The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[L00b 441]

Thanks for taking the time to explain, L00b.

 

I was watching a bit of breakfast telly with a restaurant owner who said a similar thing. He was particularly upset that HMG is trying to change the rules in mid-game.

 

I suspect that we are just seeing some negotiational argy bargy carried out in public, playing to a very narrow audience of Tory MPs. That will pass and common sense has to prevail, surely.

 

A bit that I don't get is the insistence on the ECJ supervision. I can see that being a bit of a red line for the UK Government as it will be almost impossible to sell at home. Is it so very important?

The answer to your bolded question, is in the earlier bolded passage: the ECJ is, inherently, both apolitical and without any nationalistic bias, and has long proven itself to be a consistently logical and fair arbiter of legal conundrums (interpretation), arising either under EU law or under international treaties involving the EU and its (28 ) Members.

 

It answers only to itself, and to no one else. No, not even to the Commission or Council in Brussels, nor to the ECHR in Strasbourg (-of which it is jurisdictionally independent).

 

So from my PoV, it is preferable an arbiter, in case of any future legal conflict involving interpretation of the UK-EU deal clauses (as some relate to EU nationals in the UK), to any government (British and not, right or left or centre) ready and willing to pass anyone under the wheels of the political bus in the name of expediency: it's the ideal mediator, cancelling out any future political (especially populist-) interference in determining legal questions.

I suspect that we are just seeing some negotiational argy bargy carried out in public, playing to a very narrow audience of Tory MPs. That will pass and common sense has to prevail, surely.

Common sense has been in pretty short supply since this time last year and, in view of HMG's performance past-to-latest, I see no indication whatsoever that matters are set in improve in any way.

Are there any, more politically acceptable solutions?

Not that I can see, and not our (the3million's) problem.

 

It's one for the Leavers, May, Davis <etc.> to solve.

 

That's not a cop-out: it's placing the responsibility for cleaning up the mess solely at the feet of those who created it in the first place, along with those who have supported it and/or made it worse since. You break it, you bought it.

 

May, Davis <etc.> make it good enough, and fellow EU nationals and I are likely stay in non-trivial numbers apt to help sustain the domestic economy, shoulder to shoulder with the natives, as we have done for decades.

 

May, Davis <etc.> don't make it good enough, and the natives shall end mostly on their own. And good luck to them.

Edited June 26, 2017 by L00b

[Lord Rex 10]

WTO rules will destroy our economy.

Sounds like scaremongering to me. WTO rules will affect the EU more than us as a consequence of the UK trade deficit with them.

[Cyclone 10]

Sounds like brexit ignorance to me.

 

What those exports are as a proportion of all exports—by this measure about 46% of the UK’s exports go to other EU countries, while somewhere between 8-17% of exports from other EU countries go to the UK (depending on how you measure it).

The value of that trade to the UK and other EU countries’ economies—exports to the rest of the EU are worth about 13% of the UK’s economy, and exports from other EU countries to the UK are worth about 3-4% of the value of those countries’ economies taken as a whole.

 

Hardly looks like the EU is going to be the one suffering the most to me.

[Carlinate 10]

It is somewhat revealing that there are people who think that a deficit is a good thing to have and is somehow to our advantage.

 

Spending more than you earn and borrowing to enable it is not a good thing.

 

We import more than we export and whilst we are reducing the deficit, which is good, we are continuing to increase the debt which is bad.

 

We are the 9th largest exporter in the world which is pretty impressive in my opinion given our relative size.

 

Unfortunately we are the 4th largest importer in the world, which whilst also being impressive given our size is not in a good way.

 

2015 figures

 

Exports $425 Billion

 

Imports $606 Billion

 

A deficit of $181 Billion.

 

At the end of 2015 exports were increasing over the past five years at a rate of 2% per anum whilst imports were increasing at a rate of 1.5% per anum which is some small comfort if it has continued since then.

 

But the main point is that we are currently living beyond our means, we are massively in debt and can't reduce that until such time as the deficit is dealt with and in the meantime we are racking up even more debt!

[El Cid 212]

I don't care who solves the issue!

 

Maybe it isnt an issue, you have just been taken in by the media.

