Off Topic Political Debate

That is my understanding too. Theresa May and in fact every British politician I have heard speak is willing to confirm EU citizens rights - those who are already here. Andrew Neal on Politics today pressed some EU politician as to why the EU would not do the same and all he kept repeating was that they would do nothing until Article 50 has been triggered. I do think the EU are playing hard ball on this and it is not justified.

 

I understand there are lots of complications - but it would be perfectly possible to say that those who were here on 23rd June are for certain "safe" so long as the EU does the same. If not then you cannot blame Theresa May.

 

But how do you know who was here on the 23rd June Leo ? There are no passport stamps, residence permits, registrations of residence, in order to check up on this. How does a person prove that he was here on the 23rd June ?

 

OK - so what you are saying is that for now it is impossible to give an assurance - perhaps you are right - but if so people should stop accusing the UK government of treating EU citizens as pawns.

 

I think that there may be a break down in communications Leo. There is lack of clarity on this one - some are even saying that this issue cannot be part of the negotiations at all. The reason for this stance is that the status of people already in possession of legal, unrestricted residence, and also voting rights, cannot have these taken away retrospectively - this may be a matter for international laws on human rights. If the Vienna Convention's rules regarding so called 'acquired rights' are binding then they are above both the EU. and the UK and are binding for both - thus making 'negotiation' irrelevant.

 

Yes - I do not really understand this fully - just get fed up with criticism of the UK position on this when clearly they are not villains in any way. The legal rights of people internationally is very complicated. It would still be nice if the EU could join the UK in saying - outside of any negotiations - that they support those living in each others countries to continue as at present as far as it is legally allowed.

 

You can if you have kept all the paperwork to prove it, but as it was never likely to be required most people wouldn't. People living in the UK for thirty years being told that they should be prepared to leave is beyond decency, and it has happened. If as a UK national you marry a person from outside the EU ,they get citizenship. Marry someone from within the EU and they don't, they have to apply. Can anyone tell me where is the logic in that? At one time you would apply to have a residence permit to live in France, but the government in my region stopped issuing them if you were an EU national. Not needed, you have a passport that shows your entitlement.
I have just seen a questionnaire from the Tories asking me if I approve that they should try to get a deal for EU nationals to stay in the UK and similar rights for UK citizens abroad. Despite the words of the PM this doesn't sound like something they are committed to.

 

I think Frenchie that this simply echoes the fact that they want to keep both EU and UK parts of this jigsaw together. Would you really prefer the government to give EU citizens the right to stay before they can secure your rights? If the EU are not thinking of shafting you why are they reluctant to agree with the UK on this? Remember there is still a lot of anger with the UK for rejecting them.

 

I do not see that she has even attempted to make a serious offer. Just honeyed words when she came under pressure in the UK. The question does need to be asked why she thinks that threats will serve a negotiation well for either side. I have seen very little in the way of anger around Europe, plenty of other emotions, but not anger. The 27 have come together in a way that is unusual, so the "I want" as opposed to the "I would like" attitude will not go down well. (Sorry basic French coming out)

 

At the bottom line everyone knows that the enforced relocation of 5 million people, in all directions, is not administratively possible - and could even constitute a crime against human rights. So what we are seeing is simple posturing - on the EU. side because they were irritated by Britain's attempts to secure unofficial negotiations, and were, obviously, testing the ground on a whole range of issues.

 

One other aspect is that Britain has an advantage here in that any arrangement would be reciprocal and there are 2 and a half EU. citizens in the UK. for every one the other way around. Returning Britons would go back to their country of origin - but returning Poles and Rumanians would probably end up in Ireland, France or Germany.

 

The British Prime Minister could not have done more or been clearer that she wants a speedy deal on the UK expats/ EU citizens in Britain. The lack of any progress lies completely with the EU politicians that have unnecessarily politicised the effected people.

Any comments from Theresa May that were conceived as 'threats' were used as simply setting out the UK's fallback position if / when unreasonable financial demands are presented. Of course EU politicians have been busily warning of all the nasty consequences they have in store. Hopefully most of this is hot air and a sensible pragmatic deal is eventually reached.

 

I would be interested to know what you think would be a reasonable financial deal. The lowest figure that I have seen in the UK press is that it could be £20 billion and the highest is £80 billion. Where between those very different figures would you think fair?

 

I have absolutely no idea as I am not privy to the necessary information. The UK ministers that have dismissed the higher figures as totally unrealistic obviously have much more idea than any of us. The EU negotiators are bound to ask for higher figures than they expect to eventually receive but they may ruin any chance of a settlement if demands are unreasonable.

 

So no deal, and what then? The UK becomes a nation that walks away from it's debts?

 

If no deal then both the UK and the EU would financially suffer. A final agreement may then take several years to agree. It would not affect the UK's credit rating over and above the financial standing at the time.

The EU already has the difficult problem of making up the shortfall when the UK stops contributing, I imagine there will be many arguments between member nations over liability.

 

I will agree that we will still be paying one way or another into the EU for years to come, but do not forget that the EU agreed to reduce it's spending thanks to the work done by the UK, so it will be easier for them to make up the shortfall. It seems we have not been paying in full for some years which is why the figures talked about are so large.

 

Nigel Farage has been hired as a commentator for American TV network Fox News, the broadcaster has announced.

The former UKIP leader will provide political analysis for the main channel, and the Fox Business Network's daytime and prime time programmes.

Can I assume he will resign now as an MEP and stop drawing a salary?

 

The EU only agreed to reduce the proposed quite large increase in spending, one of the few successes Cameron had in Europe. There may be trouble ahead amongst remaining members, actual spending cuts (for the first time) or extra bills for some struggling nations.

Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, came up with a sensible conciliatory message today regarding avoiding any financial damage to the UK or Europe so maybe common sense will prevail.

 

An interesting article on how you can make a square look like a circle.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38688561