We respect a diplomatic vote, whatever that is.

You just can't have, as we say in French, the butter, the money for the butter, and the ass of the milkmaid.

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Since my previous post seems to have been ignored, I was talking about Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) or investment court system (ICS).

This system is definitely above national courts (even US ones) and its main use is for multinational companies to sue governments into submission.

If you want to regulate the reached agreements, you need some kind of independent court to settle disputes. Don't know if it is needed in this case, or in the case with the ISDS with countries with well developed juristical systems.

Meanwhile, Duchy starts another thread by a posting an article and a one line comment to stir up the pot and push his pro Eu agenda. I can't get around the fact how people on the continent can't respect a diplomatic vote.

I for one respect it. But you have to understand if Brittain wants anything after the Brexit, it is a negotiation. Can't be that 60m Brittians have a democratic (?) vote, they can dictate 460m EU citizens. Like I have said a million times, it is up to Brittian: if you want nothing to do with the continent, fine leave with a hard Brexit, good luck to you. If you want something to do with the continent (and not be impacted as hard by your choice), also fine, but don't expect large presents so the Bexiteers could fulfill their unrealistic promises.

Yes, I am pro-EU, but this has nothing to do with this, it is pushing of a unrealistic agenda from Westminster.

Aesma wrote:

We respect a diplomatic vote, whatever that is.

You just can't have, as we say in French, the butter, the money for the butter, and the ass of the milkmaid.

Dutchy wrote:

I for one respect it. But you have to understand if Brittain wants anything after the Brexit, it is a negotiation. Can't be that 60m Brittians have a democratic (?) vote, they can dictate 460m EU citizens. Like I have said a million times, it is up to Brittian: if you want nothing to do with the continent, fine leave with a hard Brexit, good luck to you. If you want something to do with the continent (and not be impacted as hard by your choice), also fine, but don't expect large presents so the Bexiteers could fulfill their unrealistic promises.
Yes, I am pro-EU, but this has nothing to do with this, it is pushing of a unrealistic agenda from Westminster.

So this post confuses me, I am under the impression that what is taking place now as per Article 50 trigger is a two year negotiation period, where exactly is the UK demanding that the EU submit to their demands? The UK is leaving the EU because it no longer supports all of the ideals of the union, either party at the table who puts up the items that caused the UK to leave are simply promoting a failed negotiation, makes no sense to negotiate under those conditions.

Perhaps such thoughts from those on the continent are due to the words of some non government types in the UK who have delusions of grandeur.
The person below is not a EU or UK government official, and I am betting 100% that what he states will be vigorously denied by folks on the continent in short order. One cannot say that this is another demand from the UK.
"http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40615119"

Aesma wrote:

You just can't have, as we say in French, the butter, the money for the butter, and the ass of the milkmaid.

So much better than having cake and eating it. Although, if you know what you are doing the milkmaid may pay you and you can have all three )

par13del wrote:

So this post confuses me, I am under the impression that what is taking place now as per Article 50 trigger is a two year negotiation period, where exactly is the UK demanding that the EU submit to their demands?

So, you missed all the "we will get full access to the common market and have full control over immigration" nonsense initially coming out of the UK? It has been a year and they still haven't put their feet on the ground of reality. At least they are slowly getting there....

Best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

Indeed, leaving the EU should mean leaving the EU. The political blowback if the UK Government accepted ECJ jurisdiction over any EU-related matter (e.g. EU citizens remaining in the UK post-Brexit) would be tremendous.

For clarity, I say these things as someone who voted to remain in the EU.

When you say political blowback, do you mean blowback that will remain largely centered in Westminster? Or nationally?

I question whether an issue like ECJ jurisdiction over EU citizens really matters to the average leave voter. I think it gives too much credence to the notion that the finer principles of sovereignty informed their views. I suspect the majority of them would be happy with just ending free movement. Issues like this tend to ascribe more sophisticated motives to people who frankly have neither the intellectual curiosity nor ability to understand this level of nuance.

Not a U.K. thing, I might add - you could say the same thing about US voters and international relations (eg - how much does the base really care?).

In any event, the economic indicators aren't great, so it's only a matter of time before this issue loses what little real estate it has on the average leavers radar. Why take such a firm line on it?

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I
Yes, I am pro-EU, but this has nothing to do with this, it is pushing of a unrealistic agenda from Westminster.

Can someone explain exactly what this unrealistic agenda from Westminster is
All the shouting seems to be coming from the EU officials Divorce Payments, rights of EU citizens in the UK , etc
Perhaps all sides should just keep their mouths shut and quietly get on with negotiating a deal which is suitable to both sides

tommy1808 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So, you missed all the "we will get full access to the common market and have full control over immigration" nonsense initially coming out of the UK? It has been a year and they still haven't put their feet on the ground of reality. At least they are slowly getting there....

Best regards
Thomas

Where is that demand in the UK initial offer to the EU, or are you lumping in all the comments by non-negotiation members as the official negotiation position?
Leaving the EU will give the UK full control of their country, full stop. The negotiations taking place are about what compromises either side will make to have a continued close relationship, I think more people on both sides are now supporting TM position of no deal is better than a bad deal, makes more sense.

