Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aber said:
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.
Click to expand...

The lack of a comparable outcome does not make the appropriateness of a starting position any greater or lesser. The EU is trying to ensure its citizens don't lose anything in the transition. That seems eminently sensible. Whether that outcome can be achieved will be the point of the negotiation.
 
Aber said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the EU proposal there. I was talking about the outcome that Craig B was suggesting/referencing.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The lack of a comparable outcome does not make the appropriateness of a starting position any greater or lesser.
Click to expand...

Given there are a number of cases that could be argued to be similar - Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Eire - the current EU position appears unprecedented, unless you have evidence otherwise.
 
Aber said:
Given there are a number of cases that could be argued to be similar - Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Eire - the current EU position appears unprecedented, unless you have evidence otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't think those situations are similar but I don't see how what you posted here addressed the point I made. It can be unprecedented and yet eminently sensible as a starting position.

Someone leaving the EU is unprecedented.
 
Aber said:
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.
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but I think that the issue of the ECJ goes far beyond of the rights of the EU citizen in the UK.

For instance, if a UK business starts a litigation with the HRMC about a value added tax (VAT) issue, let's say, end of 2018 and the case goes to an UK court in the course of 2019 or 2020, the UK court must have the possibility to raise a prejudicial question to the ECJ. Indeed the UK VAT Act that will prevail in the UK at least till the Brexit is completed is an implementation of the EU directives relating to VAT. For this kind of matters it is the role of the ECJ to provide interpretation of the EU directives to the national courts. One can therefore easily imagine that during the years 2020 the ECJ could still have to rule on UK cases started before the Brexit.

And this goes not only for value added tax but for any piece of EU legislation that has been implemented in the UK as a result of its membership of the EU.
 
I'd be interested to know if those who advocate fees for students also believe that the NHS should charge and pensions should be means tested?

The latter in particular seems a rather blatant waste of money since it's literally giving it to those who don't need it for no return whatsoever. If we are worried about expenditures then pensions would seem the obvious place to start since it's by far the biggest chunk of spending. Maybe we could just scrap the state pension entirely and only provide support those who need it?

You also very rarely hear complaints about expensive cancer treatments being given to people to extend their lives by months. I'd love to hear why that's a better investment than tertiary education for the young.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I'd be interested to know if those who advocate fees for students also believe that the NHS should charge and pensions should be means tested?
Click to expand...
I've asked this about the NHS, in a previous thread where the same point was made about student fees, but it was not answered.

Who indeed continue to fund secondary, let alone tertiary, education, because the people who make best use of it are the children of the better off?
 
Craig B said:
I've asked this about the NHS, in a previous thread where the same point was made about student fees, but it was not answered.

Who indeed continue to fund secondary, let alone tertiary, education, because the people who make best use of it are the children of the better off?
Click to expand...

And there you have the classic example of the 'road to hell'. The original idea behind tuition fees, that the well off should make a contribution to the cost of their own university education and free up money that could be used in other areas of higher education, the epitome of good intentions. It all went wrong because governments started to see tuition fees as a replacement for other revenue not a supplement and the universities see it as a cash cow to milked ever harder.
 
Aepervius said:
If By the other side you mean EU, then I propose "team realist".
Click to expand...

No, I meant Team Brexit. Team Bremain should be called Team Optimists, seeing as how their predictions, once thought of as dire, now seem to be optimistic. How should we call Team Brexit now?

McHrozni
 
Darat said:
Team May Not
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's what I first thought when I saw the proposal as well.

Usually problems like Brexit look less severe as the question evolves. Not Brexit though, the more we get to know about it the worse it looks.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Yeah. That's what I first thought when I saw the proposal as well.

Usually problems like Brexit look less severe as the question evolves. Not Brexit though, the more we get to know about it the worse it looks.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Which means that people like Davis, May and Fox will be more likely to press on regardless because otherwise they will have to stop, think and consider the alternatives :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom