What I cannot fully understand is that neither side wants to give any guarantees in advance regarding the rights of EU citizens in the UK. or British people living in Europe. Merkel is adamant that there will be no informal negotiations before Article 50 is invoked, and May is determined not to show her hand in advance ok. I can understand that. But, there is a very good chance that the status of immigrants already resident - with residence permits (and migrants within the EU. have, de facto, unrestricted residence permits), would be protected by international law - firstly by the Vienna Convention and secondly by the UN. Can a permanent residence permit be legally taken away ? Can the law act in such a retrospect way ? The position in international law is being looked into at the moment, but there is no information coming out. It could be that acquired rights are already protected regardless of what Britain or the EU. negotiate.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Agree Tooting it's taken 40 years to get it going and it won't take 2 years to get out.
What you are talking about is litigation, we are not doing that either. I'm not a mediator, I negotiate market access for pharmaceuticals, and I was describing the typical features of those negotiations, which usually happen with government or quasi governmental agencies, and partnerships with other companies on product development and marketing.
Anyway, we will see. The status of EU people in the U.K. and Brits in Europe would seem to me to be about the simplest things to get agreement on right at the start of this process, and kick the thing off on a positive note. If we fail (jointly) on that one, or either side tries to play it off for something else, we will be in for a very rough time. I can't believe that any but a UKIP government or worse would seriously threaten to send 800,000 Poles back home.
We're in a contentious situation with massively high stakes that could develop into litigation. Both sides are positioning and assessing strengths and weaknesses of themselves and the opposition. Juncker has chosen a tough, abrasive team with an army of experienced lawyers behind them.
I agree, you'd think both sides could agree that no citizens will be sent home, and May has tried. The fact that the EU refuses to talk about that is an ominous sign of what is to come and is yet another example of how the EU puts corporate interest before its citizens.
It can't develop into litigation because we would never agree a court to take it to. May could have made a unilateral gesture, she hasn't really tried anything, playing the same game with nicer words. Juncker is a twat, but all members of the EU have said discussions start when article 50 kicks in. They are waiting for us. We could get this sorted on day one, and real people would have a load of stress and fear removed from them.
Genuine question - am I wrong in thinking that the default end position if discussions come to nothing is trade with the EU reverts to WTO rules, free movement of people to and from the UK ends and we stop paying into EU budgets? If so, strikes me that many of the 52% would sacrifice the first in order to get the last two.
There are aspects that might develop into litigation, for example quantum of compensation. Not necessarily court but arbitration.
I think your reading on WTO reversion is right, and increasingly this looks like where we're headed, because single market membership also involves submitting to the European Court, and that's something we want out of.
In Norway the authorities told me verbally I'm OK anyway as I got a permanent resident permit under old law back in the Eighties before the single market including the UK and Norway came in the early 90's I think. Have not got the requested written confirmation of this yet, but from what they said if you have residency in the EEA prior to the introduction of freedom of movement in the EEA, the UK leaving the EEA should have no impact on you as the residency was given under previous legislation. Something I have to follow up on when I'm back there though!
That's encouraging. And looking back I lived and worked in Italy before all the free movement/single market stuff came through with no problem, though plenty of bureaucracy.
I think we know that there is not going to be any forced repatriation of 3 million people in one direction and 1.5 million in the other - nobody can envisage anything like a small scale version of the partition of India. There is also no country which wants the forced return of about 1 million of its citizens - all disgruntled, needing places to live, and all with full voting rights. This has nothing to do with negotiations, or power play, it is a matter of human rights - and those are not open to negotiation.
Latest immigration figures due out today. Will be interesting, but I'm not sure if they cover any post referendum time though.
Mays attempt last year to get schools to do the job of her failing Border Control force gives us exactly the measure of the woman. Amazingly, my respect for Nicky Morgan has notched up a percentage point for her reaction to the proposal.
Mays attempt last year to get schools to do the job of her failing Border Control force gives us exactly the measure of the woman. Amazingly, my respect for Nicky Morgan has notched up a percentage point for her reaction to the proposal.
Thanks for sharing that. I have a better appreciation of where you're coming from, now. It will probably change the way I view some of the things you say and respond to them.
Which is a bit like negotiation, in a way. If you understand your negotiating partner a bit better, it's easier for both sides to find points of common interest and get both parties to a result that feels like a win and is one. If the other party approaches the negotiation being openly antagonistic, with an attitude of "I know you want to screw me so I'm going to screw you" then both sides entrench and blame each other for failure. Or they cut a deal that isn't fair to one side, so it doesn't work in practice (one side defaults, or sues, etc.) and ends up in litigation - which is, I guess, when you were called in. Litigation is the inevitable result of bad win-lose negotiation - and it is generally about making sure you win and they lose, isn't it?
You may gather from this that I have spent some of my professional life in negotiating teams.
So, I don't have a problem with the EU refusing to discuss anything until we have officially invoked Article 50. I don't understand why Mrs May doesn't just cancel the court case, hold the vote in Parliament, win the vote and get on with it. It would be fairly obvious and humanitarian for Mrs May to tell the world that people from the EU living in the UK right now would have the rights to remain here on the same terms if the EU is content to promise that this would also apply to UK citizens currently living in the rest of the EU. It's not giving anything up. It's finding something of common benefit and agreeing on it.
Sadly, I suspect there are some people in the government and outside who would love negotiations to fall apart and the ensuing distress that it would cause to everyone - because they feel it would progress their own agenda.
