ElPistolero wrote:

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.

Fair is not the Problem, ruling's the EU understands its law is the problem. There would not have been rulings against the UK if UK courts would qualify in that regard.

best regards
Thomas

As long as persons from the EU and currently living in the UK will have to apply for a permit to stay with the outcome of the application open, there will be a hard Brexit.

Dutchy wrote:

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.

The paperwork depends on what it is / was supposed to accomplish, the conspiracy theorist in me says it was not all about product safety / unification.
The UK had a trading block that contained many more countries than the EU when they joined - The Commonwealth - and even though they are still involved, their "attention" to the group was in some quarters regarded as diminished to focus on the EU, whether some of the regulations were to make it more difficult to trade outside of the EU will probably never be known, so opinion's only.
Funny thing is, the UK is looking at the Commonwealth as being one of the reasons why Brexit can be a success since they already have good relations with the block, all I can say is hhhhmmmmm.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

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.

The paperwork depends on what it is / was supposed to accomplish, the conspiracy theorist in me says it was not all about product safety / unification.
The UK had a trading block that contained many more countries than the EU when they joined - The Commonwealth - and even though they are still involved, their "attention" to the group was in some quarters regarded as diminished to focus on the EU, whether some of the regulations were to make it more difficult to trade outside of the EU will probably never be known, so opinion's only.
Funny thing is, the UK is looking at the Commonwealth as being one of the reasons why Brexit can be a success since they already have good relations with the block, all I can say is hhhhmmmmm.

Well, India already said pass. So I think the Commonwealth plan is not going to happen. Ah well....

Dutchy wrote:

Well, India already said pass. So I think the Commonwealth plan is not going to happen. Ah well....

That's incorrect. India did not say "pass". India said "sure, as long as you give us everything we want". As India wants freer (not free) movement of people, as well as not counting students in immigration numbers, the U.K. chose to say no.

India's current position on the UK is that they're welcome to talk about trade anytime they want, as long as India gets everything it wants. Only one party is under any type of time pressure in this situation; India isn't desperate for 'wins' before 2019 or 2022 or whatever. I suspect this reality isn't lost on other nations.

However, Australia and NZ are clearly on board, so there is truth to the "Commonwealth" angle. Canada has a PM who is considered to be cooler to the idea of Brexit than his AUS and NZ counterparts. His words in Ireland last month were considered by the British press to be less than admiring of Brexit. To wit:

"There are tremendous opportunities for countries like Canada and Ireland, at a time where perhaps our significant allies and trading partners in the case of both the US and the UK are turning inward or at least turning into a different direction," the 45-year-old said. He said the two nations should "make the pitch” they are places which are “exciting and open to the world in a positive, progressive way."

I suspect he too will be open to any deal that satisfies all of Canada's terms, and he'll be willing to wait however long he needs to, to get it. That is to say: everyone's willing to sign a deal. The question is what type of compromises the UK is willing to make to get those done soon.

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?

Because EU pension funds are not allowed to let a non-EU company mange their assets. Moreover, there are a lot of similar business which require that the company will be located in the EU (many of them relate to the Euro business).

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.

The CIty already offered to be subjected to ECJ in exchange for EU passport rights. Not that this is anything strange (same applies if you want to do business in the US).

ElPistolero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Well, India already said pass. So I think the Commonwealth plan is not going to happen. Ah well....

That's incorrect. India did not say "pass". India said "sure, as long as you give us everything we want". As India wants freer (not free) movement of people, as well as not counting students in immigration numbers, the U.K. chose to say no.

India's current position on the UK is that they're welcome to talk about trade anytime they want, as long as India gets everything it wants. Only one party is under any type of time pressure in this situation; India isn't desperate for 'wins' before 2019 or 2022 or whatever. I suspect this reality isn't lost on other nations.

However, Australia and NZ are clearly on board, so there is truth to the "Commonwealth" angle. Canada has a PM who is considered to be cooler to the idea of Brexit than his AUS and NZ counterparts. His words in Ireland last month were considered by the British press to be less than admiring of Brexit. To wit:

"There are tremendous opportunities for countries like Canada and Ireland, at a time where perhaps our significant allies and trading partners in the case of both the US and the UK are turning inward or at least turning into a different direction," the 45-year-old said. He said the two nations should "make the pitch” they are places which are “exciting and open to the world in a positive, progressive way."

I suspect he too will be open to any deal that satisfies all of Canada's terms, and he'll be willing to wait however long he needs to, to get it. That is to say: everyone's willing to sign a deal. The question is what type of compromises the UK is willing to make to get those done soon.

ok, thanks for the nuances, if the UK is willing to give everything to all the nations, there would be no problem.