Personally, I still think the official position should have been WTO, spend the next two years re-establishing and paying for the infrastructure required rather than spend two years beating around the bush. I do not believe a deal will be done by 2019, and the UK will be faced with now trying to put things in place or "paying" the EU for an extension to the deadline, perhaps that is an official strategy, in the hopes that another vote will be held. Every time there has been a negative vote on the EU a second has been called, why should the UK be any different...and no I do not see the last election as a second vote on Brexit.

vc10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Can someone explain exactly what this unrealistic agenda from Westminster is

Access to the common market without being a part of the common market, making the treaty only enforcable by UK courts, simply forgetting about financial commitments made (well, at least there they recognised they have to pay, good)....

And so on..

All the shouting seems to be coming from the EU officials Divorce Payments, rights of EU citizens in the UK , etc

Telling someone their demands are unrealistic isn't shouting, and the EU isn't demanding anything. It is all "If you want x, you know perfectly well we have to demand y, if you can't agree to that, fine, but no deal on x"

Perhaps all sides should just keep their mouths shut and quietly get on with negotiating a deal which is suitable to both sides

There is no point negotiating anything before money is out of the way as a topic. You can't discuss the status of UK citizens before you have sorted out who is paying for their health insurance, welfare and alike. Same for EU citizens in the UK. You can not talk about future co-operation, before you know in how far they stick to previous commitments.
But yes, they should start negotiating, but the UK decided to stall it for months just to have an unnecessary election.

Best regards
Thomas

ElPistolero wrote:

When you say political blowback, do you mean blowback that will remain largely centered in Westminster? Or nationally?
In any event, the economic indicators aren't great, so it's only a matter of time before this issue loses what little real estate it has on the average leavers radar. Why take such a firm line on it?

I would say both, because of the potential to create a flash point which can be used by extremist groups. No one would have too much of an issue with an independent court arbitrating issues on appeal, say the UN, but having a foreign court reign supreme over a section of individual living in a society is asking for trouble.
The EU position does not seem to accept that some cases will never reach the ECJ but would be settled in the UK court system, if that is their position, then they are essentially saying that any EU citizen case in the UK should and must be heard in the ECJ, that cannot be tenable for an independent nation.
Look at the issue that killed the US / EU TPP trade deal, no one in Europe wanted an independent body ruling on their behalf.

vc10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Can someone explain exactly what this unrealistic agenda from Westminster is
All the shouting seems to be coming from the EU officials Divorce Payments, rights of EU citizens in the UK , etc
Perhaps all sides should just keep their mouths shut and quietly get on with negotiating a deal which is suitable to both sides

An astute observation. Unfortunately, as the Financial Times suggests today, the lack of UK demands simply reflects the fact that the UK has no plan (not least because most Brexit-related discussions are happening between party leaders and their backbenchers).

The EU, meanwhile, has shown a surprising amount of planning and preparedness. Which makes one side look like amateur hour.

Whistle away.

par13del wrote:

Look at the issue that killed the US / EU TPP trade deal, no one in Europe wanted an independent body ruling on their behalf.

Haha. This fairytale is told in the UK these days? Germany alone has over 130 treaties under non-German and non-EU jurisdiction in the field of TTIP....

Best regards
Thomas

par13del wrote:

Perhaps such thoughts from those on the continent are due to the words of some non government types in the UK who have delusions of grandeur.
The person below is not a EU or UK government official, and I am betting 100% that what he states will be vigorously denied by folks on the continent in short order. One cannot say that this is another demand from the UK.
"http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40615119"

Tony Blair appears more European than British these days.

I think that fellow is spot on :

But shadow chancellor John McDonnell said "we have to respect the referendum result" and that Labour could "negotiate access to the single market".
"Mr Blair hasn't really listened to the nature of the debate going on," he added.

Or, as May said, Brexit is Brexit !

par13del wrote:

I would say both, because of the potential to create a flash point which can be used by extremist groups. No one would have too much of an issue with an independent court arbitrating issues on appeal, say the UN, but having a foreign court reign supreme over a section of individual living in a society is asking for trouble.
The EU position does not seem to accept that some cases will never reach the ECJ but would be settled in the UK court system, if that is their position, then they are essentially saying that any EU citizen case in the UK should and must be heard in the ECJ, that cannot be tenable for an independent nation.
Look at the issue that killed the US / EU TPP trade deal, no one in Europe wanted an independent body ruling on their behalf.

I'm pretty sure that's not what happened with TTIP (I think; TPP is Trans Pacific).

Regardless, US military personnel stationed abroad (including in the U.K.) are not subject to host nation law, so it's not really a precedent. As I understand it (and I may well be wrong), all this says is that EU citizens will have recourse to the ECJ once all legal options in the U.K. are exhausted, not that the ECJ will rule on every single case involving an EU citizen in the U.K.

In any event, I don't think most leave voters know or care about this. All they want is no more immigrants. And even that seems secondary to economic concerns, as the election has shown. With things only like to get more uncertain, with more economic headwinds, can't see this issue getting more traction with your average leaver. Something similar seems to be going on with EURATOM.

ElPistolero wrote:

When you say political blowback, do you mean blowback that will remain largely centered in Westminster? Or nationally?

