Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Unless the end situation treats EU spouses like spouses from elsewhere. Then there's an income requirement - and the income has to be earned by the British spouse and earned every year (a high-earning Japanese man was deported because his British wife was on maternity leave) - and the paperwork and applications cost thousands, which people with EU spouses won't have planned for - and there are usually restrictions on the non-uk partner's rights to work, claim benefits or travel out of the country. Apart from all that I guess they have nothing about though. Except fuck ups causing detention and deportation even if you do meet all those requirements.

So you would think it is within the mandate of the EU to ensure that this doesn't happen, yet any overtures from the UK government to resolve the issue have been rebuffed and will continue to be rebuffed until March 2019.

 

[agricola]

if May - or Corbyn - had unilaterally provided future security of status for EU citizens currently in the UK, they would have removed, at a stroke, the future security of status of UK citizens living in the EU. which doesn't sound like the right thing to do to me...

at the time there was lots of ho-ha about how such a move would be immediately recprocated, about how it would set the tone of the negotiations - sadly, have you seen anything in the conduct of the negotiations which suggests that 'play nice' was the EU's Plan A?

Making unilateral provision would be daft - but she (or Corbs) could easily have just openly said that our intention was that all EU citizens currently in the UK (and UK citizens currently in the EU) should be free to remain under the same terms as before and then challenged the EU not to accept it. As was said above, we were told how they would negotiate.

 

[scifisam]

I don't know of this rule that says a UK citizen can not claim any state support if they are married to a non-UK citizen.

The unemployed Brit wouldn't have been eligible for benefits due to his wife's income and the wife wouldn't have been eligible for benefits at all. They might have been eligible for housing benefit on a discretionary basis but councils aren't generous with that these days because they've been cut to the bone already.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Loss of rebate, increased payments, fewer subsidies; to put the boot in and make sure no one else dares step out of line again.

Its possible but - it ignores the fact that the UK has a few cards to play that greece doesn't - much bigger economy and trading zone, usefully large military, certain amount of international influence (security council member), lots of mutually beneficial arrangements in lots of areas like finance, academia, research, manufacturing. I would say its more in their interests to make britains re-entry more or less painless other than punctured pride.

 

[scifisam]

So you would think it is within the mandate of the EU to ensure that this doesn't happen, yet any overtures from the UK government to resolve the issue have been rebuffed and will continue to be rebuffed until March 2019.

What overtures have there been? And why overtures rather than properly laid out plans?

It's not simple for the EU here either - they have to get 27 countries to agree to a decision made by one country.

Do you admit now that EU citizens have cause to be worried even if they're married to a Brit?

 

[Raheem]

bizaarely the EU has decided that its red line for this issue is that the arbetor for any UK-EU agreement will be the ECJ. the UK would not accept a reciprical status agreement with the US where the final arbetor was the US Supreme Court, so why would the EU even consider putting a red line around it?

We have all kinds of reciprocal agreements with the US where the USSC is the final arbiter. What do you think happens in contentious extradition cases, for example?

The EU is not exactly bending over backwards. But I don't see how it is bizarre that they would want an immigration agreement to be subject to EU law. From their perspective, HMG cannot be trusted to enter into an agreement - on immigration of all issues - and not later seek to use its power as a legislator to breach the agreement. They need a legal recourse in that eventuality. They may not be right about everything all of the time, but they are right about that.

 

[Teaboy]

if May - or Corbyn - had unilaterally provided future security of status for EU citizens currently in the UK, they would have removed, at a stroke, the future security of status of UK citizens living in the EU. which doesn't sound like the right thing to do to me...

It does to me. You take the lead in negotiations, you actually lead them - show the way. Why would UK citizens be kicked out of EU countries? What's in it for the countries?*

There seems to me to be an inherent contradiction here. On one hand we're blithely saying that everything will be OK for EU citizens come Brexit and they have no need to worry on the other hand we're saying that we can't take the lead on this because something bad may happen to UK citizens abroad. Strikes me as an odd stance.

My position is that it's clearly game playing by a bunch of cunts. Something will clearly be done which sorts this one part out amicably so why not have already done it. As the instigator the UK government could have sorted this and it would have set a better tone than the macho bollocks that has failed miserably, by tying it into the negotiations it basically gave the game away that the hand is weak.


*Obviously the Iberian Peninsula will want to be shot of Stan

 

[kebabking]

We have all kinds of reciprocal agreements with the US where the USSC is the final arbiter. What do you think happens in contentious extradition cases, for example?

you mean like like the ones where the UK government says 'no' and the US says, 'oh, ok...'

 

[Raheem]

you mean like like the ones where the UK government says 'no' and the US says, 'oh, ok...'