LJ wrote:

The CIty already offered to be subjected to ECJ in exchange for EU passport rights. Not that this is anything strange (same applies if you want to do business in the US).

It's not up to the City, it's up to Westminster.

ElPistolero wrote:

However, Australia and NZ are clearly on board, so there is truth to the "Commonwealth" angle. Canada has a PM who is considered to be cooler to the idea of Brexit than his AUS and NZ counterparts. His words in Ireland last month were considered by the British press to be less than admiring of Brexit. To wit:

"There are tremendous opportunities for countries like Canada and Ireland, at a time where perhaps our significant allies and trading partners in the case of both the US and the UK are turning inward or at least turning into a different direction," the 45-year-old said. He said the two nations should "make the pitch” they are places which are “exciting and open to the world in a positive, progressive way."

I suspect he too will be open to any deal that satisfies all of Canada's terms, and he'll be willing to wait however long he needs to, to get it. That is to say: everyone's willing to sign a deal. The question is what type of compromises the UK is willing to make to get those done soon.

Canada just signed a new trade agreement with the EU after many years of negotiations, I think it is safe to say that the Canadians will still be under the influence of the EU, it is just whether the EU ties are stronger than the old colonial ties.
Time and political pressure will tell.

par13del wrote:

Canada just signed a new trade agreement with the EU after many years of negotiations, I think it is safe to say that the Canadians will still be under the influence of the EU, it is just whether the EU ties are stronger than the old colonial ties.
Time and political pressure will tell.

Bit of a stretch to say Canada is under anyone's influence.

It's true that there has historically been a very close relationship between Canada and the U.K., but it's equally clear that Canadian leaders think the UK is going in a "different" direction post-Brexit.

Going in different directions tends to override historical affiliations.

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

The CIty already offered to be subjected to ECJ in exchange for EU passport rights. Not that this is anything strange (same applies if you want to do business in the US).

It's not up to the City, it's up to Westminster.

Not really, you can decide to subject yourself to a different jurisdiction. They do it with the US, they can do it with the EU. The only thing is that the EU doesn't really want such special deals.

LJ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

The CIty already offered to be subjected to ECJ in exchange for EU passport rights. Not that this is anything strange (same applies if you want to do business in the US).

It's not up to the City, it's up to Westminster.

Not really, you can decide to subject yourself to a different jurisdiction. They do it with the US, they can do it with the EU. The only thing is that the EU doesn't really want such special deals.

But still, Westminster must commit to such a scheme. And indeed the EU must agree to it.

ElPistolero wrote:

[Bit of a stretch to say Canada is under anyone's influence.

Influence can be measured in $ Trade/Year. The UK makes about 40% of the EU/Canada Trade Volume. In Terms of direct investments in Canada, the UK is just about half the Netherlands.

It's true that there has historically been a very close relationship between Canada and the U.K., but it's equally clear that Canadian leaders think the UK is going in a "different" direction post-Brexit.

Going in different directions tends to override historical affiliations.

There is no such thing als very close relationships between nations in the form of friendship or alike. It is just that if you know somebody well, it is easier to conduct business. Canada hasn´t had much experiance with UK diplomats for the last 40 years, nor does anyone else. That is also by the UK "deligation" brought a notebook to the talks with the EU, while the EU side had actual paperwork to bring along, aka was prepared to negotiate meaningful.

best regards
Thomass

ElPistolero wrote:

I don't think anyone's suggested that UK courts won't act fairly.

Maybe I read a different thread.

ElPistolero wrote:

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.

If the right to bring their family into the UK is included in the rights of EU migrants post-Brexit, then that's what judges would rule in a dispute, since it will be the law.

ElPistolero wrote:

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.

I would point out that the UK courts are totally independent of Parliament. As you've correctly pointed out, Parliament's job is to set the law, it's then up to the courts to interpret (because sometimes laws are badly written) and apply that law.

scbriml wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

I don't think anyone's suggested that UK courts won't act fairly.

Maybe I read a different thread.

Exactly. We know they don´t rule fairly, because if they did nothing would have ever escalated to EU courts where the UK lost. Which is fine as long you are under EU jurisdiction and EU courts therefore are able to correct the UK courts errors.

I would point out that the UK courts are totally independent of Parliament. As you've correctly pointed out, Parliament's job is to set the law, it's then up to the courts to interpret (because sometimes laws are badly written) and apply that law.

and if the UK parliament passes a law in violation of the Brexit treaty, the EU also has to go to UK courts, which is about the same as the UK courts ruling however the parliament wishes them to .....

