited at 17:24
Dave Garnett - on 17:51 Sun
In reply to Jim C:

> I was just pointing out that on a visit to the parliament pre A50 May offered to discuss the matter, and was told no negotiations before A50, So she did try to resolve it, so it is unfair to knock her for trying. I'm sure if she had not tried, Rom would have criticised her just the same, he can only ever see the EU's position.

I don't think we should conclude anything much about May's offer or the refusal of the EU to agree to it other than it wasn't the appropriate time. It wasn't a refusal, it wasn't acceptance. It wasn't wrong of her to raise a possible offer, as long as she understood why it wasn't going to be accepted.

Of course, the europhobic newspapers are never going to report it that way.

nb - on 19:35 Sun
In reply to baron:
> I'm suggesting that it's not acceptable to some people in the UK that the ECJ has any say in UK law.

If EU citizens were protected only by UK law, it would only need a vote in Parliament/Lords to take their rights away. Given the chaotic nature of British politics at the moment, this is certainly not beyond the realms of the possible. EU citizens in the UK need their rights protected by an external court. Whether that will be the ECJ or the Hague remains to be seen, but the EU cannot and will not let the rights of their citizens be dependent upon the whims of the UK.


baron - on 19:48 Sun
In reply to nb:
Then they'll be going home then!
Dave Garnett - on 20:00 Sun
In reply to baron:

> Then they'll be going home then!

That's the ticket. We want local laws, for local people.
baron - on 20:01 Sun
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Now you've got it!
baron - on 20:09 Sun
In reply to nb:
Why would the police come knocking?
skog on 20:10 Sun
In reply to baron:

> Then they'll be going home then!

"home"
summo on 20:11 Sun
In reply to nb:

The UK lords have as a rule historically been very good at blocking or weakening the wild or unjust ideas of the house of commons.
nb - on 20:11 Sun
In reply to baron:

> Why would the police come knocking?

The police enforce the law

nb - on 20:19 Sun
In reply to summo:
> The UK lords have as a rule historically been very good at blocking or weakening the wild or unjust ideas of the house of commons.

With every passing day turkeys become ever more reassured and confident that they will be fed and watered and cared for. Then Xmas comes!
Post edited at 20:19
baron - on 20:22 Sun
In reply to nb:
Oh, I see.
So when the police come to enforce the law you think people should prevent them doing their duty?

nb - on 20:26 Sun
In reply to baron:

> Oh, I see.

> So when the police come to enforce the law you think people should prevent them doing their duty?

Ever heard of Anne Frank?
baron - on 20:28 Sun
In reply to nb:

Her of 'she's in the attic' fame?
nb - on 20:33 Sun
In reply to baron:

Sort of!
baron - on 20:34 Sun
In reply to nb:

Didn't she get snitched on by her neighbours?
nb - on 20:43 Sun
In reply to baron:

> Didn't she get snitched on by her neighbours?

She must've had good, law-abiding neighbours!
summo on 21:31 Sun
In reply to nb:

> With every passing day turkeys become ever more reassured and confident that they will be fed and watered and cared for. Then Xmas comes!

What makes you think the Turkey farmer in London is worse then the Turkey farmer in Brussels?
tom_in_edinburgh - on 21:47 Sun
In reply to Jim C:

We are starting to see the real power balance in these negotiations and it isn't May forcing a deal from a car dealer desperate for her money it's May outside a massive castle occupied by Frenchmen who are farting in her general direction.
Wainers44 - on 21:54 Sun
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> We are starting to see the real power balance in these negotiations and it isn't May forcing a deal from a car dealer desperate for her money it's May outside a massive castle occupied by Frenchmen who are farting in her general direction.

But wasn't this the spectacle we all voted for? It's brilliant, I've brought popcorn and everything. Don't they call one of her parents a hamster shortly?
RomTheBear on 22:47 Sun
In reply to nb:
> If EU citizens were protected only by UK law, it would only need a vote in Parliament/Lords to take their rights away. Given the chaotic nature of British politics at the moment, this is certainly not beyond the realms of the possible. EU citizens in the UK need their rights protected by an external court. Whether that will be the ECJ or the Hague remains to be seen, but the EU cannot and will not let the rights of their citizens be dependent upon the whims of the UK.