It would be nationally IMHO, across all political parties. The recent election result has emboldened the Brexiteers, the Government needs to deliver what was (apparently) voted for.

ElPistolero wrote:

I question whether an issue like ECJ jurisdiction over EU citizens really matters to the average leave voter. I think it gives too much credence to the notion that the finer principles of sovereignty informed their views. I suspect the majority of them would be happy with just ending free movement. Issues like this tend to ascribe more sophisticated motives to people who frankly have neither the intellectual curiosity nor ability to understand this level of nuance.

I believe it is a significant issue. There have been lots of televised debates (BBC's Question Time is usually very good) where the audiences have been surprisingly (to me) vociferous in demanding that "out means out".

Just as the EU would never accept UK courts having any jurisdiction over UK citizens living in the EU post-Brexit, I don't see it as being acceptable for the ECJ to have any jurisdiction over EU citizens living in the UK post-Brexit. If we're not in the EU, how can an EU court have jurisdiction? Do US courts (for example) have jurisdiction over US citizens living in the UK? Of course they don't.

How I see this specific issue playing out is this - the UK and EU will agree a fully reciprocal set of rights for their respective citizens living in the other at the point of Brexit. For the UK, those agreed rights for EU citizens will be codified into UK law. It is then up to the UK courts to administer UK law and resolve any disputes. Any party involved in such a dispute would have all the usual recourse to appeals all the way to the UK Supreme Court. If the UK hasn't withdrawn from the ECHR, then, depending on the nature of the dispute, a further level of appeal may be available. No need for the ECJ to be involved at all.

scbriml wrote:

LJ wrote:

Moreover, should the EU give in towards the UK, it doesn't have any chance convincing Switzerland to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court. Hence why the EU has to play hardball on this issue with the UK.

Rather than explain why the EU wants it, the more salient point is, why Switzerland doesn't want it. The reality with the Swiss position is like many other treaty or bilateral agreements where there's a dispute - neither side has jurisdiction over the other.

It's the Swiss who want the new bilaterals, not the EU. As such the EU may set additional requirements which either the Swiss accept or not. However, if they don't accept then the consequence is no deal. This is normal business practise in a situation where there is inequality in the relationship. The EU applies the same logic towards the UK as it's the UK who wants somethng from the EU. One may not like such an arrogant stance, but it's not that this kind of behaviour is exceptional in business (and let's face it, a bilateral is business).

BTW will be interesting what a possible UK - USA free trade agreement would look like. If TTIP is an example than the UK will face the same issue with the USA. Or does anyone think Trump will give the UK a break?

ElPistolero wrote:

An astute observation. Unfortunately, as the Financial Times suggests today, the lack of UK demands simply reflects the fact that the UK has no plan (not least because most Brexit-related discussions are happening between party leaders and their backbenchers).

The problem is that the UK doesn't act united. The City has its own lobby in Brussels which has a different position on a lot of matters (as long as their interests are met). This is very bad for the UK. How long before other UK lobby organisations do the same and undermine the UK negociators. With such a situation it's not strange that the EU negociators will try to get everything they want out of these negociations.

scbriml wrote:

Do US courts (for example) have jurisdiction over US citizens living in the UK? Of course they don't..

Never heard about FATCA? The US taxman follows you everywhere you are on this globe. Make one mistake and you can go to an US court.

BTW it's not that strange that in business matters two parties decide which jurisdiction they use to settle differences (which usually is UK law). In this case the EU wants all things to be settled by ECJ thus EU law. If you take this approach then suddenly what the EU is asking is not that strange.

The US regularly gets the UK to send its own citizens (UK citizens, to be clear) for trial/life in prison in the US. The US has military bases on UK soil. UK nukes can't work without US help.

The obsession of Brexiteers with sovereignty is very funny considering all this.

Aesma wrote:

The US regularly gets the UK to send its own citizens (UK citizens, to be clear) for trial/life in prison in the US. The US has military bases on UK soil. UK nukes can't work without US help.

The obsession of Brexiteers with sovereignty is very funny considering all this.

So if you commit a crime in the US whats wrong with being sent to the US to face trial? Nothing wrong with that.

US has military bases on Qatari soil, whats the difference?

Agreed, there's probably some US support element to trident. But the Saudi's hawk trainers couldn't function without UK support at the same time.

You can't compare the UK/US relationship to the UK/EU relationship because the US doesn't force us to take unlimited numbers of EU migrants. I don't care what anyone says 300,000 net migration per year is not sustainable.

Arion640 wrote:

So if you commit a crime in the US whats wrong with being sent to the US to face trial? Nothing wrong with that.

If the crime ain't a crime in the UK or the punishment may be more severe than under UK law pretty much everything is wrong with it.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

So if you commit a crime in the US whats wrong with being sent to the US to face trial? Nothing wrong with that.

If the crime ain't a crime in the UK or the punishment may be more severe than under UK law pretty much everything is wrong with it.

Best regards
Thomas

Well I've always been a believer in respecting other countries laws and traditions if you are in that country. I'd want foreigners to respect UK law so I'd follow the laws of the USA or whatever country that may be.

LJ wrote:

Never heard about FATCA? The US taxman follows you everywhere you are on this globe. Make one mistake and you can go to an US court.