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

I don't think anyone's suggested that UK courts won't act fairly.

Maybe I read a different thread.

ElPistolero wrote:

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.

If the right to bring their family into the UK is included in the rights of EU migrants post-Brexit, then that's what judges would rule in a dispute, since it will be the law.

ElPistolero wrote:

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.

I would point out that the UK courts are totally independent of Parliament. As you've correctly pointed out, Parliament's job is to set the law, it's then up to the courts to interpret (because sometimes laws are badly written) and apply that law.

Haha, fair enough. I don't think it's the implementation of the law that's going to be the problem, but rather the possibility of laws changing over time, under the guise of sovereignty, that may violate terms of the agreement. Take families for example. They may be allowed by the law under the terms of agreement in 2019, but could theoretically be gone by 2023 if it's politically expedient for UK political parties to do so (net immigration number promises plus economic requirements for high skilled labour would make this category of immigrants a prime target). Similarly, there could be an issue with eligibility for benefits down the line, with Parliament deciding it's too expensive.

All of which is to say that there are areas where political expedience might result in laws that could negatively affect this new class of residents. Parliament is full of people who stand to benefit from the votes inherent in supporting populist causes. It's questionable how much leeway UK courts will have while implementing those laws properly, so an EU safeguard isn't unwarranted. And that's before we factor in the intense populist antipathy lawyers and/or judges will face when dealing with these issues. After the Gina Miller case, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of the top legal minds actively avoid getting tangled up in these issues and being seen to be against "the people's will".

ElPistolero wrote:

Haha, fair enough. I don't think it's the implementation of the law that's going to be the problem, but rather the possibility of laws changing over time, under the guise of sovereignty, that may violate terms of the agreement. Take families for example. They may be allowed by the law under the terms of agreement in 2019, but could theoretically be gone by 2023 if it's politically expedient for UK political parties to do so (net immigration number promises plus economic requirements for high skilled labour would make this category of immigrants a prime target). Similarly, there could be an issue with eligibility for benefits down the line, with Parliament deciding it's too expensive.

All of which is to say that there are areas where political expedience might result in laws that could negatively affect this new class of residents. Parliament is full of people who stand to benefit from the votes inherent in supporting populist causes. It's questionable how much leeway UK courts will have while implementing those laws properly, so an EU safeguard isn't unwarranted. And that's before we factor in the intense populist antipathy lawyers and/or judges will face when dealing with these issues. After the Gina Miller case, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of the top legal minds actively avoid getting tangled up in these issues and being seen to be against "the people's will".

How would this be any different from the EU, it is not as if the EU rules / regulations / laws are written in stone, so far the only thing which seems to be so is the 4 freedoms, other than that, they have a legislature which can make changes when they please, as long as they follow the established procedures.
Indeed, we are already hearing talk of reforms of an inner circle of countries who want greater integration, and an outer circles who don't, do not qualify or just want to see how it works first. Unrealistic for the EU to expect the UK laws to remain static.

I agree there will be a time frame given which will provide certainty for citizens on both sides, however, one would hope that by the expiration date, citizens on both sides would have made the final decision on their future versus depending on the legislators on both sides to act again.

tommy1808 wrote:

Exactly. We know they don´t rule fairly, because if they did nothing would have ever escalated to EU courts where the UK lost. Which is fine as long you are under EU jurisdiction and EU courts therefore are able to correct the UK courts errors.

Everything is very one-sided with you, isn't it? German courts have had their "errors" corrected by EU courts as well.

Post-Brexit, EU courts will have no say in the UK. In the UK, the UK Supreme Court will be the final adjudicator of UK law (accepting ECHR might be involved in a Human Rights issue). Seriously, you're making a huge issue out of nothing. The ECJ will have no say in UK matters post-Brexit. Time to accept it and move on.

tommy1808 wrote:

and if the UK parliament passes a law in violation of the Brexit treaty

It's unlikely given that the rights of UK ex-pats remaining in the EU will be covered by the same treaty. Quid pro quo.

ElPistolero wrote:

Haha, fair enough. I don't think it's the implementation of the law that's going to be the problem, but rather the possibility of laws changing over time, under the guise of sovereignty, that may violate terms of the agreement. Take families for example. They may be allowed by the law under the terms of agreement in 2019, but could theoretically be gone by 2023 if it's politically expedient for UK political parties to do so (net immigration number promises plus economic requirements for high skilled labour would make this category of immigrants a prime target). Similarly, there could be an issue with eligibility for benefits down the line, with Parliament deciding it's too expensive.

