INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1921 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 5:34 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

The guilty men of Brexit, Churchill, Boris Johnson, and the “bullseye of disaster”
The xenophobia during the EU referendum campaign was loathsome.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 referendum I considered publishing a special issue of the magazine in which, in a series of specially commissioned signed essays, we would indict the guilty men of Brexit. As I’ve said before, I am no ardent Brussels-phile but the referendum campaign had appalled us. David Cameron’s carelessness and insouciance in calling and leading such a wretched campaign and then walking away from the consequences of his actions disgusted us.

We despised the narcissism and game-playing of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, newspaper columnists masquerading as statesmen. The xenophobia of the right-wing press and Nigel Farage had been loathsome. The Remain campaign had been little better, from the fear-mongering of the Treasury to the lacklustre performance of Jeremy Corbyn.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1922 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 8:11 pm

Brexit and Trade - Another ticking timebomb
Leaving the EU Customs Union implies not only needing a new trade deal with the EU, but also with countries across the world to replace the agreements we have via the EU. This is vital: only 15% of UK trade is with countries that are not in the EU or covered by an EU trade agreement that is either in force or under negotiation.

Through the EU we are currently party to:

More than 50 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) across the world, with negotiations underway for a further 67. They give reciprocal preferential access, waiving all or most of the duties normally required.
Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with third countries, which allow goods to be inspected by approved bodies and declared in conformity with destination market rules before being exported. This saves time and expense, as shipments do not need to be impounded and checked at borders. MRAs are in place with many countries which do not have a full FTA with the EU, including China, the US and Australia.
Sector-specific deals (e.g. on airlines’ rights to fly between the EU and third countries).
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with a number of developing economies.
And where no FTAs, MRAs or other deals are applicable, then WTO rules apply, and we have arrangements and commitments via the EU in that context too.

Leaving the EU customs union means all these cease to apply to us and we will have to negotiate our own deals to replace all of them. This page describes some of the complications involved in doing so.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5943
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1923 Postby animist » July 9th, 2017, 10:53 pm

Alan H wrote:The Friday email from Ian Dunt, editor of www.politics.co.uk is well worth signing up for
I've just read his book "Brexit: what the hell happens now?". It really is a must-read (I am sure that you've already read it, Alan). In a while I will quote or paraphrase some of the choicer bits relating to the hell which awaits us :angry:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1924 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 11:43 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:The Friday email from Ian Dunt, editor of www.politics.co.uk is well worth signing up for
I've just read his book "Brexit: what the hell happens now?". It really is a must-read (I am sure that you've already read it, Alan). In a while I will quote or paraphrase some of the choicer bits relating to the hell which awaits us :angry:

Yes, read it last December. As you say, it's essential reading for anyone who thinks Brexit is a piece of cake. Or even desirable.

I'm now reading Brexit Time : Leaving the EU - Why, How and When? by Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of law at Cambridge. Only got it on Saturday, so only on chapter one.

This in the introduction:
In a 'Time for Brexit' [one of the sections in the book] the chapters look to how the result of the referendum has been translated by a new Prime Minister, Theresa May, and her government into a manifesto for change that is not just about defining a new relationship between the UK and the EU but is also about redefining Britain both at home and globally.
You can see where her 'threat' of a low taxation, low regulation, low rights tax haven come from: straight down the line Tory ideology. Who'd be surprised if crashing out of the EU has been her intention all along? She would go down in the annuls of Conservatism as the greatest Tory ever, resigning Thatcher to but a footnote in history. Be afraid; be very afraid.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1925 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 11:45 pm

Brexit: May offering EU workers in UK 'second-class citizenship' – MEPs
EU parliament’s Brexit coordinator among group of MEPs saying PM’s opening offer falls short of EU proposal and even Vote Leave’s campaign pledges
Falling short of Vote Leave's campaign pledges? You have to laugh... :hilarity:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1926 Postby Alan H » July 10th, 2017, 9:28 am

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo: Ex-Sainsbury's CEO: Brexit means 'higher prices, less choice, and poorer quality' at supermarkets
Former Sainsbury's CEO Justin King says UK shoppers are "completely in the dark" about what Brexit will mean for supermarkets.

King, who was in charge of Sainsbury's for a decade until 2014, told BBC's Panorama programme: "One can say very clearly what the direction will be: higher prices, less choice, and poorer quality, because all of those dimensions have been improved by these open trading relationships that we've had over the last 40 years.

"Brexit, almost in whatever version it is, will introduce friction, it will introduce barriers. That makes it less efficient, which means all three of those benefits — price, quality, and choice — go backwards."

Inflation is rising rapidly after the fall in the value of the pound following last year's Brexit vote. Food and drink prices across the UK are already rising and Sainsbury's warned in March this year that "the impact of cost price pressures remains uncertain" — meaning that rising import costs could push prices higher.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1927 Postby Alan H » July 10th, 2017, 1:41 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: More than two million UK employees work for companies that are reliant on investment from the EU
The 'experimental' figures from the Office for National Statistics highlight the vulnerability of UK workers if we were to crash out of the EU single market and the customs union
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1928 Postby Alan H » July 10th, 2017, 3:59 pm

Brexit: PM making plans to replicate Euratom benefits in face of Tory revolt
Theresa May’s government is drawing up plans to replicate the benefits of remaining a member of the Euratom treaty – which governs the movement of nuclear materials across Europe – in the face of a growing rebellion of Conservative MPs.

