The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

Here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London.

I'm not spotting huge numbers of EU migrants among those figures...

Far too many points for me to respond as eloquently and clearly well argued, but just a few observations.

I'm not "forgetting" the Brits residing in the EU - their status remains to be determined. I may have missed (or misinterpreted) the EU response on this - as I understand it, the UK proposal is dependent on the UK subjects in the EU being given an equivalent deal. They will be bound by whatever applies in their country of residence. I haven't seen, although I haven't actively searched for, any alternative constructive offer from the EU for UK subjects.

Comparing the rights of foreign residents of one country with the rights of different foreign residents in a different country just doesn't work for me. Different countries have different rules and jurisdictions. That is one of the considerations people have when deciding where to live and work.

The other bits in your middle paragraphs I don't have much argument with. I'm not arguing in favour of what Mrs May is proposing - I think she is a remainer at heart and is trying to come up with a solution which satisfies the demands and expectations of those wishing to leave the EU in it's entirety, whilst still having to apply that theoretical dogma to the reality of people's lives. Like virtually every Brexit issue, she will not please everyone.

Ultimately, whoever is the Prime Minister in a couple of years (and please God, don't let it be David Davis) will have the unenviable task of asking Parliament (and, who knows, maybe even the public) to approve whatever deal may have been reached (if any) and the more clearly the break is from the EU institutions, the more likely it will be approved.

Whatever the outcome, I suspect many EU migrants will continue to live and work here and many Brits will continue to live and work within the EU.

For what little it is worth, I do sympathise with the situation of EU citizens living in the UK, hence the comment I made.

The reality for you and millions like you is somewhere I would hate to be, and, in your shoes I would be off like a shot - I don't mean to diminish it by being facetiously flippant, but it is my default status - at least you have the option of leaving (however difficult that may be in practical terms) - l'm stuck with what my country has become (and is becoming) - at least for a few years more

Whether it is what a majority of the UK wants isn't the issue - it is what they voted for in the referendum when they chose leave - I suspect a majority of them didn't even think or care about unintended consequences

This article explains the issue exactly as I see it, in a very well laid-out fashion

I'm not "forgetting" the Brits residing in the EU - their status remains to be determined. I may have missed (or misinterpreted) the EU response on this - as I understand it, the UK proposal is dependent on the UK subjects in the EU being given an equivalent deal. They will be bound by whatever applies in their country of residence. I haven't seen, although I haven't actively searched for, any alternative constructive offer from the EU for UK subjects.

May did not even acknowledge it, in her first 'deal announcement' on 22 June (2 weeks later). Which was significantly worse for EU and UK migrants, and which the 'detailed' version of yesterday does not much improve upon.

Comparing the rights of foreign residents of one country with the rights of different foreign residents in a different country just doesn't work for me. Different countries have different rules and jurisdictions. That is one of the considerations people have when deciding where to live and work.

The EU's proposal respects that principle (even though the EU is not a signatory of the Vienna Convention <!>) The UK's proposal doesn't. I'm surprised that there's been so little commentary about the UK's proposals under this angle, but maybe it's too early yet.

The reality for you and millions like you is somewhere I would hate to be, and, in your shoes I would be off like a shot - I don't mean to diminish it by being facetiously flippant, but it is my default status - at least you have the option of leaving (however difficult that may be in practical terms) - l'm stuck with what my country has become (and is becoming) - at least for a few years more

Do I carry on sticking with it, and them, through thick and thin?

Or do I call it a day and abandon them to their fate?

How much more dumping by May, Davis, Johnson & Co. will it take to decide me?

It's a question I've been asking myself with increasing regularity since February

That is a fair point...if it were not for the UK's past 40-odd years of EEC/EU membership, and for Article 70 of the Vienna Convention, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1971 (before its accession to the EEC) and under which signatories are not allowed to diminish acquired rights when resiliating an international treaty (which the TFEU certainly is).