As above, I believe the threat of such a change is very low because the treaty that governs the rights of EU citizens living in the UK post-Brexit would also apply reciprocally to UK citizens living in the EU post-Brexit. Both sides have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

ElPistolero wrote:

After the Gina Miller case, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of the top legal minds actively avoid getting tangled up in these issues and being seen to be against "the people's will".

I don't believe that will happen. Yes, there were some horrible responses to the case she brought including ludicrous headlines in the right-wing rags like the Daily Mail. However, I would point out that successful prosecutions have been brought against people abusing her, including a member of the aristocracy who is now enjoying some quality time behind bars.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ina-miller

par13del wrote:

I agree there will be a time frame given which will provide certainty for citizens on both sides, however, one would hope that by the expiration date, citizens on both sides would have made the final decision on their future versus depending on the legislators on both sides to act again.

We'll have to see what the final agreement is.

scbriml wrote:

As above, I believe the threat of such a change is very low because the treaty that governs the rights of EU citizens living in the UK post-Brexit would also apply reciprocally to UK citizens living in the EU post-Brexit. Both sides have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
We'll have to see what the final agreement is.

I thought I would just point out, the UK's current position is far from what you say. An EU citizen living in the UK (assuming 5 years) will have a new status. They will be "settled". Not a Permanent Resident, but settled. The UK citizens will be considered permanent residents in their respective EU countries. That is s significant difference. Currently a UK living in a EU country as a PR will have the same rights as their own citizens. An EU citizen living in the UK, under the UK's proposal, would have them nor at PR but as settled and the UK has not stated what that new status will include.

Personally, I think May has shown she is willing to use both the EU citizens living in the UK and the UK citizens living in the EU as bargaining chips. Should there be a "hard" exit, those two groups will have nothing.

The UK already has status for third country citizens, one need only look at the status given to members from the Commonwealth or their Overseas Territories to see that they are making an attempt to do something different for the EU, which is to be expected based on how that relationship developed over the decades it has been in place.

At the end of the day, my question would be, can the UK as a single country give the same rights and benefits that the EU can provide for its members, I suspect no, those UK citizens living in the EU may have to ultimately accept that without nationalization to a member EU country,
they will have diminished rights compared to EU citizens, time will tell.

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Exactly. We know they don´t rule fairly, because if they did nothing would have ever escalated to EU courts where the UK lost. Which is fine as long you are under EU jurisdiction and EU courts therefore are able to correct the UK courts errors.

Everything is very one-sided with you, isn't it? German courts have had their "errors" corrected by EU courts as well.

Which is the reason why such a supranational court is needed. Governments can't be trusted with keeping their citizens rights all the time. Not the British, not the German nor any other.

It won't be perfect, but it's an additional layer of protection.

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Exactly. We know they don´t rule fairly, because if they did nothing would have ever escalated to EU courts where the UK lost. Which is fine as long you are under EU jurisdiction and EU courts therefore are able to correct the UK courts errors.

Everything is very one-sided with you, isn't it? German courts have had their "errors" corrected by EU courts as well.

Post-Brexit, EU courts will have no say in the UK. In the UK, the UK Supreme Court will be the final adjudicator of UK law (accepting ECHR might be involved in a Human Rights issue). Seriously, you're making a huge issue out of nothing. The ECJ will have no say in UK matters post-Brexit. Time to accept it and move on.

tommy1808 wrote:

and if the UK parliament passes a law in violation of the Brexit treaty

It's unlikely given that the rights of UK ex-pats remaining in the EU will be covered by the same treaty. Quid pro quo.

ElPistolero wrote:

Haha, fair enough. I don't think it's the implementation of the law that's going to be the problem, but rather the possibility of laws changing over time, under the guise of sovereignty, that may violate terms of the agreement. Take families for example. They may be allowed by the law under the terms of agreement in 2019, but could theoretically be gone by 2023 if it's politically expedient for UK political parties to do so (net immigration number promises plus economic requirements for high skilled labour would make this category of immigrants a prime target). Similarly, there could be an issue with eligibility for benefits down the line, with Parliament deciding it's too expensive.

As above, I believe the threat of such a change is very low because the treaty that governs the rights of EU citizens living in the UK post-Brexit would also apply reciprocally to UK citizens living in the EU post-Brexit. Both sides have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

ElPistolero wrote:

After the Gina Miller case, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of the top legal minds actively avoid getting tangled up in these issues and being seen to be against "the people's will".