Not only that but the main problem in the UK is that essentially for non-EU citizens in most cases there is NO judicial recourse for immigration decision.
That is a bit strange in a country that is supposed to be a democracy with the rule of law but that's the way it is.
That means simply that even if we were to trust the UK courts and UK law to be compliant, people will not be able to challenge any unlawful decision from the home office, they'd be essentially at the mercy of an executive power that has a big incentive to reduce net migration.
Post edited at 23:08
RomTheBear on 22:53 Sun
In reply to Jim C:
> May offered to enter into negotiations immediately ( this was before A50)

> She was rebuffed by the EU and told that there could be no negotiations before A50 was served.

Firstly we've never seen that pre art 50 so called offer, nothing, nada.
Secondly it simply made sense to not get into when it wasn't even clear whether art 50 was going to be triggered.
Thirdly, there was no legal basis or framework to conduct such negotiations before art 50 was triggered.

> Now she has offered a deal that offers the same rights to the UK and EU citizens which the EU don't like. The EU seem to want the EU citizens living here to have more rights than UK citizens in the UK ( like me for example. ) Why should you come to the UK and have more rights than me ?

That is simply not what is suggested, EU citizens in no circumstances would have more rights than UK citizens. That's the whole point of a reciprocal deal arbitrated by an independent court is that it would apply the same way to EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU in all 28 countries.
Post edited at 22:55
RomTheBear on 22:57 Sun
In reply to summo:
> You must have been reading different news to me, all I heard was finance must be concluded before anything else will be decided. Plus why would the UK agree to any agreement, that tied itself to the european courts for life? It might have to anyway, but that is what negotiations are for, rather then rushing to Europe to sign on the line.

You heard of a programme called "the news " ?
Dated 24th of May : https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/citizens-rights-essential-principles-draf...
Post edited at 22:57
Lusk - on 22:59 Sun
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

David "Master Negotiator" Davis, begs to differ ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08v8vgt#play

RomTheBear on 23:00 Sun
In reply to baron:

> Then they'll be going home then!

Your dream I guess.
Jim C - on 23:07 Sun
In reply to RomTheBear:

Are you also talking about UK citizens living in the UK ?
( you only mentioned those UK citizens living abroad. )
RomTheBear on 23:12 Sun
In reply to Jim C:
> Are you also talking about UK citizens living in the UK ?

They are not affected by this, NOTHING for them changes.
That's basically the idea of the deal proposed by the EU, nobody who has exercised any EU freedom of movement related rights prior a cut off date has them taken away retroactively.
The good thing is that for example a British citizen living in the UK but who has lived in France 10 years ago and may have family there, maybe even own a holiday house, can still go back freely if they want to.

I'm not to sure what's so terrible about that, it seems to be the fairest and most legally tight way to do this. What the hell is this obsession about making everybody's life harder, what would this country have to gain from being overly harsh on EU citizens and its own citizens in the EU ?

Isn't the end of freedom of movement a big enough crime ? It's nearing insanity, and frankly, driven by hate and prejudice.
Post edited at 23:39
baron - on 23:19 Sun
In reply to RomTheBear
More like your nightmare!
summo on 05:55 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You heard of a programme called "the news " ?
> Dated 24th of May : https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/citizens-rights-essential-principles-draf...

Do you obtain all your news and information from the eu' s own news agency? That's why you present such an open and balanced view?
RomTheBear on 07:31 Mon
In reply to summo:
> Do you obtain all your news and information from the eu' s own news agency? That's why you present such an open and balanced view?

You asked me for the proposal the EU made where do you think I'm going to get it ?
What's wrong with you, seriously ?
Post edited at 07:31
summo on 07:54 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What's wrong with you, seriously ?

I just don't like some aspects of the eu. Can't the liberal left eu eqality loving folk show some tolerance for other people's views and opinion?

Quoting the eu's own site might just have a slant, that would be like a hard Brexit fan quoting ukips site.

Do you really think they would have signed up to anything, it was just posturing by both sides, presenting a deal that they knew the other side would never agree, then claiming they were being unreasonable after they refused.

I can understand why you might feel bitter about Brexit or the uk's stance, but that doesn't automatically make everything the eu said, says and does correct or in the best interests of half a billion people in Europe. Just like TM or the Tories have an agenda, so do many eu leaders and commissioners.
RomTheBear on 08:54 Mon
In reply to summo:
> I just don't like some aspects of the eu. Can't the liberal left eu eqality loving folk show some tolerance for other people's views and opinion?

> Quoting the eu's own site might just have a slant, that would be like a hard Brexit fan quoting ukips site.

No, it would be like quoting an official document from the Uk government website. Not sure what the hell is wrong with that.

> Do you really think they would have signed up to anything, it was just posturing by both sides, presenting a deal that they knew the other side would never agree, then claiming they were being unreasonable after they refused.