BTW it's not that strange that in business matters two parties decide which jurisdiction they use to settle differences (which usually is UK law). In this case the EU wants all things to be settled by ECJ thus EU law. If you take this approach then suddenly what the EU is asking is not that strange.

Well the Caribbean has been suffering under the EU versions of such laws / regulations for a few years, anyone recall the mad rush to shut down tax havens that are supposed to be allowing EU citizens to not pay their fair share of tax????

ElPistolero wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's not what happened with TTIP (I think; TPP is Trans Pacific).

Regardless, US military personnel stationed abroad (including in the U.K.) are not subject to host nation law, so it's not really a precedent. As I understand it (and I may well be wrong), all this says is that EU citizens will have recourse to the ECJ once all legal options in the U.K. are exhausted, not that the ECJ will rule on every single case involving an EU citizen in the U.K.

In any event, I don't think most leave voters know or care about this. All they want is no more immigrants. And even that seems secondary to economic concerns, as the election has shown. With things only like to get more uncertain, with more economic headwinds, can't see this issue getting more traction with your average leaver. Something similar seems to be going on with EURATOM.

Yes, my apologies, I missed out an I (TTIP) Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, but my point was that most Europeans who were against the deal did not want an independent arbitrator that companies would be allowed to take governments and other bodies to for relief when their business interest were harmed.

To my knowledge US military personnel are subject to UK laws if off base and commit acts that are crimes in the UK, they are not diplomats with immunity, they can get speeding tickets etc. One of the reasons why they like to keep so many facilities on base is to minimize disruption based on cultural differences.
Legal issue are included in the agreements which allow the establishment of the bases, look at Japan, US military personnel have been turned over to local authorities to face charges.

par13del wrote:

Yes, my apologies, I missed out an I (TTIP) Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, but my point was that most Europeans who were against the deal did not want an independent arbitrator that companies would be allowed to take governments and other bodies to for relief when their business interest were harmed.

Yet they agreed to this when it approved CETA. It all depends on how you structure it. Not every supra-national court is the same.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I for one respect it. But you have to understand if Brittain wants anything after the Brexit, it is a negotiation. Can't be that 60m Brittians have a democratic (?) vote, they can dictate 460m EU citizens. Like I have said a million times, it is up to Brittian: if you want nothing to do with the continent, fine leave with a hard Brexit, good luck to you. If you want something to do with the continent (and not be impacted as hard by your choice), also fine, but don't expect large presents so the Bexiteers could fulfill their unrealistic promises.
Yes, I am pro-EU, but this has nothing to do with this, it is pushing of a unrealistic agenda from Westminster.

So this post confuses me, I am under the impression that what is taking place now as per Article 50 trigger is a two year negotiation period, where exactly is the UK demanding that the EU submit to their demands? The UK is leaving the EU because it no longer supports all of the ideals of the union, either party at the table who puts up the items that caused the UK to leave are simply promoting a failed negotiation, makes no sense to negotiate under those conditions.

Perhaps such thoughts from those on the continent are due to the words of some non government types in the UK who have delusions of grandeur.
The person below is not a EU or UK government official, and I am betting 100% that what he states will be vigorously denied by folks on the continent in short order. One cannot say that this is another demand from the UK.
"http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40615119"

Has it been cleared up?

What Mr. Blair is saying, is quite reasonable, and might solve some other problems as well. But we'll see it that will be the case in five years, but certainly not before we say goodbye to GB.

LJ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Yes, my apologies, I missed out an I (TTIP) Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, but my point was that most Europeans who were against the deal did not want an independent arbitrator that companies would be allowed to take governments and other bodies to for relief when their business interest were harmed.

Yet they agreed to this when it approved CETA. It all depends on how you structure it. Not every supra-national court is the same.

The people didn't know and didn't have a vote on the matter. Same with previous treaties. When the public started to hear about the issue, most governments had already approved the treaty. Only Wallonia fought against it.

Canada is also not seen as having lots of multinationals that could abuse that system, unlike the US.

WHAT THE FUCK IS A DAMP SQUIB? Aside from something designed to make me die of laughter.

Aesma wrote:

Canada is also not seen as having lots of multinationals that could abuse that system, unlike the US.

That would be wrong, almost all US multinationals have a Canada branch and could (and probably would) seu via that branch.

Dutchy wrote:

Has it been cleared up?

What Mr. Blair is saying, is quite reasonable, and might solve some other problems as well. But we'll see it that will be the case in five years, but certainly not before we say goodbye to GB.

Mr. Blair is from the UK, no one from the EU is voicing similar views and until the UK leaves they cannot since it would undermine the solidarity in the face of Brexit.
The inner and outer circle will be very interesting, hopefully they are working on that in tandem so that the day the UK leaves the new and re-branded EU can be revealed.

LJ wrote:

Never heard about FATCA? The US taxman follows you everywhere you are on this globe. Make one mistake and you can go to an US court.

Having worked for an American company for 35 years, yes. The difference there is that US tax laws and their enforcement via US courts doesn't replace UK tax laws and their enforcement by UK courts for US citizens living in the UK.

scbriml wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

When you say political blowback, do you mean blowback that will remain largely centered in Westminster? Or nationally?