I don't believe that will happen. Yes, there were some horrible responses to the case she brought including ludicrous headlines in the right-wing rags like the Daily Mail. However, I would point out that successful prosecutions have been brought against people abusing her, including a member of the aristocracy who is now enjoying some quality time behind bars.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ina-miller

par13del wrote:

I agree there will be a time frame given which will provide certainty for citizens on both sides, however, one would hope that by the expiration date, citizens on both sides would have made the final decision on their future versus depending on the legislators on both sides to act again.

We'll have to see what the final agreement is.

The whole reciprocity argument is undermined by the fact that the UK public and political attitude towards EU immigrants is not exactly 'reciprocated' by the EU public and politicians towards U.K. residents in the EU. To put it bluntly, UK politicians stand to gain by targeting EU citizen movement into the country. The same cannot be said of EU politicians.

As for Gina Miller, while the viscount is getting what he deserves, there's more to it than that. I'm referring to the Government's 'response' to the whole thing. You might remember it - that odd episode where the Lord Chief Justice felt moved enough to publicly criticize the Justice Minister for not defending judges doing their jobs.

In light of events like that, as well as some of the heated language associated with Brexit, I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone - from the EU or otherwise - to question whether some elected legislators see political gain in not staring down/pandering to the mob. Seeking an external safeguard seems eminently sensible in this context, no?

I mean, I have all the faith in the world in the Judges, but I question how long they will be willing to incur abuse and have it inflicted on their families. After all, there are ways to intimidate humans without resorting to illegal behaviour, like racist abuse. I'm sure the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues ("enemies of the people" as it were) can regale you with a few tales.

par13del wrote:

The UK already has status for third country citizens, one need only look at the status given to members from the Commonwealth or their Overseas Territories to see that they are making an attempt to do something different for the EU, which is to be expected based on how that relationship developed over the decades it has been in place.

At the end of the day, my question would be, can the UK as a single country give the same rights and benefits that the EU can provide for its members, I suspect no, those UK citizens living in the EU may have to ultimately accept that without nationalization to a member EU country,
they will have diminished rights compared to EU citizens, time will tell.

I don't follow where you are coming up with your statements. The EU has said, and put on the table, the UK citizens currently in their country and those up until the time of Brexit, will enjoy the same protections they currently have. How can you say they will have diminished rights?

The current UK position does not detail how Irish expats are going to be handled. After all, under the 1923 treaty which formed the basis for Common Travel Area, the treaty was again revised in 1952. Irish citizens living in the UK have always enjoyed a better deal than the former Commonwealth citizens and that has not changed. However, the UK, in addition to not stating their position on the ROI/NI border, has not outlined what they will do about Irish immigration.

JJJ wrote:

Which is the reason why such a supranational court is needed. Governments can't be trusted with keeping their citizens rights all the time.

And you think supranational ones can? Dare I go over the absurdity of the ECHR ruling on votes for prisoners?

"I would sooner receive injustice in the Queen's courts than justice in a foreign court. I hold that man or woman to be a scoundrel who goes abroad to a foreign court to have the judgments of the Queen's courts overturned, the actions of her Government countermanded or the legislation of Parliament struck down."

ElPistolero wrote:

I'm sure the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues ("enemies of the people" as it were) can regale you with a few tales.

While Gina Miller certainly did not deserve the abuse she received, the Lord Chief Justice and the members of the High Court are some of the most unbelievably powerful and privileged people in the land. The whole mock outrage over the Daily Mail criticising would be laughable if it weren't so terrifying to see how many people would like dissent over the judiciary stifled.

tommy1808 wrote:

[which is about the same as the UK courts ruling however the parliament wishes them to .....

best regards
Thomas

Except that doesn't happen here. Courts rule according to how they interpret the law. There have been plenty of occasions where courts have ruled against the government.

JJJ wrote:

Which is the reason why such a supranational court is needed. Governments can't be trusted with keeping their citizens rights all the time. Not the British, not the German nor any other.

It won't be perfect, but it's an additional layer of protection.

For the UK after Brexit, that will not be any EU court. As things stand today, the ECHR will still cover the area of Human Rights.

mmo wrote:

I thought I would just point out, the UK's current position is far from what you say. An EU citizen living in the UK (assuming 5 years) will have a new status. They will be "settled". Not a Permanent Resident, but settled. The UK citizens will be considered permanent residents in their respective EU countries. That is s significant difference. Currently a UK living in a EU country as a PR will have the same rights as their own citizens. An EU citizen living in the UK, under the UK's proposal, would have them nor at PR but as settled and the UK has not stated what that new status will include.

