House of lord brexit

[unbeliever]

Whilst I find the outcome rather amusing as someone who doesn't want Brexit, I also think the Lords are wrong here. Labour should have fought for these concessions in the Commons but decided not to do so.

 

It is a real shame that the EU and the UK have not been able to reach a pre-Article 50 agreement that guarantees the rights of both UK nationals abroad and EU nationals here, but there we go. This is different o when the Lords have stepped in before, as sometimes they've felt the need to do so as they felt government was ignoring parliament and riding roughshod as they have a majority. This isn't the case this time, Labour supported the bill and I think the Lords are wrong, even if the potential outcome pleases me.

 

 

I think that's the exact problem. The EU will not negotiate a single comma of the post-Brexit arrangements until Lisbon 50 is activated and possibly also until the matter of their fantasy bill is settled.

[sgtkate]

I think that's the exact problem. The EU will not negotiate a single comma of the post-Brexit arrangements until Lisbon 50 is activated and possibly also until the matter of their fantasy bill is settled.

 

You mean the bill that we signed up to in the first place? Bit like a mortgage that one isn't it? You take an agreement for a number of years and even if you burn your house down you still owe it. Funny that.

[unbeliever]

You mean the bill that we signed up to in the first place? Bit like a mortgage that one isn't it? You take an agreement for a number of years and even if you burn your house down you still owe it. Funny that.

 

We're not burning down the house. We're moving out of a room we leased in it.

How would it be if your landlord told you you owed her 3 extra years of rent when you moved out?

 

If they wanted to implement a leaving fee, they could have included it in the treaty. Of course it would not have been ratified and might not even have been enforceable, but at least they would have a point then.

[L00b]

This is about peoples' rights not economics.

You can't dissociate one from the other.

 

The bulk of immigration in either direction is, and always has been, and likely always will be (but for times of war) economic.

 

And the net effect of EU immigration has been proven to be an economic gain for the UK.

 

Brexiters are provably uninterested in maintaining the status quo as regards EU immigrants (since they want to end freedom of movement, sub-tending freedom of establishment) notwithstanding this economic reality, so don't you go claiming the moral high ground with this "it's about people's rights not economics" bullcrap.

People who have legally settled in the UK from the EU27 should have the right to remain. People who have legal led settled in the EU27 from the UK should have the right to remain.

Fundamentally, the Vienna Convention says both do, irrespective of politics and rethoric. But then, that's the legal theory, which governments can easily elbow out of the way for political gain. And the political winds here are no different to those blowing (-a gale) on the other side of the Atlantic.

Anything else is rather hard to condone.

You should have told May and her 3 Brexiteers last year: they were the ones who first came out with the 'pawns' comments, and have held them fast since.

The UK has offered this. The EU27 won't match the offer for their own political reasons.

Do you have evidence of this, or is this just opinion?

 

The UK is slowly finding out what to expect from the Germans in particular, in the forthcoming negotiations: as hardball as it gets, their way or the highway. What with their involvement in the EU and the €zone before 2008 and particularly since, they've been at this international negotiation game a lot longer than the Brits, and if you bother to look at their track record over the past 20-odd years, they're arguably the best going: they've always got their way, even when all others around the table pushed the other way.

 

Probably why Davis told the cabinet yesterday or the day before, to make plans and get ready for "no deal" in 2 years' time.

[unbeliever]

You can't dissociate one from the other.

 

The bulk of immigration in either direction is, and always has been, and likely always will be (but for times of war) economic.

 

And the net effect of EU immigration has been proven to be an economic gain for the UK.

 

Brexiters are provably uninterested in maintaining the status quo as regards EU immigrants (since they want to end freedom of movement, sub-tending freedom of establishment) notwithstanding this economic reality, so don't you go claiming the moral high ground with this "it's about people's rights not economics" bullcrap.

Fundamentally, the Vienna Convention says both do, irrespective of politics and rethoric. But then, that's the legal theory, which governments can easily elbow out of the way for political gain.

 

I really can. Just as I can distinguish between what it is possible to do within the law and what choices within those are most righteous.

There is a world of difference between continuing to allow new EU27 citizens to settle in the UK and telling hundreds of thousands of people who have legally settled (some for many years) that they're being sent home.

I would have thought that rather obvious.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2017 at 10:19 ----------

 

Do you have evidence of this, or is this just opinion?