It would be nationally IMHO, across all political parties. The recent election result has emboldened the Brexiteers, the Government needs to deliver what was (apparently) voted for.

ElPistolero wrote:

I question whether an issue like ECJ jurisdiction over EU citizens really matters to the average leave voter. I think it gives too much credence to the notion that the finer principles of sovereignty informed their views. I suspect the majority of them would be happy with just ending free movement. Issues like this tend to ascribe more sophisticated motives to people who frankly have neither the intellectual curiosity nor ability to understand this level of nuance.

I believe it is a significant issue. There have been lots of televised debates (BBC's Question Time is usually very good) where the audiences have been surprisingly (to me) vociferous in demanding that "out means out".

Just as the EU would never accept UK courts having any jurisdiction over UK citizens living in the EU post-Brexit, I don't see it as being acceptable for the ECJ to have any jurisdiction over EU citizens living in the UK post-Brexit. If we're not in the EU, how can an EU court have jurisdiction? Do US courts (for example) have jurisdiction over US citizens living in the UK? Of course they don't.

Yeah, but that's not what the EU has demanded. No one is asking for EU nationals in the UK to be exempt from UK laws, the ECJ is only a provision that in case the UK at some point in the future decides to cut some of the individual rights they gained they have a recourse to a higher, supranational course. Just like when Hong-Kong was turned over to China, the UK introduced some written guarantees about democracy, self-governance and so on for a period of time, this is the same. Those people who acquired rights by moving to the UK while it was still in the EU must not have their rights curtailed.

Which btw all UK citizens in any EU country will be able to. And the ECJ has a history of ruling against member states when it comes to individual rights.

It's probably the "E" at the beginning of ECJ what rubbed May the wrong way, rather than that particular fact. Theres the ECHR option, too, for which the UK is still a member (for the time being, at least) but it starts with an E too so we'll see.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Has it been cleared up?

What Mr. Blair is saying, is quite reasonable, and might solve some other problems as well. But we'll see it that will be the case in five years, but certainly not before we say goodbye to GB.

Mr. Blair is from the UK, no one from the EU is voicing similar views and until the UK leaves they cannot since it would undermine the solidarity in the face of Brexit.
The inner and outer circle will be very interesting, hopefully they are working on that in tandem so that the day the UK leaves the new and re-branded EU can be revealed.

Actually, the team of Mr. Marcon did propose something along those lines. Quite an interesting read, if you can find it. The link was posted in some thread a while ago.

As long as the British position is "Out means Out" there can be no solution but the hard Brexit. It does not even matter if the EU wants something different, it simply is not possible. Even if they find solutions for the migration topics and so on, it fails when it comes to the single market. The single market is based on common standards and when the UK is free to accept those standards or not, as they do not see themselves bound by EU regulations, they can not be part of the common market.

Simple example: Say there is a genetically modified tomato that grows faster and better but few people show serious allergic reactions to it. Now the EU decides that using this tomato for food production is forbidden and that it must not be used for any food product. The UK on the other is having a trade deal with the US which allows the Tomato to be used in food products and tomato sauce containing this tomato can be imported and used in the UK and a UK court decides that using this tomato sauce for food production is save. Can a UK firm now export pizza made with that tomato sauce to the EU? Can customers in Europe who suffer an allergic reaction from that Pizza now sue the manufacturer in the UK?

scbriml wrote:

It would be nationally IMHO, across all political parties. The recent election result has emboldened the Brexiteers, the Government needs to deliver what was (apparently) voted for.

I believe it is a significant issue. There have been lots of televised debates (BBC's Question Time is usually very good) where the audiences have been surprisingly (to me) vociferous in demanding that "out means out".

Just as the EU would never accept UK courts having any jurisdiction over UK citizens living in the EU post-Brexit, I don't see it as being acceptable for the ECJ to have any jurisdiction over EU citizens living in the UK post-Brexit. If we're not in the EU, how can an EU court have jurisdiction? Do US courts (for example) have jurisdiction over US citizens living in the UK? Of course they don't.

How I see this specific issue playing out is this - the UK and EU will agree a fully reciprocal set of rights for their respective citizens living in the other at the point of Brexit. For the UK, those agreed rights for EU citizens will be codified into UK law. It is then up to the UK courts to administer UK law and resolve any disputes. Any party involved in such a dispute would have all the usual recourse to appeals all the way to the UK Supreme Court. If the UK hasn't withdrawn from the ECHR, then, depending on the nature of the dispute, a further level of appeal may be available. No need for the ECJ to be involved at all.

That's an interesting assessment. I do follow the pro-Brexit British media - the Spectator, Telegraph, BBC's AQ/AA and associated podcasts (Choppers, Spectator and so on), and the impression I'm getting is that Brexiteers are on the back foot.

Unfortunately AA is the closest I get to hearing ordinary voices, but the election period made it clear that economic considerations/austerity dominated the public mindset more than Brexit, which was odd given that the election was supposed to be about a stronger mandate for a more complete Brexit.

Instead, the Chancellor survived and now we here of the 'sensibles' and the rise of characters like Jo Johnson. The Spectator's practically hit a panic button with regard to the Brexit narrative, publishing some oddly desperate articles in the last couple of weeks.