 

The EU's proposal respects that principle (even though the EU is not a signatory of the Vienna Convention <!>) The UK's proposal doesn't. I'm surprised that there's been so little commentary about the UK's proposals under this angle, but maybe it's too early yet.

|

It seems unclear this convention can resolve the problem:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/will-europeans-be-free-to-stay-in-the-uk-after-brexit

Other blogs I have read from lawyers seems to say the same - that it is a murky area, previously untested in law and its unclear how a citizen could actually get any legal recourse, even if they did have a case.

Was Britain’s EU referendum hijacked by the American alt-right using a technique known as psychographics?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40423629/what-was-the-role-of-cambridge-analytica-and-psychographics-in-the-eu-referendum

Addressing company executives at an event hosted by The Times, the Brexit Secretary said he believed exit talks will be completed within the two-year deadline set out under the Article 50 process.

 

Asked if the UK would leave the customs union, he replied: "I would have thought so."

 

Mr Davis said any transition period was likely to end by 2022 as "the most important thing is it's got to be done before the election".

As I've said before when it comes to politics the only deadlines that really matter are elections.

In today's paper it reports that there is disagreement between May's 'Top Team' over the Brexit negotiations.

David Davis the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union accused Philip Hammond the Chancellor of the Exchequer of inconsistency.

The pair of them have set out different timetables for Brexit with differing customs arrangements in place following the two year talks.

Phillip Hammond then had a dig at Boris Johnson the Secretary of State during a speech he delivered in Germany referring to Boris's nonsensicle claim that Britain " could have it's cake and eat it ".

So reassuring to see Team UK displaying a united front in these parlous times.

If this is May's 'Top Team' all I can say is I'd hate to see the reserves get a game!

In today's paper it reports that there is disagreement between May's 'Top Team' over the Brexit negotiations.

 

David Davis the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union accused Philip Hammond the Chancellor of the Exchequer of inconsistency.

 

The pair of them have set out different timetables for Brexit with differing customs arrangements in place following the two year talks.

 

Phillip Hammond then had a dig at Boris Johnson the Secretary of State during a speech he delivered in Germany referring to Boris's nonsensicle claim that Britain " could have it's cake and eat it ".

 

So reassuring to see Team UK displaying a united front in these parlous times.

 

If this is May's 'Top Team' all I can say is I'd hate to see the reserves get a game!

One of the reasons Mrs May called the election is because not all her own MPs were singing from the same hymn sheet about Brexit. Hammond would have been replaced if Mrs May had won the big majority she hoped for. The Conservative party have their own fair share of sore losers, who don't respect the democratic wishes of the people to leave the EU. The main problem with Brexit has always been the democratic people voted to leave the EU, while the majority of MPs and those sitting in the House of Lords don't want us to leave the EU. Mrs May to her credit has behaved honestly by genuinely trying to deliver the wishes of the democratic people, which is to completely leave the EU, but will continue to be hampered by dishonest sore losers from all parties, because of the general election result.

It seems unclear this convention can resolve the problem:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/will-europeans-be-free-to-stay-in-the-uk-after-brexit

 

Other blogs I have read from lawyers seems to say the same - that it is a murky area, previously untested in law and its unclear how a citizen could actually get any legal recourse, even if they did have a case.

If an EU citizen had a claim against the UK under Article 70 of the Vienna Convention, the correct forum would be the ICJ in the Hague (because the Vienna Convention confers jurisdiction to it), handing down a judgement binding on the UK (because the UK agreed to be bound by the ICJ jurisdiction when it signed the Vienna Convention in 1970).

No lack of clarity whatsoever in that respect

I suppose that, after the EU and the ECHR, Leavers will be keen to exit the Vienna Convention as well?

There's a long list of international treaties other than the TFEU, the ECHR and the Vienna Convention of which the UK is a signatory, which confer jurisdiction to all sorts of non-UK Courts (such as the ECJ, the EcHR, the ICJ, the WTO panels and Appelate Body <...>), that would need to be repealed to 'regain control': the road to North Korean levels of international isolation is a long one I'm afraid

Your 1-year old link is interesting, though:

“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK,” the [ND: Leave] campaign says. “These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present,” says Vote Leave on its official website.