[Manlinose 10]

Whilst I would welcome citizens of EU countries who live here being allowed to stay here with the same rights as UK subjects, I don't see why they should be subject to ECJ jurisdiction

 

When you go to another country you should live, and be bound, by the rules of that country, not by the rules of the country you were born in (or the rules of an arbitrary body your country has delegated it's ultimate decision making process to,)

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Whilst I would welcome citizens of EU countries who live here being allowed to stay here with the same rights as UK subjects, I don't see why they should be subject to ECJ jurisdiction

 

When you go to another country you should live, and be bound, by the rules of that country, not by the rules of the country you were born in (or the rules of an arbitrary body your country has delegated it's ultimate decision making process to,)

A good point. To the EU, more interference is always the default answer to any situation.

[Flanker7 20]

A good point. To the EU, more interference is always the default answer to any situation.

 

That's a prejudiced sweeping statement that cannot be correct.

Calm down dear, calm down.

[L00b 441]

Whilst I would welcome citizens of EU countries who live here being allowed to stay here with the same rights as UK subjects, I don't see why they should be subject to ECJ jurisdiction

 

When you go to another country you should live, and be bound, by the rules of that country, not by the rules of the country you were born in (or the rules of an arbitrary body your country has delegated it's ultimate decision making process to,)

I fear you may not understand the issues at play and the role of the ECJ.

 

There is no question of EU immigrants with this new 'settled status' not "living, and be bound, by UK rules". Of course they would be (living, and be bound, by UK rules), the same as they've always been, ever since the UK integrated the EEC.

 

The issue is of there being a judiciary body independent of the UK to invoke, in case the UK was to breach the provisions of its Withdrawal Agreement (-with the EU) about EU nationals. Because the UK is sovereign, and can perfectly well change the rules for EU nationals the day after the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, if doing that suits its current masters/political circumstances/etc.

 

In that context, the ECJ is not the body which 'dictates the rules by which EU nationals live in the UK': it's the arbiter of these rules, as they shall first be agreed between the EU and the UK, and which concern EU nationals in the UK as much as UK nationals in the EU (yes, the ECJ would be looking after them too, and that's a good thing).

 

Now, it can be the ECJ: as I posted before they have a long, clear and well-proven record of independence and consistency. But if the notion really gives you, or Ms May, a bad rash, then let's have the International Tribunal in the Hague instead. Not the EcHR, because May ('s backers) shall take the UK out of that next.

 

Incidentally, as regards 'the big bad ECJ', the UK has quite a nice quandary coming on the patents front, with the Unified Patent Court system and its jurisdiction, which -due to Brexit- shall require the UK to <again> acknowledge the primacy of EU law and submit to judiciary oversight and interpretive referrals to...the ECJ

 

So the UK can either do that, and stay a valued member of the global and European patent systems. Or stay away from the ECJ at all costs, and become a technological backwater, unappealing to innovators and investors.

Edited June 27, 2017 by L00b

[Manlinose 10]

Loob, I won't quote your post, and the fear you mentioned in your first sentence may be well founded, but I suspect we are talking about slightly different things, and obviously viewing them from different perspectives.

 

Any country can change how it treats it's non-citizens (for want of a better description) at any time ( I accept EU countries can't, but that is one of the reasons we are leaving)

 

I am not a Brexit supporter and have no issue whatsoever with the ECJ ( why on earth did my spellchecker want to change that to RACK?), but, once we have left, why should EU citizens have recourse to the ECJ when UK subjects won't.

 

I accept and understand the concerns you raise, but it comes back to my core point, anyone living in a country must be bound by that country's laws.

 

I do fully accept, though, that my status won't be affected if the UK decides to renege on any agreement post departure, however unlikely that may be, so mine is more of a theoretical issue than a practical, personal one

 

The quandary you raise in your final two paragraphs is one of literally hundreds "we" will have to unravel and deal with, but, as I suspect will become a fairly common refrain over the coming months and years, don't blame me, I voted remain

[hobinfoot 25]

Has the Grandfather of two whose mother is from Slovakia I'd be devastated if they had to leave. I can't see what is wrong with the UK's offer.

[L00b 441]

Loob, I won't quote your post, and the fear you mentioned in your first sentence may be well founded, but I suspect we are talking about slightly different things, and obviously viewing them from different perspectives.

-ish

Any country can change how it treats it's non-citizens (for want of a better description) at any time ( I accept EU countries can't, but that is one of the reasons we are leaving)

EU countries can, perfectly well.