I'm sure the UKIPers are holding the line, but a lot of folk seem to have moved on to other things. And with economic indicators beginning to reflect some Brexit strain, with even the unabashedly pro-Brexit Legatum institute calling for transitional deals (unthinkable not so long ago), it seems to me that the general public's mood is becoming more moderate.

That aside, again, there are many cases where foreign nationals are not subject to local law (including some US citizens in the U.K.) Of note, this proposal won't apply to all EU citizens visiting the U.K. ever, but only to this subset. This is more common than you think, albeit not on the scale Brexit would require.

The more interesting piece here is that the EU doesn't require this for EU citizens residing in, for example, on a long-term basis in the US. To me, it seems that this is a direct EU response to the anti-EU immigrant sentiment that motivated large segments of Leavers. The EU is moving to ensure that the next populist surge (whenever it comes) doesn't result in new laws that would undermine the results of the negotiations, which I think is a valid concern, given that Brexit comes with a self-declared element of carte Blanche to do whatever you like in the name of sovereignty.

Ultimately the EU proposal is a guarantor against a future UK government pandering to anti- immigrant sentiment by making life very difficult for EU folk settled there as part of the Brexit agreement. A concern it evidently doesn't have with most other countries, probably because of the unique reciprocal nature, and the significant populations affected in this situation.

Dutchy wrote:

Actually, the team of Mr. Marcon did propose something along those lines. Quite an interesting read, if you can find it. The link was posted in some thread a while ago.

I recall reading some articles before and after he was elected, unfortunately, until those thoughts / ideas are acted on by the EU they are irrelevant to the negotiations presently taking place, so just like Mr. Blair and other Remain Supporters outside of the governments / EU and their negotiation teams, they are only frustrating the general public by creating false points of order.

LJ wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

An astute observation. Unfortunately, as the Financial Times suggests today, the lack of UK demands simply reflects the fact that the UK has no plan (not least because most Brexit-related discussions are happening between party leaders and their backbenchers).

The problem is that the UK doesn't act united. The City has its own lobby in Brussels which has a different position on a lot of matters (as long as their interests are met). This is very bad for the UK. How long before other UK lobby organisations do the same and undermine the UK negociators. With such a situation it's not strange that the EU negociators will try to get everything they want out of these negociations.

Lobby groups activities in other countries are irrelevant if they can't influence their own country's policy makers. The bigger problem in the UK is that Brexit divides are challenging party divides, which removes a level of hierarchy and predictability. Seems some MPs on both sides are willing to break party ranks to do what they believe is in the best interests of their country. And with the last election being driven largely by economic concerns, I won't be surprised if we see a more pronounced divide between the jobs-first and sovereignty-first crowd in both major parties.

seahawk wrote:

As long as the British position is "Out means Out" there can be no solution but the hard Brexit.

...which is what many have been saying since the referendum vote, there was only Brexit, nothing Hard or Soft, those terms came up after.

seahawk wrote:

Simple example:

How did Mad Cow work between the UK, Continental Europe - EU and Non-EU, the USA and the rest of the world?
How did Genetically engineered food work when allowed in the USA and not in the UK and or the EU?

The good thing about your example is that the EU, UK and the rest of the world already have lived through and dealt with the issue, what makes this case any different, the UK is going to be a third nation trading partner.
Items such as those will fall under a trade deal as the EU presently has with other third nations, one does not have to be a member of the EU to trade, unless that becomes a new EU mandate.

par13del wrote:

To my knowledge US military personnel are subject to UK laws if off base and commit acts that are crimes in the UK, they are not diplomats with immunity, they can get speeding tickets etc. One of the reasons why they like to keep so many facilities on base is to minimize disruption based on cultural differences.
Legal issue are included in the agreements which allow the establishment of the bases, look at Japan, US military personnel have been turned over to local authorities to face charges.

If they are deployed there, they are exempt from local laws. Therefore a US soldier deployed in country X is subject to US law, but a US soldier visiting country X as a tourist is not (this applies to many militaries deployed in other countries, not just the US military.) Handing over to local authorities may be permissible depending on the isse, but the right to refuse exists.

You could have a similar agreement here as it is a very well-defined subset. EU citizens visiting the U.K. in the future would (or should) obviously not have the same rights.

A good question would be how the EU incorporated UK military personnel based on the continent which preceded the EU, or were they even considered, if any Airbus military equipment is made in the UK some considerations for military personnel will be warranted.

Tourist travel will be interesting, since economics will now play a more important part for the UK, will they require visas for EU travel, the UK did not participate in the EU visa treaty zone, they may now revisit as border control becomes a major issue.

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

As long as the British position is "Out means Out" there can be no solution but the hard Brexit.

...which is what many have been saying since the referendum vote, there was only Brexit, nothing Hard or Soft, those terms came up after.

seahawk wrote:

Simple example:

How did Mad Cow work between the UK, Continental Europe - EU and Non-EU, the USA and the rest of the world?
How did Genetically engineered food work when allowed in the USA and not in the UK and or the EU?