 

The group also says the Vienna convention will protect the rights of both EU citizens in the UK and British citizens living elsewhere in Europe.

 

The remain side is also unequivocal.

 

“All current EU citizens here would lose their automatic right to come and work in the UK. This means that living and working in the UK would be significantly more difficult after a leave vote for EU citizens, and is likely to involve restrictions and barriers in the form of permits, visas or other costs and bureaucracy,” says the Stronger in Europe side.

One of the reasons Mrs May called the election is because not all her own MPs were singing from the same hymn sheet about Brexit. Hammond would have been replaced if Mrs May had won the big majority she hoped for. The Conservative party have their own fair share of sore losers, who don't respect the democratic wishes of the people to leave the EU. The main problem with Brexit has always been the democratic people voted to leave the EU, while the majority of MPs and those sitting in the House of Lords don't want us to leave the EU. Mrs May to her credit has behaved honestly by genuinely trying to deliver the wishes of the democratic people, which is to completely leave the EU, but will continue to be hampered by dishonest sore losers from all parties, because of the general election result.

Yes, I'm aware of all that, but some Brexiteers appear to be under the ridiculous impression that 'leaving the EU' is as simple as saying " Bye, take care " and then having nothing more to do with the EU.

It doesn't work like that, we have agreements in place which will now need altering.

We have signed up to long term projects prior to the referendum and we now need to extricate ourselves from those agreed deals and pay any sums which are necessary to fairly cover any outstanding costs.

We have trade deals in place with EU countries the terms of which no longer apply.

We have trade deals in place with non EU countries which were agreed when we had the attraction of being part of a 500 million marketplace, we are now a 65 million market place and so revision of those deals will be needed.

The City of London financial sector currently has passporting rights allowing it to trade throughout the EU, there is no guarantee that that will continue.

The naivety of some Brexiteers is astonishing, this is a complex negotiation and if we get it wrong the whole country will be impoverished as a result.

It is becoming more and more apparent that those charged with bringing this about are out of their depth.

May calling an election which turned out to be a disaster has exacerbated an already very complex situation into a shambles.

In today's paper it reports that there is disagreement between May's 'Top Team' over the Brexit negotiations.

 

David Davis the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union accused Philip Hammond the Chancellor of the Exchequer of inconsistency.

 

The pair of them have set out different timetables for Brexit with differing customs arrangements in place following the two year talks.

 

Phillip Hammond then had a dig at Boris Johnson the Secretary of State during a speech he delivered in Germany referring to Boris's nonsensicle claim that Britain " could have it's cake and eat it ".

 

So reassuring to see Team UK displaying a united front in these parlous times.

 

If this is May's 'Top Team' all I can say is I'd hate to see the reserves get a game!

Tomorrow is going to be a big test of TM's new minority government.

The house will be voting on the government's entire legislative programme (Queen's Speech) so we'll soon find out if TM's minority govt is able to secure a majority vote in the HoC and therefore push forward with the job at hand.

Unsurprisingly Corbyn has already tabled an opposition motion which mainly focuses on opposing public pay caps. It appears to leave TM's Brexit plans largely unchallenged.

I wonder why? Perhaps he believes by isolating his opposition to a single issue (pay caps) he'll be able to garner greater support from other opposition parties like the SNP?

I cannot wait till tomorrow

Tomorrow is going to be a big test of TM's new minority government.

 

The house will be voting on the government's entire legislative programme (Queen's Speech) so we'll soon find out if TM's minority govt is able to secure a majority vote in the HoC and therefore push forward with the job at hand.

 

Unsurprisingly Corbyn has already tabled an opposition motion which mainly focuses on opposing public pay caps. It appears to leave TM's Brexit plans largely unchallenged.

 

I wonder why? Perhaps he believes by isolating his opposition to a single issue (pay caps) he'll be able to garner greater support from other opposition parties like the SNP?

 

I cannot wait till tomorrow

Have you not heard about the DUP and Conservative agreement? The result of the vote is assured. I won't spoil your excitement by telling you the result.