Here you go. The ONS says it was a net influx of 335,000 in the year up to June 2016.
650,000 people arriving, 315,000 leaving. Of the arrivals 284,000 from the EU, 366,000 from elsewhere, over whom Theresa May has had full control since 2010. Very few of these non EU migrants are asylum seekers/refugees. Probably a lot of students though.
To thin out the population, solve the housing crisis, take the burden off public services, protect the green belt etc, we clearly need more people to leave the country (or a plague) as well as stopping them coming in.
And in that spirit I am prepared, selflessly, to offer one and all the opportunity to sponsor me to emigrate. Once I have liquidated my UK assets I estimate that I will only need another £4-5 million to bribe the authorities of the warm and comfortable place I end up in to accept me and then keep me in the style to which I would like to become accustomed for the next 25 years or so. A bargain price for the emotional and psychological damage that such a sacrifice, leaving the warm and loving embrace of the motherland, obviously entails.
It is excellent value because, once I retire (in an estimated 5-7 years) I intend to extract full value from the system I have paid into for so long. I expect to develop several expensive disabilities deserving of state funding, require constant GP and hospital attention, be calling 999 several times a day for company, and be blocking the aisles in the supermarket in my mobility scooter every Saturday for at least 8 hours, without buying anything.
For a slightly lower sum you can also sponsor Kiwi and Oslo to stay where they are.
Last edited:
The problem is the antagonism is coming from Junckers and his cohorts, who are upset that we've had the nerve to announce we're leaving, and they now want to make an example of us, to discourage others. They've said as much.
So goodwill is thin on the ground at the moment, with both sides assessing their case and those of their opponent. There is zero point in the UK coming forward with constructive points at the moment - it'll just be thrown back in our face. Brussels are grandstanding - although if the elections over the weekend don't go their way, they'll find they're on soft ground.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you that May should go to Parliament before EU negotiations start. Parliament will demand every ounce of detail of May's proposed negotiations and it will be a gift to Juncker's team. The way these treaties have always been dealt with is that government negotiate them, and then take them to Parliament for debate and approval. Nor do I agree that May should concede on EU nationals in the UK, because Junckers will then demand something additional from the UK, in order for UK nationals to remain in the EU.
Don't concede anything unilaterally. The EU gloves came off on June 23rd, and being nice now just makes us a patsy. At some point, sense will prevail at national level (most probably Germany, under pressure from its industry) and a compromise will be reached - it sounds from what David Davis said today, that they UK would be prepared to contribute to the EU budget to stay in the single market - but the EU would have to move on freedom of movement
To summarise, immigration has worsened despite Brexit and the majority of it is non-EU. I can't say I'm surprised.
Re para 1&2: I understand your point of view, but until people sit down in a room across the table, it's all posturing for their particular voters or bosses. We can ignore all of it - from both sides. There are people in the U.K. who have been just as hostile.
Mrs May could make the offer to permit EU nationals already here to stay forever - on the basis that the EU agreed to do the same. This is a pre-negotiation statement of intent from us that can be rescinded if the counter offer doesn't appear. It puts the EU on the back foot if they don't counteroffer, and resolves an issue for many worried people if they do. You could ask why the EU doesn't offer it first, but someone has to open their mouth and we are speaking as one country rather than 27, so it should be easier for us to decide and speak.
It's not conceding anything unilaterally. You really don't like Junckers, do you? Well, neither do I, but he is a professional. They will be hard men before negotiation starts and then look to achieve an agreement that all parties can recommend to the folks back home.
Re para 3: I think you've misunderstood me. I'm purely talking about invoking Article 50. She could just win the Parliamentary vote to do it and then invoke it with Parliaments approval. I don't understand what she's waiting for unless they really are clueless and don't have any idea how to go about things. I don't, however, think the negotiation should be carried out in public.
I appreciate you fear that she will be forced to publicly discuss our approach and accept changes to it in order to win that vote. I think you have nothing to fear there - they are gutless and will vote in accordance with referendum result for their constituencies. That will be enough for it to be passed.
I expect the government to quietly ask for input for the negotiation, refuse to accept or reject it in public, and come back to Parliament with the best arrangement possible that lets us leave without crippling a generation by committing economic suicide.
You're right, there's a lot of posturing.
Re EU nationals in the UK, May has already said that she wants to sort out a reciprocal arrangement for EU and UK nationals, and has been slapped down by the EU. She's made the offer and can't do more at the moment.
No, I really don't like Junckers
Re delaying invoking Article 50, I assume she wants the extra time to fully evaluate the needs of the various parts of British industry - the Financial Services sector alone is a nightmare to find a "one size, fits all" solution for. Then there's manufacturing, agriculture etc. I'm hoping that government is doing a massive fact finding exercise while at the same time looking at the ramifications of the various options for leaving the EU.
Yes, I think you're right, the government may well ask for Parliamentary parties' input prior to negotiation, although May should have a clue since Brexit is being discussed in the Commons daily
She can do more though, she can just say 'all EU citizens already here, don't worry, nothing will change for you'. It wouldn't be popular with her core voters. But she could do it. She won't, but makes herself look 'nice' but vague words in that direction. All part of the adversarial negotiation the vote set up. Meanwhile, Johnson, speaking at a diplomatic meeting, so as Foreign Secretary, tells his EU counterparts that he would be happy to see free movement continue, and elsewhere is lobbying for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. It's a shambles.
I thought you said it was the needs of the German automotive industry which would dictate future arrangements?