How on earth is what is suggested by the EU is unreasonable ? Essentially all they are asking is that nothing changes for EU citizens. Wow, what a scandal !

> I can understand why you might feel bitter about Brexit or the uk's stance, but that doesn't automatically make everything the eu said, says and does correct or in the best interests of half a billion people in Europe. Just like TM or the Tories have an agenda, so do many eu leaders and commissioners.

You're entirely missing the point. This is not about your political views of the EU or dislike of the EU, which is rather hypocritical from someone who lives in Sweden thanks to free movement....
This is about the rights of eu citizens who have done nothing wrong.

Honestly I wouldn't care much about brexit if it wasn't about immigration and screwing the lives of people who enjoyed free movement. I may even have welcomed it since the UK screwed European integration.

But to me, the end of free movement is nothing but a crime, and I'll be always dead set against it.
Post edited at 09:11
Dave Garnett - on 08:56 Mon
In reply to summo:
> Quoting the eu's own site might just have a slant, that would be like a hard Brexit fan quoting ukips site.

Actually, I think the root of this whole sorry mess is that so few people even know how to access official EU press releases, parliamentary proceedings, policy documents and consultations, or even that they exist. We've spent 40 years trying to pretend that they don't.

If you wanted to know what our government policy was on a particular issue was, would you go to the Daily Mail website? The BBC (I happen to think) would be a much safer bet for a balanced view but if you wanted to know what a bill under discussion or a law recently passed said wouldn't you go to the official government sources?
Post edited at 08:57
summo on 09:09 Mon
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> would be a much safer bet for a balanced view but if you wanted to know what a bill under discussion or a law recently passed said wouldn't you go to the official government sources?

That would depend on how much it could be bias towards maintaining support for an extra layer of government above and beyond a nations existing governance. They have a vested interest.

I'd rather trust a mix of independent sources to get a balanced view, which isn't so easy these days. Most are pushed in a given direction with their agenda and truth often lies in the middle.
RomTheBear on 09:13 Mon
In reply to summo:

> That would depend on how much it could be bias towards maintaining support for an extra layer of government above and beyond a nations existing governance. They have a vested interest.

> I'd rather trust a mix of independent sources to get a balanced view, which isn't so easy these days. Most are pushed in a given direction with their agenda and truth often lies in the middle.

Ffs summo, it wasn't a political view we were talking about, it was the actual offer made by the EU. Where would you get it appart from the official document where it was set out ?

summo on 09:14 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But to me, the end of free movement is nothing but a crime, and I'll be always dead set against it.

I think the crime is the eu's arrogance. For decades it has presumed to know best, decide for the people, rather then engage etc.. if it had been shown to be more flexible and less agenda driven, the Brexit vote may have gone the other way and far right political parties across Europe wouldn't have grown in strength over the past ten years
john arran - on 09:26 Mon
In reply to summo:

> I think the crime is the UK government's arrogance. For decades it has presumed to know best, decide for the people, rather then engage etc.. if it had been shown to be more flexible and less agenda driven, the Brexit vote may have gone the other way and UKIP wouldn't have grown in strength over the past ten years

FTFY. Reads just as credibly, doesn't it? Even though it's just the same half-truth, half-bollox as your version.

Dave Garnett - on 09:34 Mon
In reply to summo:

> I think the crime is the eu's arrogance. For decades it has presumed to know best, decide for the people, rather then engage etc.. if it had been shown to be more flexible and less agenda driven, the Brexit vote may have gone the other way and far right political parties across Europe wouldn't have grown in strength over the past ten years

Actually, I think you have a point with some of this; there was something of a grand projet attitude in some quarters but I'd say that there was also growing resistance to this among many governments that we could have helped to support.

We chose, as usual, to behave as though it was nothing to do with us. We seem to have regressed in our attitudes to Europe and international relations in general over the last 50 years. There's something worryingly more like a US attitude to 'overseas'.
RomTheBear on 10:25 Mon
In reply to summo:
> I think the crime is the eu's arrogance. For decades it has presumed to know best, decide for the people, rather then engage etc.. if it had been shown to be more flexible and less agenda driven, the Brexit vote may have gone the other way and far right political parties across Europe wouldn't have grown in strength over the past ten years

Stop it for a minute, freedom of movement was pushed and supported by successive UK government, and was clearly part of the Maastricht treaty, and the following treaties that our successive parliament democratically ratified. People were never forced into this. In fact when the EU enlargement happened the UK parliament decided to not even apply the transitional immigration control that were available.

