Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Degeneve]

According to Michel Barnier the EU has prepared 9 distinct papers for the attention of the UK government. Each of these papers covers a different issue relating to the withdrawal process. "We need to know the UK position on each of these papers in order to move forward" said Barnier.

So far the only answer received by the EU concerns the rights of the EU citizen residing in the UK after the Brexit. Barnier said he is not satisfied with the answer. And this topic is supposed to be one of the easiest to solve. (source, in French: http://www.lalibre.be/actu/internat...t-sans-doute-pas-fin-59665932cd706e263ec4e99d )

 

[Aepervius]

Reading the article it seems that either (or both) :
* London do not want to give Eu citizen the same right in UK than the Uk citizen would enjoy post brexit, in other word no reproicity which would be a sina qua non (it would be a VERY hard sell for EU voters to hear that UK citizen enjoy more right in EU than EU citizen in UK).
* London do not want to recognize the ECJ over EU citizen right in UK post brexit.

ETA (point 2 is a point I had expected and do not see as unacceptable, IMO, but point 1 clearly is if it is really the case).

Il est un point sur lequel Londres a fait connaître sa position : celui des droits des citoyens de l’Union européenne installés au Royaume-Uni, après le Brexit. Michel Barnier is not satisfied. Il a déploré "des différences d’ambition". Et de donner un exemple : "Nous voulons que les citoyens européens au Royaume-Uni bénéficient des mêmes droits que les citoyens britanniques en Espagne ou dans d’autres pays de l’Union. La position britannique telle qu’elle est ne permet pas cette réciprocité". M. Barnier a insisté sur le fait que les droits de ces citoyens devraient être garantis par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, dont Londres ne veut plus entendre parler.

As expected the antic of BJ about finance are not appreciated either.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Except that in this case with the EU as the townsfolk, who may just say 'go ahead and shoot'.

Well the EU might not be the "Common clay of the new west", you need them to be such for the plan to work.

 

[Aber]

Reading the article it seems that either (or both) :
* London do not want to give Eu citizen the same right in UK than the Uk citizen would enjoy post brexit, in other word no reproicity which would be a sina qua non (it would be a VERY hard sell for EU voters to hear that UK citizen enjoy more right in EU than EU citizen in UK).

I don't think that then UK is insisting on UK citizens in EU countries retaining the same rights as EU citizens; the UK government would be content with UK citizens abroad being treated the same as EU citizens in the UK (the UK citizens abroad might not be happy with this though).

The EU's starting positions seems to be that all EU citizens in the UK should retain ALL their CURRENT rights in the UK (even when those are greater than UK citizens).

 

[Craig B]

The smaller countries of the U.K. are becoming restive again. I wonder if the DUP in NI will be less troublesome. However May still has to find a way of squaring the circle of their demand for a hard Brexit with a soft Border. That won't be easy.

 

[ddt]

According to Michel Barnier the EU has prepared 9 distinct papers for the attention of the UK government. Each of these papers covers a different issue relating to the withdrawal process. "We need to know the UK position on each of these papers in order to move forward" said Barnier.

The comment of the journalist is good for a laugh:

"Oh, les gars, je ne vais pas négocier tout seul".

Or in English: "Oh guys, I'm not going to negotiate alone" (that would be quite an accomplishment, it takes two to tango).

As expected the antic of BJ about finance are not appreciated either.

And Barnier's reaction:

Je n’entends pas siffler, mais bien le tic tac de l’horloge qui tourne

Translation: "I don't hear whistling, but I hear the clock ticking - tick tock. "

 

[ddt]

I don't think that then UK is insisting on UK citizens in EU countries retaining the same rights as EU citizens; the UK government would be content with UK citizens abroad being treated the same as EU citizens in the UK (the UK citizens abroad might not be happy with this though).

The EU's starting positions seems to be that all EU citizens in the UK should retain ALL their CURRENT rights in the UK (even when those are greater than UK citizens).

I don't think there's any aspect where they're greater than UK citizens. They have the same rights minus voting rights, roughly.

What happens with the European Health Insurance Card? I wonder how squeazy all those British pensioners on the Costa del Sol feel right now.

 

[Aber]

I don't think there's any aspect where they're greater than UK citizens. They have the same rights minus voting rights, roughly.

The UK requires UK citizens to have a minimum income level for granting visas to their non-EU spouses wanting to reside in the UK. This rule does not apply to EU citizens bringing non-EU spouses into the UK.

 

[jimbob]

Well the EU might not be the "Common clay of the new west", you need them to be such for the plan to work.

Some gossip that is eminently believable from Badscience

Interesting and smoking titbit I heard this morning.
A friend who used to work in the FCO still has many friends there, and who have been seconded to departments like dexeu.
All the civil servants are aghast at how thick and bumptious* Davis and Fox are, and my friend was told "Davis doesn't know what he doesn't know and Fox doesn't want to know what he doesn't know."
Bodes well.

*which my phone wanted to autocorrupt to bump tits

 

[MikeG]

Reading the article it seems that either (or both) :
* London do not want to give Eu citizen the same right in UK than the Uk citizen would enjoy post brexit, in other word no reproicity which would be a sina qua non (it would be a VERY hard sell for EU voters to hear that UK citizen enjoy more right in EU than EU citizen in UK).
* London do not want to recognize the ECJ over EU citizen right in UK post brexit.