 

It's an opinion. Is that okay?

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2017 at 10:25 ----------

 

So far the Germans seem largely reasonable and positive about future EU-UK relations. Most of the awkward noises have (anecdotally) been coming from the Commission and the Parliament.

Edited March 2, 2017 by unbeliever

[Obelix]

We're not burning down the house. We're moving out of a room we leased in it.

How would it be if your landlord told you you owed her 3 extra years of rent when you moved out?

 

If they wanted to implement a leaving fee, they could have included it in the treaty. Of course it would not have been ratified and might not even have been enforceable, but at least they would have a point then.

 

If I'd moved into a house and there was an understanding I was staying for a period of time and I left part way though of course I'd be liable for the rest.

 

I really don't understand why the UK thinks it can renege on it's obligations at zero cost here.

[L00b]

I really can. Just as I can distinguish between what it is possible to do within the law and what choices within those are most righteous.

 

There is a world of difference between continuing to allow new EU27 citizens to settle in the UK and telling hundreds of thousands of people who have legally settled (some for many years) that they're being sent home.

Better tell the Home Office. At last count, they're doing exactly that to over 25% of all settled EU immigrant applying for residency cards.

 

Trust unelected Lords to push for what is righteous indeed

It's an opinion. Is that okay?

Of course.

 

My own opinion therefore, is that the Germans are simply being Germans (a heavily-codified civil law society steeped in a rule-following mindset that is a cornerstone of their general culture) and sticking to the written rule: before Article 50 is triggered, is not the time to do any sort of deal whatsoever, about anything. The rules are the rules, Article 50 needs to be triggered first.

 

May was told as much 8 months ago, and consistently and repeatedly since. 8 months on, we -and they and the rest of the EU27- still await. It's not their fault May's government has been bumbling its legal way through treacle every way it possibly could, ever since July 2016.

So far the Germans seem largely reasonable and positive about future EU-UK relations. Most of the awkward noises have (anecdotally) been coming from the Commission and the Parliament.

On the topic of the thread, it's Merkel who's nixed an early deal.

 

The EU has made plenty of noises since November, independently of the UK and all others, to find a solution for helping Brits across the EU, e.g. with mooting individual EU citizenship opt-ins and similar initiatives.

 

Now, what's May & Co said about those same Brits across the EU so far? SFA.

Edited March 2, 2017 by L00b

[sgtkate]

We're not burning down the house. We're moving out of a room we leased in it.

How would it be if your landlord told you you owed her 3 extra years of rent when you moved out?

 

If they wanted to implement a leaving fee, they could have included it in the treaty. Of course it would not have been ratified and might not even have been enforceable, but at least they would have a point then.

 

If that was in my contract then I owe it. Pretty basic stuff that.

[unbeliever]

If I'd moved into a house and there was an understanding I was staying for a period of time and I left part way though of course I'd be liable for the rest.

 

I really don't understand why the UK thinks it can renege on it's obligations at zero cost here.

 

Would you have an agreement in writing with the owner or the collective which said that you could leave when you wanted with 2 years' notice?

We're leaving a collective, like a club. Whilst members we pay in and we take out. We share assents, expenses, rights and responsibilities.

When we leave we're no longer taking out and we no longer have rights or use of assets. Why should we pay in or accept responsibilities?

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2017 at 10:30 ----------

 

If that was in my contract then I owe it. Pretty basic stuff that.

 

It wasn't though. Lisbon says that we can leave with 2 years' notice. makes no mention of any leaving fee. Lisbon is the contract.

[Obelix]

Would you have an agreement in writing with the owner or the collective which said that you could leave when you wanted with 2 years' notice?

We're leaving a collective, like a club. Whilst members we pay in and we take out. We share assents, expenses, rights and responsibilities.

When we leave we're no longer taking out and we no longer have rights or use of assets. Why should we pay in or accept responsibilities?

 

Because we agreed to those responsibilities when we joined the club......

 

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2017 at 10:32 ----------

 

It wasn't though. Lisbon says that we can leave with 2 years' notice. makes no mention of any leaving fee. Lisbon is the contract.

 

And that contract says we then get to negotiate. Part of those negotiations is who pays for all the stuff put in place for the UK. It's reasonable for the UK to pay for them - certainly I don't think its reasonable for the rest of the EU to pay for them.