An agreement has not yet been reached. Once we have an agreement on this specific issue we can discuss the details.

scbriml wrote:

An agreement has not yet been reached. Once we have an agreement on this specific issue we can discuss the details.

What fun would that be? Then we have to be silence until 2019 or probably latter

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

While Gina Miller certainly did not deserve the abuse she received, the Lord Chief Justice and the members of the High Court are some of the most unbelievably powerful and privileged people in the land. The whole mock outrage over the Daily Mail criticising would be laughable if it weren't so terrifying to see how many people would like dissent over the judiciary stifled.

Oh good.

Does calling a judge an "enemy of the people" for having the temerity to do his/her job now constitute dissent? What next - should questioning the governments' policies be considered treasonous? Nobody's trying to stifle dissent. However, there are drawbacks associated with intimidatory and inflammatory language. One can always dissent in a calm, reasonable way, without resorting to petty name-calling.

I don't understand why you begrudge judges either. Privileged and powerful? Yes. But how did they get there? Nepotism or meritocracy? As I understand, it's not easy to become a judge in the U.K. without excelling at your profession. Appointments aren't just handed out. They've earned their power and privilege. Which, I suppose, provokes envy among...err... less successful people.

Goes without saying, too, that the fact that a majority voted for something does not automatically make it legal. The majority cannot wake up tomorrow and legislate death or exile upon the minority. That's what the courts are for - to ensure that small-minded populism doesn't run riot. It's called an independent judiciary and it's a hallmark of any real democracy. You may wish to look it up.

I frequently question the intellectual calibre of the majority of leave voters, but your contributions are more effective than anything I can put together. Carry on. Please.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

[Except that doesn't happen here. Courts rule according to how they interpret the law. There have been plenty of occasions where courts have ruled against the government.

doh... of course they have.

That doesn´t change the fact that, even operating under directly applicable EU law, UK courts do fail to protect the rights of EU citizens from time to time. That is why cases land in front of EU courts after all.

The UK should already be fairly happy that the EU doesn´t insist EU citizens in the UK retain their right to vote.....

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Exactly. We know they don´t rule fairly, because if they did nothing would have ever escalated to EU courts where the UK lost. Which is fine as long you are under EU jurisdiction and EU courts therefore are able to correct the UK courts errors.

Everything is very one-sided with you, isn't it?

nah, that is just a perception error on your side.

German courts have had their "errors" corrected by EU courts as well.

Of course, probably with about the same frequency as the UKs courts. Germany however doesn´t want to strip their protection of you or me.

The ECJ will have no say in UK matters post-Brexit. Time to accept it and move on.

i accepted that a couple of time in this threat alone. Work on your perception man. I am just saying that means hard Brexit.

It's unlikely given that the rights of UK ex-pats remaining in the EU will be covered by the same treaty. Quid pro quo.

The complete and utter lack of any preparation to even negotiate, one whole year after the Brexit vote, goes a long way to demonstrate that the UK government couldn´t care less about UK citizens living in the EU.

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

An agreement has not yet been reached. Once we have an agreement on this specific issue we can discuss the details.

True, however, you seem to have unbending faith in the likes of David Davis and Boris the Buffoon and their negotiation assumptions, such as the EU will want to do a deal with the UK because the UK exports so much to the EU. Sorry, but after living in the UK for the last 10 years, I have no faith in either of those people, let alone May. Simply put, the UK has little to offer that the EU can not get someplace else. Just look at the overall imports and exports.

The UK has been told by Australia, the US and other countries there is a willingness to conclude a trade deal. However, it will be after the EU. So much for countries clamoring to do a deal with the UK. Oh, I forgot about India. They are more than willing do do a trade deal with the UK but they want current EU freedom of movement. So that deal is DOA!

The issue I have is granted 52% of the voters decided to vote to leave the EU, I certainly didn't. But the deal was sold with so much mis-information it's pathetic. What happened to the 300 million plus for NHS? So, now the voters have no say on the final agreement and the Torries will do anything to "keep their promise" aka hard Brexit.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Which is the reason why such a supranational court is needed. Governments can't be trusted with keeping their citizens rights all the time.

And you think supranational ones can? Dare I go over the absurdity of the ECHR ruling on votes for prisoners?

Don't you think it's good to force a country to substantiate on why do they remove voting rights rather than just issue a blanket ban that applies even in minor offences?

Because it is lawful to do it for major crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ourt-rules

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

And you think supranational ones can? Dare I go over the absurdity of the ECHR ruling on votes for prisoners?