ETA (point 2 is a point I had expected and do not see as unacceptable, IMO, but point 1 clearly is if it is really the case).

Does
London has said explicitly that the offer to EU citizens in the UK is dependent on reciprocity. In other words, they want no more and no less for UK citizens in the EU.

Why would we give some residents of the UK access to the ECJ, and not others? Why would anyone in their right mind imagine that a foreign court should have jurisdiction over some of our residents, but not others?

As expected the antic of BJ about finance are not appreciated either.

Oh diddums. The EU wants to think of a number and double it, then add on a bit for good luck, and we should just pay up without discussion? You "don't appreciate" us saying "hang on a sec". With that sort of attitude, can you even begin to imagine why the majority of Brits want nothing more to do with the EU?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think that then UK is insisting on UK citizens in EU countries retaining the same rights as EU citizens; the UK government would be content with UK citizens abroad being treated the same as EU citizens in the UK (the UK citizens abroad might not be happy with this though).

The EU's starting positions seems to be that all EU citizens in the UK should retain ALL their CURRENT rights in the UK (even when those are greater than UK citizens).

It sounds like you disagree with this? Do you think countries should be OK with the UKredicing the rights of their citizens for no good reason?

 

[Aber]

It sounds like you disagree with this? Do you think countries should be OK with the UKredicing the rights of their citizens for no good reason?

I'm surprised that the EU starting position is 'guarantee all current rights held by the EU citizens in the UK forever, and have them judged by the ECJ'?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm surprised that the EU starting position is 'guarantee all current rights held by the EU citizens in the UK forever, and have them judged by the ECJ'?

Given that's the current status why would their starting position be anything less?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The UK requires UK citizens to have a minimum income level for granting visas to their non-EU spouses wanting to reside in the UK. This rule does not apply to EU citizens bringing non-EU spouses into the UK.

And this situation arose because the UK insisted on imposing ridiculous immigration rules that went against its treaty commitments to the EU and thus had to make a workaround for people exercising those treaty rights.

That the UK cannot be trusted to be reasonable (especially on immigration) is the very reason why the EU feel a need to try to guarantee the rights of its citizens in the first place.

 

[Craig B]

DoesWhy would we give some residents of the UK access to the ECJ, and not others? Why would anyone in their right mind imagine that a foreign court should have jurisdiction over some of our residents, but not others?

It's not a case of giving, but of taking away. Brexit can remove ECJ protection from UK citizens, but why should it remove it from French citizens living in the UK while it remains available to UK citizens residing in France? And it must, otherwise the ECJ would have jurisdiction over some residents of France and not others, a principle you seem unable to accept.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's not a case of giving, but of taking away. Brexit can remove ECJ protection from UK citizens, but why should it remove it from French citizens living in the UK while it remains available to UK citizens residing in France? And it must, otherwise the ECJ would have jurisdiction over some residents of France and not others, a principle you seem unable to accept.

There would be nothing strange about that situation. Residents of countries abide by the laws and rules of those countries not their home nations. People living in France will have recourse to the ECJ because that's their system, people in the UK would not because that's not (or won't be) our system just as, for example, US citizens don't have access to the ECJ.

Of course its also right for the EU to want to protect the rights of their citizens in other countries and push for the highest levels of protection they possibly can.

Were the UK government trustworthy this would be less of an issue but given their track record and noises emanating during and after the campaign it would be a fool who would not be concerned that UK residents will end up worse off with respect to rights than they currently are.

It would appear that the English and Welsh are mostly quite happy with that happening of course but there is no accounting for some people's tastes and that should not preclude others from fighting to keep what they currently have.

 

[Craig B]

There would be nothing strange about that situation. Residents of countries abide by the laws and rules of those countries not their home nations.

True, of course, but my point is that some nations grant different rights to resident citizens of different foreign countries. The UK provides an example.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

True, of course, but my point is that some nations grant different rights to resident citizens of different foreign countries. The UK provides an example.

Yes but here the issue seems to be more about reciprocity.

It seems Aber believes that EU citizens in the UK should be subject to UK rules and UK citizens in the EU should be subject to EU rules. Which on the face of it isn't unreasonable. However the effect would be that the EU would be extending a higher level of protection to UK citizens than the UK was prepared to extend to EU citizens.

This seems to be the issue within the negotiations rather than the red herring of the relative positions within the countries. After all the EU would have no particular interest in how badly the UK treats its own people but it should and obviously does care about whether its own citizens living in the UK are having their rights infringed by a foreign government.

 

[Aber]

Given that's the current status why would their starting position be anything less?

Can you think of any comparable situations in the past? eg Irish independence did not end up with rights of UK citizens in Eire being governed by English courts.

 

[Aber]

Residents of countries abide by the laws and rules of those countries not their home nations. People living in France will have recourse to the ECJ because that's their system, people in the UK would not because that's not (or won't be) our system just as, for example, US citizens don't have access to the ECJ.

Sorry, but EU citizens in the UK would have recourse to the ECJ (after going through British courts first) according to the EU proposal, as I understand it.