The UK courts, normally. But yes. And vice versa. Which is precisely the point. They don't want an agreement where the UK can suddenly just say "no", and there's nothing they can do. Why would you expect them to?

 

[Winot]

So you would think it is within the mandate of the EU to ensure that this doesn't happen, yet any overtures from the UK government to resolve the issue have been rebuffed and will continue to be rebuffed until March 2019.

The EU set out its position on citizens' rights on 12 June 2017 (pdf)

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sit...essential-principles-citizens-rights_en_0.pdf

The Withdrawal Agreement should protect the rights of EU27 citizens, UK nationals and their family members who, at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, have enjoyed rights relating to free movement under Union law, as well as rights which are in the process of being obtained and the rights the enjoyment of which will intervene at a later date [for example pension rights].

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The unemployed Brit wouldn't have been eligible for benefits due to his wife's income and the wife wouldn't have been eligible for benefits at all. They might have been eligible for housing benefit on a discretionary basis but councils aren't generous with that these days because they've been cut to the bone already.

They said the wife was on minimum wage, that would not stop him from getting benefits.

Do you admit now that EU citizens have cause to be worried even if they're married to a Brit?

I think they should be concerned, which is why I have already said, they should be voicing their concerns to the nation-heads.

 

[Winot]

I think they should be concerned, which is why I have already said, they should be voicing their concerns to the nation-heads.

That's not how the process works.

1. The nation heads have agreed a position and instructed Barnier to negotiate within the agreed terms.
2. Barnier has no power to change those terms.
3. The UK has agreed to the procedure (i.e. the sequencing order of sorting out citizens' rights, the money and the NI border before trade talks).

The link I posted above shows that the EU wants full rights for EU citizens (UK and rEU) post Brexit. The UK won't agree to it though because it wants to be able to expel dirty foreigners to placate the Daily Mail.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The EU set out its position on citizens' rights on 12 June 2017 (pdf)

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sit...essential-principles-citizens-rights_en_0.pdf

Yep, purposely laid down as unacceptable; ECJ supremacy and unlimited immigration from even non EU27 countries.

 

[not-bono-ever]

The UK wants (needs) dirty forreners, but only ones that work in the black economy and are invisible in official figures

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The UK won't agree to it though because it wants to be able to expel dirty foreigners to placate the Daily Mail.

Racist proles being racist and proley.

 

[kabbes]

I want to change my vote. I no longer think that a fudge will be done to keep us in the EU. That was a bit of denial on my part, which I'm over now. I think we're charging full steam ahead. I don't see any mechanism in place that could stop it.

 

[Winot]

Yep, purposely laid down as unacceptable; ECJ supremacy and unlimited immigration from even non EU27 countries.

That pesky EU eh? Curse it for forcing us into this position

 

[Silas Loom]

I want to change my vote.

Trying to frustrate the will of the people, eh?

 

[not-bono-ever]

I want to change my vote. I no longer think that a fudge will be done to keep us in the EU. That was a bit of denial on my part, which I'm over now. I think we're charging full steam ahead. I don't see any mechanism in place that could stop it.

I didn't get involved in the brexit discussions on here really, as I abandoned any residual principles I held for rational pragmatism - pointless me contributing in the heat of the debate. I genuinely fear the worst of all scenarios now .I just cannot see anything good coming out of this in the next decade or so for the vast majority of the populace, however I view it

 

[scifisam]

They said the wife was on minimum wage, that would not stop him from getting benefits.



I think they should be concerned, which is why I have already said, they should be voicing their concerns to the nation-heads.

Yes it would. Your partner has to be earning very little for you to be denied benefits. If they work more than 24 hours per week you don't get JSA.

If his wife were a British, Irish or (atm) EU citizen they could claim HB on the grounds of low income and possibly claim universal credit as a couple, but not if the American wife has a spousal visa barring her from claiming benefits, because she would have to be on the claim. So they really would get nothing.

(If he'd paid enough NI then he'd be eligible for six months regardless of her income, but a lot of self employed people don't bother with paying that and after six months you lose it anyway).

 

[doodlelogic]

Arbitral courts exist for lots of treaties - TTIP for example.

But the ECJ is a bit better than many of them because its judgements are public and binding on future cases in national courts and it is relatively accessible to the public. Many of the cases before the ECJ are brought by individuals or small businesses, where the international treaties normally involve such huge costs only multinationals can use them. Also you can rely on your EC rights in a British court, which you might not be able to do with rights under a multilateral treaty (even as I understand it the Norwegian EFTA court model).

Then there is the whole misunderstanding between the Luxembourg court and the Strasbourg human rights court (which has nothing to do with the EU). Suspect after whatever Brexit we have there will be lots of tabloid stories about 'Europe' still controlling us (we practically wrote the Convention on Human Rights and it does a lot of good in places like Russia keeping organisations like Memorial somewhat safe from Putin's goons).