 

Fully so (within the constraints of the ECHR - which has nothing to do with the EU), insofar as non-EU immigrants are concerned.

 

And to a very sizeable extent (look at e.g Netherlands, Spain), insofar as EU immigrants are concerned (same again, within the constraints of the ECHR - which has nothing to do with the EU).

 

That's one of the worst fallacies and ironies of the immigration-led arguments for 'Brexit'. But well. That debate's been had, and the information, links and evidence posted, innumerable times on here already.

I am not a Brexit supporter and have no issue whatsoever with the ECJ ( why on earth did my spellchecker want to change that to RACK?), but, once we have left, why should EU citizens have recourse to the ECJ when UK subjects won't.

You keep forgetting the balance in the equation: Brits residing in the EU

 

Legally speaking, insofar as Brexit is concerned, EU nationals in the UK are comparable to them, not to UK citizens subjects residing in the UK.

 

When you say "UK subjects won't", you seem to be forgetting that UK citizens/subjects residing in the EU "will", and that is the point: they would be protected from nationalistic tendencies by the Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, French <...> governments after Brexit by the ECJ - to the same extent, no more and no less, as EU nationals here would be protected from nationalistic tendencies by the British government.

 

That situation corresponds to the legal certainty, currently (before Brexit) and of the past 30 years or so, for EU immigrants here just as much as for British emigrants in the EU.

 

Anything the UK government proposes which falls short of that (and the current proposals -the detailed ones of Monday- are a severe downgrade), basically means loss of current rights, and shall have the expected consequences of making the UK unattractive to the EU 'best and brightest' which the UK needs and wants to keep (and continue to attract).

 

Naturally, if May doesn't accept ECJ supervision for EU nationals here, reciprocally British emigrants residing in the EU won't enjoy its protection either, and will instead be fully subjected to the whims of the national government of the EU country wherein they reside (since they will be third party nationals, no different to e.g. US, Japanese, Chinese <etc.> immigrants).

 

In that respect, how Ms May has shown herself absolutely ready and willing to throw 1.2m British residing in the EU under the wheels of the Brexit bus (by clawing back significantly from the level of the EU's own offer applying to Brits residing in the EU) tells us EU immigrants in the UK all we need to know.

 

Them British residing in the EU are your fellow citizens/subjects, by the way. That's just a reminder, not a snide/snipe.

I accept and understand the concerns you raise, but it comes back to my core point, anyone living in a country must be bound by that country's laws.

Anyone living in the UK is bound by the UK's law, immigrant or not. I don't have Corps Diplomatique reg plates, I can't go tonning it down the M1 any and every day of the week with impunity

 

EU immigrants in the UK will be bound by UK law transposing whatever deal is agreed between the EU and the UK about residence and other personal rights.

 

The argument is not about sovereignty, it is about certainty and fairness of due process: the UK is empowered to 'self certify' itself in that respect (because Parliament is sovereign), and this is what it wants to do, but the objective evidence of the past 18 months (and continuing to date) is that neither Parliament nor the government can be trusted to uphold its end of the bargain, which is why EU immigrants like myself refuse to accept/believe in that 'self-certification'.

 

If the UK won't accept ECJ arbitration (which is absolutely its prerogative, don't get me wrong), then that's fine, it's a negotiating outcome, under which the UK can learn to do without EU immigrants and to replace them with more malleable/pliable Commonwealth types instead.

 

If that's what a majority in the UK wants, fair enough...

 

...but beware the law of unintended (socio-economic) consequences and all that.

I do fully accept, though, that my status won't be affected if the UK decides to renege on any agreement post departure, however unlikely that may be, so mine is more of a theoretical issue than a practical, personal one.

Well, that's just the thing, you see: what happens to my employment situation? mortgage? accrued pension rights? property? how much to obtain this settled ID card? what happens to my biometric data handed over to gain settled status when some HMG bod loses the database on a train? <...>

 

and what of all this if and as the UK government reneges/shifts the goalposts under more/new UKIP-like political pressure?

 

...until one eventually gets to the stage of 'you know what? f this for a game of soldiers, I can do the exact same thing in <EU country> tomorrow without the uncertainty' and walks off. As is happening right this minute, in numbers you wouldn't believe.

don't blame me, I voted remain

No blaming here, I just enjoy discussing/debating the issue Edited June 27, 2017 by L00b