Democracy becomes worthless pretty fast if the elected representatives get to define who gets to vote without limits.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Democracy becomes worthless pretty fast if the elected representatives get to define who gets to vote without limits.

best regards
Thomas

You mean like they did in all these examples here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... _Franchise)_Act_1928
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1969
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1981
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1983
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_1989
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Represent ... e_Act_2000

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Democracy becomes worthless pretty fast if the elected representatives get to define who gets to vote without limits.

best regards
Thomas

You mean like they did in all these examples here?

without reading those all i´d like to remind you that i didn´t put "without limits" for its nice sound at the end of that sentence.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

The UK should already be fairly happy that the EU doesn´t insist EU citizens in the UK retain their right to vote.....

best regards
Thomas

On EU elections, I thought they always had that right or are you talking about giving EU citizens in the UK the right to vote in a UK referendum on the EU?
If the EU can grant such you already have a United States of Europe, why are so many Europeans against what they already have?

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The UK should already be fairly happy that the EU doesn´t insist EU citizens in the UK retain their right to vote.....

best regards
Thomas

On EU elections, I thought they always had that right or are you talking about giving EU citizens in the UK the right to vote in a UK referendum on the EU?

Communal level elections in their country of permanent residence, a right all EU citizens have if they move to another EU country.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Democracy becomes worthless pretty fast if the elected representatives get to define who gets to vote without limits.

best regards
Thomas

Wiki states that the ECJ is the highest court on union law but not national law, "it is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts, butt those courts can refer questions to the ECJ, is wiki accurate?
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice"


Based on this thread, one gets the impression that cases can be appealed to the ECJ, not that the court has the option to refer, which means they can always say no, so this is another issue to be negotiated.
Also, since the court was established in 1952 with judges appointed from various nations, whose precedents were used, that of the member countries or did those judges create their own?

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Democracy becomes worthless pretty fast if the elected representatives get to define who gets to vote without limits.

best regards
Thomas

Wiki states that the ECJ is the highest court on union law but not national law, "it is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts, butt those courts can refer questions to the ECJ, is wiki accurate?
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice"

Yes, this is meant by European courts only come into play if national courts are exhausted..just like most or all constitutional courts they get to pick the cases they deem to be important enough.
.

Also, since the court was established in 1952 with judges appointed from various nations, whose precedents were used, that of the member countries or did those judges create their own?

The EU, as most of its members but Britain, Wales and Ireland and some 80% of the world's nations, have a code based legal system, where precedents play no role. So they just hit the books.

Best regards
Thomas

The discussion is pointless, because it misses the problem. The UK has suggested an application process for residency for people from the EU living in the UK, it has not suggested that the application will be always granted nor that the permit to stay will not be time limited. Furthermore the application will only be available to persons already living in the UK for a certain amount of time (5 years) at a certain due date. May only suggested that people living in the Uk for less than 5 years at that due date would be given a limited permit to stay to reach this 5 years and then apply for the unlimited permit.

It falls short of the EU demands in some obvious points.

1. no guarantee for a permit to stay
2. permit to stay is bound by conditions
3. no solution for people moving to the UK after the due date
4. very vague when it comes to the rights of EU nationals in the UK (shall be as similar as possible to the British nationals when it comes to pensions and the NHS is not 100% similar)

and finally only British courts would be judging any disagreements between persons from the EU and the British state.

seahawk wrote:

The discussion is pointless, because it misses the problem. The UK has suggested an application process for residency for people from the EU living in the UK, it has not suggested that the application will be always granted nor that the permit to stay will not be time limited. Furthermore the application will only be available to persons already living in the UK for a certain amount of time (5 years) at a certain due date. May only suggested that people living in the Uk for less than 5 years at that due date would be given a limited permit to stay to reach this 5 years and then apply for the unlimited permit.

It falls short of the EU demands in some obvious points.

1. no guarantee for a permit to stay
2. permit to stay is bound by conditions
3. no solution for people moving to the UK after the due date
4. very vague when it comes to the rights of EU nationals in the UK (shall be as similar as possible to the British nationals when it comes to pensions and the NHS is not 100% similar)

and finally only British courts would be judging any disagreements between persons from the EU and the British state.

So if the UK sticks to those terms what happens next?

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The discussion is pointless, because it misses the problem. The UK has suggested an application process for residency for people from the EU living in the UK, it has not suggested that the application will be always granted nor that the permit to stay will not be time limited. Furthermore the application will only be available to persons already living in the UK for a certain amount of time (5 years) at a certain due date. May only suggested that people living in the Uk for less than 5 years at that due date would be given a limited permit to stay to reach this 5 years and then apply for the unlimited permit.