 

[Teaboy]

I want to change my vote. I no longer think that a fudge will be done to keep us in the EU. That was a bit of denial on my part, which I'm over now. I think we're charging full steam ahead. I don't see any mechanism in place that could stop it.

Yes and increasingly it looks like the crash out option. I'm just trying to work out what that'll actually mean though, in real terms. Instinctively I think it would be an almighty mess, certainly initially. I honestly don't know but my gut tells me it may work out for the best in the medium to long term but I think in the short term (for us lot essentially) it'll fuck us. I can't really back that up with anything though.

Anyway I'm still backing London to break away, its all the fashion these days.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I want to change my vote. I no longer think that a fudge will be done to keep us in the EU. That was a bit of denial on my part, which I'm over now. I think we're charging full steam ahead. I don't see any mechanism in place that could stop it.

May may very well not be in place much longer, so who knows what the Tory line will be after her? And then who knows how long that person will be in place? I think there's still a huge amount of uncertainty.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes and increasingly it looks like the crash out option. I'm just trying to work out what that'll actually mean though, in real terms. Instinctively I think it would be an almighty mess, certainly initially. I honestly don't know but my gut tells me it may work out for the best in the medium to long term but I think in the short term (for us lot essentially) it'll fuck us. I can't really back that up with anything though.

Anyway I'm still backing London to break away, its all the fashion these days.

What is the mechanism by which fucking things up short-term leads to a good medium- to long-term outcome? I don't see it. If you want a good medium- to long-term outcome, the best springboard for that is a good short-term outcome.

 

[Winot]

Yes and increasingly it looks like the crash out option. I'm just trying to work out what that'll actually mean though, in real terms. Instinctively I think it would be an almighty mess, certainly initially.

At some point fairly soon, the likes of British Airways are going to be putting *a lot* of pressure on the government to sort out the Open Skies agreement (for example) to ensure that planes can fly to rEU.

The optimist in me can't see that the Tories (natural party of the free market and big business) will take the suicidal route of a no deal Brexit. I think we'll have the transitional (sorry - implementation) period promised in the Florence speech to kick the can down the road.

 

[Teaboy]

What is the mechanism by which fucking things up short-term leads to a good medium- to long-term outcome? I don't see it. If you want a good medium- to long-term outcome, the best springboard for that is a good short-term outcome.

Sure ideally, but that option doesn't appear to be on offer.

I'm being blindly optimistic, but if I gaze into my crystal ball again I can see the writing on the wall for the EU in many aspects. Should that come to pass the UK will be well ahead of the game when the shit hits the fan.

Is there a trade of for guaranteeing short term stability? Is that a long term positive?

 

[gosub]

At some point fairly soon, the likes of British Airways are going to be putting *a lot* of pressure on the government to sort out the Open Skies agreement (for example) to ensure that planes can fly to rEU.

The optimist in me can't see that the Tories (natural party of the free market and big business) will take the suicidal route of a no deal Brexit. I think we'll have the transitional (sorry - implementation) period promised in the Florence speech to kick the can down the road.

Flying to rEU won't be the problem. (took me a little while to track down what Hammond was talking about) the ANO is still in place and reissuing AOCs under it will be a piece of piss given the gold plating EASA added to it. Problem will be CABOTAGE - the flying done once inside rEU to secondary destinations.

That underlies where the real difficulty lies, dramatic but superficial difficulties grab the imagination and the headlines, whilst the the real devil in the detail gets washed over.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Sure ideally, but that option doesn't appear to be on offer.

I'm being blindly optimistic, but if I gaze into my crystal ball again I can see the writing on the wall for the EU in many aspects. Should that come to pass the UK will be well ahead of the game when the shit hits the fan.

Is there a trade of for guaranteeing short term stability? Is that a long term positive?

i dont see this. It has problems - but the mutually beneficial nature of free movement and free trade between the major european nations are too great. Anti-EU sentiment in france, germany, spain, italy and the benelux countries has flared up to an extent - but nothing like the level seen here - and its very much tied to resentment to austerity - and immigration.

 

[Silas Loom]

its very much tied to resentment to austerity - and immigration.

But not to intra-EU immigration.

 

[pocketscience]

I have six close friends from school days (a long time ago). Three of them have partners who are from EU countries, two of which are married with children. All this cavalier talk of no deal is very worrying for them to say the least. Its all very well saying something will be done, but nothing has happened yet and this shit show is horrible for them.

What are they actually worried about?
I'm in that bracket (Mrs & Offspring are Eu) and I really haven't lost a minutes sleep over it.

eta: forget that... i see you've answered mr Bahnhof who asked virtually the same question on the next page