The good thing about your example is that the EU, UK and the rest of the world already have lived through and dealt with the issue, what makes this case any different, the UK is going to be a third nation trading partner.
Items such as those will fall under a trade deal as the EU presently has with other third nations, one does not have to be a member of the EU to trade, unless that becomes a new EU mandate.

Sure you can trade with the EU, but you are not part of the common market. In my example this means, when a retail chain in the EU searches a firm to produce their pizzas, the Uk firm will be having the position of a firm from a 3rd nation and not the same as one from the EU. And the pizza they produced would not be allowed to be imported into the EU until they switch to a tomato sauce with out the genetically modified tomatoes.

And it will be worse for services like banking and insurances.

seahawk wrote:

Sure you can trade with the EU, but you are not part of the common market. In my example this means, when a retail chain in the EU searches a firm to produce their pizzas, the Uk firm will be having the position of a firm from a 3rd nation and not the same as one from the EU. And the pizza they produced would not be allowed to be imported into the EU until they switch to a tomato sauce with out the genetically modified tomatoes.

And it will be worse for services like banking and insurances.

Well it is what they voted for, and since such trade occurs on a daily basis with the EU and UK dealing with thirds countries I really don't see why there is such a big fuss, they can always go WTO and be done with it.
In fact if both sides state WTO now, it will make negotiations much easier as a base for negotiations would already exist which both parties mostly already use, building on that is much easier than building "down" and avoid an extension request which at this stage seems inevitable.

ElPistolero : an EU citizen moving to the US now or in the last decades knew he was going to live in a non-EU country. For the UK, it isn't so.

par13del : again with the US as an example, there is currently no free trade agreement between the US and EU. The US can, and does, tax EU products for various reasons, or ban them entirely. For example Roquefort cheese got a small 300% tax slapped on it in 2009. And the US bans all cheeses made with unpasteurized milk : they ban all good cheeses, basically.
In France we don't want hormone fed beef, nor bleached chicken (that one is EU wide).

[quote="Aesa"m]ElPistolero : an EU citizen moving to the US now or in the last decades knew he was going to live in a non-EU country. For the UK, it isn't so.
[/quote]
Which is why a transition period is required and is included in the UK's original proposal, we all agree that the UK is the one who has decided to leave, and with that comes some responsibility to those EU citizens who moved to the UK as a part of the free movement principle. Now whether its is long enough is a matter for negotiation, the vote also means that they will have to decide whether the UK is a place that they want to remain, the same applies to the UK citizens in the EU, however, their case may be slightly different in that the principles of the EU society will remain unchanged, only how they are treated in terms of benefits and rights will be affected, so for simplicity, they do not have to be concerned about a radical rise in anti-foreigner sentiment as being seen on the extreme edges of the UK society, note I said extreme edges, it is not a national issue.
[quote="Aesa"m]
par13del : again with the US as an example, there is currently no free trade agreement between the US and EU. The US can, and does, tax EU products for various reasons, or ban them entirely. For example Roquefort cheese got a small 300% tax slapped on it in 2009. And the US bans all cheeses made with unpasteurized milk : they ban all good cheeses, basically.
In France we don't want hormone fed beef, nor bleached chicken (that one is EU wide).[/quote]
[/quote]
This works and has been working for decades, if minimal disruption is required by both sides the amount of the tariff's can be minimal, some items may be banned in the long run, but at present, I am not aware of much if any products from either side that are not allowed. I honestly don't think the KISS principle will apply in these negotiations.

Still what happens with Services? And passporting for UK finance sector?

olle wrote:

Still what happens with Services? And passporting for UK finance sector?

If the UK wants to have access to the EU financial markets, they will have to comply to all the rules and it is up to the UK to decide if they want that or not. Same goes to services to some extent.

par13del wrote:

an EU citizen moving to the US now or in the last decades knew he was going to live in a non-EU country. For the UK, it isn't so.

Indeed, those from the EU that have settled in the UK will have to make a decision. As I stated above, my belief is that a fully reciprocal agreement will be reached with regard to EU citizens remaining in the UK and UK citizens remaining in the EU post-Brexit. The rights of the EU citizens will be enacted into UK law and they will be protected by the UK courts. Now, despite the views of some here that the UK cannot wait to trample all over the rights of people the moment we leave the EU, my strong belief is that the UK courts will act fairly and impartially in administering the law and protecting the rights of EU citizens that choose to remain in the UK.

If an EU citizen living in the UK post-Brexit does not believe they will enjoy the protection of UK courts, they will always have the last-resort option of returning to the EU. I hope none will take this option based solely on the belief they will not be protected.

Dutchy wrote:

If the UK wants to have access to the EU financial markets, they will have to comply to all the rules and it is up to the UK to decide if they want that or not. Same goes to services to some extent.

Of course, everybody understands that. Or at least, they should.

If a manufacturer of widgets wishes to sell them to the EU post-Brexit, their widgets will have to fully comply to all the EU rules and regulations pertaining to widgets. Some of us also understand that the EU could change those rules and regulations and there will be nothing the UK can do to influence that. In the lead up to the referendum vote, many managers of small (mainly engineering) companies were interviewed for their views. There was a clear split between those that wanted to remain and those that wanted to leave. Many of the leavers cited "mountains of regulations and paperwork" that hampered their ability to compete. I can only assume that little of their market was within the continental EU. If they were largely selling domestically, then I can appreciate that having to comply with EU regulations for domestic sales made their lives more difficult. However, I do wonder how much easier the domestic post-Brexit market will be if many EU laws are simply migrated onto UK statutes.