It falls short of the EU demands in some obvious points.

1. no guarantee for a permit to stay
2. permit to stay is bound by conditions
3. no solution for people moving to the UK after the due date
4. very vague when it comes to the rights of EU nationals in the UK (shall be as similar as possible to the British nationals when it comes to pensions and the NHS is not 100% similar)

and finally only British courts would be judging any disagreements between persons from the EU and the British state.

So if the UK sticks to those terms what happens next?

If you want to believe the EU, no deal so a hard Brexit. Britain will be free to do whatever they see fit.

I think this point will be settled somewhere in between. Why not? Both parties have a vested interest to reach an agreement over this.

Dutchy wrote:

If you want to believe the EU, no deal so a hard Brexit. Britain will be free to do whatever they see fit.

I think this point will be settled somewhere in between. Why not? Both parties have a vested interest to reach an agreement over this.

How long, when one considers all the other little things that have to be done they need to start knocking items off the to do list. Two years is not a long time, things concluded in a rush always create larger problems.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If you want to believe the EU, no deal so a hard Brexit. Britain will be free to do whatever they see fit.

I think this point will be settled somewhere in between. Why not? Both parties have a vested interest to reach an agreement over this.

How long, when one considers all the other little things that have to be done they need to start knocking items off the to do list. Two years is not a long time, things concluded in a rush always create larger problems.

Well, at the moment the EU is waiting for the UK to have a negotiating position and bring more than a notebook to negotiations. After they have already pissed away 3 month or so...

best regards
Thomas

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.

That's not the main problem. They can follow all the rules, if there is no treaty, the City will not be able to sell a lot of the things they currently do.

scbriml wrote:

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).

BMW can adapt but smaller car manufacturers cannot. There are already a number of cars you don't get because of your idea of driving on the wrong side of the road.

Also, there is no longer any significant British car manufacturer, all the manufacturing being done in the UK if by foreign companies, so I would expect them to have a lot of leverage against any rule change made by the UK.

Aesma 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.

That's not the main problem. They can follow all the rules, if there is no treaty, the City will not be able to sell a lot of the things they currently do.

Exactly. You are either in the Common Market or you are not. As it stands right now, UKs banks business in the EU will end with the membership. That share of the GDP can be written off.

best regards
Thomas

Aesma 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.

That's not the main problem. They can follow all the rules, if there is no treaty, the City will not be able to sell a lot of the things they currently do.

That's what I meant indeed. No deal, means no EU oversite, means no access and that is unnegotiable. The EU has all kinds of meganism to protect the economy against bank collapse or system failure.

And the time is ticking.

Citigroup is planning on making a new EU HQ at Frankfurt and moving people from London to Frankfurt - with London only retaining the HQ for European countries outside the EU
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Standard Chartered, JP Morgan, Daiwa Securities, Nomura and Sumitomo Mitsui are planing the same.

HSBC wants to go to Paris and Barclays to Dublin.

They are already renting office space and applying for licences.

http://economia.icaew.com/en/news/july- ... ter-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... brexit-hub
https://www.businesslive.co.za/fm/fm-fo ... of-brexit/

seahawk wrote:

And the time is ticking.

Citigroup is planning on making a new EU HQ at Frankfurt and moving people from London to Frankfurt - with London only retaining the HQ for European countries outside the EU
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Standard Chartered, JP Morgan, Daiwa Securities, Nomura and Sumitomo Mitsui are planing the same.

HSBC wants to go to Paris and Barclays to Dublin.

They are already renting office space and applying for licences.

http://economia.icaew.com/en/news/july- ... ter-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... brexit-hub
https://www.businesslive.co.za/fm/fm-fo ... of-brexit/

Yes and this will become worse for the UK. It hurts me that the UK is hurting like this, although it is a self-inflicted wound. What ever happens, even the unlikely scenario that the Brexit will be subtracted, even then some companies have moved already, damaging the UK's position.

The EU has all these rules and regulations and treaty positions that the UK must either accept or negotiate some form of acceptance of them, yet when it comes to the Brexit divorce bill, the EU appears to want to UK to determine what exactly its commitment will be, I thought the EU already determined the bill and the UK were waiting for the EU to justify the amount, what am I missing?
One quote from the link below: "As soon as the United Kingdom is prepared to clarify the nature of its commitments we will be prepared to discuss this with the British negotiators," he said." So the UK can determine what its financial commitment will be but cannot determine what its position will be on legal protection of EU citizens in the UK or what rights and benefits they can receive, what am I missing?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40662740