And then people turn back and say "we have too much immigration it's the EU's fault !" Seriously ? You pushed for it, were architects of it, and said yes to it every step of the way !
Post edited at 10:47
summo on 11:19 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Stop it for a minute, freedom of movement was pushed and supported by successive UK government, and was clearly part of the Maastricht treaty, and the following treaties that our successive parliament democratically ratified. People were never forced into this. In fact when the EU enlargement happened the UK parliament decided to not even apply the transitional immigration control that were available.

There was no public choice, no referendum, there wasn't even an anti eu political party when those significant treaties were signed and there certainly wasn't any open debate with the public about their content. Perhaps people's dislike was brewing then, but with no current MPs listening, UKIP etc.. developed? Rather than a reforming eu, etc. It's become black and white, in /out.

RomTheBear on 12:10 Mon
In reply to summo:
> There was no public choice, no referendum, there wasn't even an anti eu political party when those significant treaties were signed and there certainly wasn't any open debate with the public about their content. Perhaps people's dislike was brewing then, but with no current MPs listening, UKIP etc.. developed? Rather than a reforming eu, etc. It's become black and white, in /out.

Exactly, and what does that tell you ? Maybe it wasn't the EU that was out of touch with the electorate, but rather, it was the successive UK governments that have shaped and ratified all these treaties. And even then, those governments were simply following the policies and manifestos they were elected on.
Post edited at 12:13
summo on 12:12 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Exactly, and what does that tell you ? Maybe it wasn't the EU that was out of touch with the electorate, but rather, the successive UK governments that have shaped and ratified all these treaties.

Perhaps, is the eu willing to reform at all, despite a fair few in Europe not liking its current course? Is the eu even willing to give people a choice on its ever closer direction or unity ? No.
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear on 12:16 Mon
In reply to summo:
> Perhaps, is the eu willing to reform at all, despite a fair few in Europe not liking its current course? Is the eu even willing to give people a choice on its ever closer direction or unity ? No.

What you don't seem to get is that the EU is a set of international treaties that countries have entered willingly, the EU can't don't anything outside of the scope of those treaties, and any reform can come only if all members agree. You can't blame the EU for doing exactly what its members have agreed or not agreed to.
Post edited at 12:21
baron - on 13:29 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

You need to replace the word 'countries ' with 'politicians '.
If major changes are made without meaningful consultation then it's hardly surprising if a large section of the population are malcontented.
mullermn - on 13:37 Mon
In reply to baron:
> You need to replace the word 'countries ' with 'politicians '.

> If major changes are made without meaningful consultation then it's hardly surprising if a large section of the population are malcontented.

Er, when you 'took back control', who exactly did you think you were giving it to?

Hint: they've just committed to hand 6% of our annual payment to the EU to the DUP for at least 2 years in order to buy votes for entirely self serving purposes.

Edit: clarified language
Post edited at 13:42
baron - on 13:46 Mon
In reply to mullermn:
You're off at a tangent.
Rom was making the point that the EU was acting on countries wishes.
I was arguing that the wishes were those of politicians and not necessarily the population of countries.
To answer your point-
for too long UK politicians have been able to use the EU as a scapegoat.
Now they can't.
That's part of taking back control.
As for the DUP deal I disagree with it.
The recipients of the money, people of NI might have a different view.
summo on 14:09 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What you don't seem to get is that the EU is a set of international treaties that countries have entered willingly, the EU can't don't anything outside of the scope of those treaties, and any reform can come only if all members agree. You can't blame the EU for doing exactly what its members have agreed or not agreed to.

Where the eu is happy with a majority vote to push things forward with integration, but if want to reverse or change something it has to be unanimous?

The politicians entered the UK into each treaty, I don't recall having a choice?
RomTheBear on 15:25 Mon
In reply to summo:
> Where the eu is happy with a majority vote to push things forward with integration, but if want to reverse or change something it has to be unanimous?

Ok, you obviously know nothing about the EU.
No further integration can be made without treaty changes, and treaty changes, by definition, need the unanimous agreement of all the parties.

> The politicians entered the UK into each treaty, I don't recall having a choice?

Yes, and again, whose fault is that ?
Post edited at 15:26
RomTheBear on 15:28 Mon
In reply to tony:
> Alternatively, we could wait until Monday and see what the proposal actually says. Given May's incompetence, it's not impossible she's f*cked up this announcement.

Well the penny has dropped. Only those with continuous five years residence will be able to stay, and the new settled status would be lost after two years out of the UK...
No indication as to what the requirements are for "5 years continuous residence", and it won't be free...
Post edited at 15:39

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.