Of course, the reverse is also true. BMW, for example, may find that the rules and regulations relating to selling cars in the UK will become different to the rest of the EU. They will have to adapt and change if they wish to continue selling (just as they do for all other non-EU markets).

scbriml wrote:

par13del wrote:

an EU citizen moving to the US now or in the last decades knew he was going to live in a non-EU country. For the UK, it isn't so.

Indeed, those from the EU that have settled in the UK will have to make a decision. As I stated above, my belief is that a fully reciprocal agreement will be reached with regard to EU citizens remaining in the UK and UK citizens remaining in the EU post-Brexit. The rights of the EU citizens will be enacted into UK law and they will be protected by the UK courts. Now, despite the views of some here that the UK cannot wait to trample all over the rights of people the moment we leave the EU, my strong belief is that the UK courts will act fairly and impartially in administering the law and protecting the rights of EU citizens that choose to remain in the UK.

If an EU citizen living in the UK post-Brexit does not believe they will enjoy the protection of UK courts, they will always have the last-resort option of returning to the EU. I hope none will take this option based solely on the belief they will not be protected.

Dutchy wrote:

If the UK wants to have access to the EU financial markets, they will have to comply to all the rules and it is up to the UK to decide if they want that or not. Same goes to services to some extent.

Of course, everybody understands that. Or at least, they should.

If a manufacturer of widgets wishes to sell them to the EU post-Brexit, their widgets will have to fully comply to all the EU rules and regulations pertaining to widgets. Some of us also understand that the EU could change those rules and regulations and there will be nothing the UK can do to influence that. In the lead up to the referendum vote, many managers of small (mainly engineering) companies were interviewed for their views. There was a clear split between those that wanted to remain and those that wanted to leave. Many of the leavers cited "mountains of regulations and paperwork" that hampered their ability to compete. I can only assume that little of their market was within the continental EU. If they were largely selling domestically, then I can appreciate that having to comply with EU regulations for domestic sales made their lives more difficult. However, I do wonder how much easier the domestic post-Brexit market will be if many EU laws are simply migrated onto UK statutes.

Of course, the reverse is also true. BMW, for example, may find that the rules and regulations relating to selling cars in the UK will become different to the rest of the EU. They will have to adapt and change if they wish to continue selling (just as they do for all other non-EU markets).

That indeed never sees to amaze me. Will there be much less paperwork when the UK is on its own, I don't believe that. Manufacting will be easier than services especially banking. In the end, everyone will adapt.

Dutchy wrote:

olle wrote:

Still what happens with Services? And passporting for UK finance sector?

If the UK wants to have access to the EU financial markets, they will have to comply to all the rules and it is up to the UK to decide if they want that or not. Same goes to services to some extent.

So why do UK / US financial companies consider move to frankfurt, paris or Dublin?

My understanding is that it is not possible without local offices inside EU?

scbriml wrote:

Now, despite the views of some here that the UK cannot wait to trample all over the rights of people the moment we leave the EU, my strong belief is that the UK courts will act fairly and impartially in administering the law and protecting the rights of EU citizens that choose to remain in the UK.

I don't think anyone's suggested that UK courts won't act fairly. They undoubtedly will.However, pointing to the fairness of the courts does not address the issue at hand. Anti-immigration populism was a significant driver behind the Leave vote. Stopping immigration is the defining issue of the UK position - freedom of movement is the reddest of the red lines.

This can become an issue down the line when EU folk settled in the U.K. try, for example, to bring their family over. Judges implement laws; they don't make them. Elected legislators make them, and elected legislators are vulnerable to pandering to the easy rewards of backing populism. God knows challenging populism is a dangerous game; ask Gina Miller and the Judges involved in her case. Quite the public character assassination for legally challenging "the people's will".

It would be foolhardy to the extreme to ignore the fact that, for all the sophisticated talk about sovereignty coming from the Leave elite, Brexit was driven in significant part by some of the more base human instincts, particularly among the majority of leave voters, few of whom would qualify as elite by any measure.

The problem with nationalist populism is that it thrives on the concept of a superior "us" against an inferior "them". The EU knows that. EU citizens (and indeed non-EU immigrants) are beginning to feel that. And, like it or not, it erodes trust and forces "them" to seek more safeguards - preferably those that are immune to populist surges that are inherently antagonistic towards "them".

The UK courts will undoubtedly rule fairly, but they are bound to a degree both by Parliament and, on a personal level, their own willingness to incur the wrath of populism.

olle wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

olle wrote:

Still what happens with Services? And passporting for UK finance sector?

If the UK wants to have access to the EU financial markets, they will have to comply to all the rules and it is up to the UK to decide if they want that or not. Same goes to services to some extent.

So why do UK / US financial companies consider move to frankfurt, paris or Dublin?

My understanding is that it is not possible without local offices inside EU?

Just as anything else, Services are a package deal with Labor, Money and Goods. All or nothing.

best regards
Thomas