The Guardian understands that one option being considered is an “associate membership”, similar to that held by Switzerland, or paying money to an international agency to set up an independent arrangement.

Nine Tory MPs signalled that they could line up with Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the issue, making it difficult for May to secure a parliamentary majority.

Ed Vaizey, a former Tory minister, joined forces with Labour MP Rachel Reeves over the weekend to warn that the treaty was vital to protect the nuclear power industry in the UK.


Yeah. Let's just duplicate stuff because sovereignty or something. But I don't remember that cost being mention on the referendum ballot paper.

ETA: But it does raise something interesting.
What is at risk if the UK does quit as proposed?
For the nuclear industry, rapid departure from Euratom without a clear replacement spells disaster. Scientists have warned that British power stations may not be able to source nuclear fuel if it cannot be legally transported across borders. The shipment of medical isotopes used in scans and cancer treatment is also said to be jeopardised. European workers on shared research projects, such as experimental fusion reactors, face an equally uncertain future without Euratom’s separate guarantees of freedom of movement.

Some critics have claimed that abrupt exit means that by 2025 “you could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter” as the future of Britain’s nuclear industry hangs in the balance. Calmer voices argue that arranging new rules to ensure safety and govern shipments should not be that hard; just that it is likely to take much longer than the 20 months remaining.

But the cost of any short-term chaos is hard to justify given that nobody ever complained about the minor compromises imposed by Euratom on British sovereignty in the first place. Instead, it provides an embarrassing example of the unintended consequences of the prime minister’s hard red line on dealing with the ECJ – something even a former special adviser to the Brexit secretary has described as dangerously “absolutist”.

We could leave the EU without leaving Euratom, but the reason May included it in her Article 50 notification is that remaining in Euratom means coming under ECJ jurisdiction. However, that was something else that wasn't on the ballot paper. Another Brexit shambles.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1929 Postby Alan H » July 10th, 2017, 5:17 pm

Oops! There's another one: UK ministers call for post-Brexit co-operation with EU on drugs
Pharmaceutical industry leaders have been calling for a clear outline of the government’s stance, fearing that continuing uncertainty could sap global confidence in the UK medicines sector. Investment in life sciences generates more than £60bn a year for the UK economy and supports 220,000 jobs.

Some executives worry that if the UK is forced to develop its own drug approval system, divorced from the rest of the EU, Britain may find itself at the back of the queue for new medicines because drug companies will concentrate on securing approval in bigger and more lucrative markets.

The ministers wrote that, if they are unable to secure “our desired relationship with the EU”, Britain would be required to “set up a regulatory system” to process drug licenses “as quickly as possible”.


It may not be the EU 'exit' bill that's the biggest problem.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1930 Postby Alan H » July 10th, 2017, 9:17 pm

This series of 47 Tweets is well worth reading: https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status ... 4512975872
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1931 Postby Alan H » July 10th, 2017, 9:34 pm

Brexit and the prospect of national humiliation
Things are going badly wrong in Brexit-land. The UK government is weak and divided. The EU is confident and uncompromising. The negotiation clock is ticking and only the wilfully deluded now believe that a “cake-and-eat-it” Brexit is on offer. Instead, Britain appears to face a choice between three different types of humiliation.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1932 Postby Alan H » July 10th, 2017, 11:42 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1933 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2017, 12:58 am

“UNACCEPTABLE BULLSHIT”: TOP BREXITEER GOES NUCLEAR OVER MAY’S DECISION TO QUIT EURATOM

OK, it's Dominic Cummings again, but he is at least partly right on this.

But the consequences have to be faced up to: if the UK withdraws from Euratom and there is no alternative put in place, hospitals will very quickly run out of isotopes for scanners and for radiotherapy for cancer sufferers. Maybe, just maybe, politicians will save us from May's stupidity and manage to get us some breathing space by getting something agreed that at least allows the import of these necessary materials, but will they? My solution? Don't get cancer in 2019.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1934 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2017, 11:32 am

Now this is an interesting dissection of the mooted revolt over leaving Euratom by David Allen Green:
1. Just a few thoughts about the comment of the ministerial "source" in this tweet, and the Euratom issue generally.
“Ministerial source tells @nicholaswatt: "We will not be leaving Euratom. We do not have the numbers in parliament" #newsnight “
2. Read the quote carefully. You will see it is based on two. assumptions.
3. The first assumption is that it is open to the UK to not leave Euratom, because of 'not having the numbers' or otherwise.
4. The complacent arrogance that it is still for UK to decide these things, by itself. But, since A50 notification, this is not down to UK.
5. The A50 notification changed everything. The UK is no longer in control of the Brexit process, whether the "numbers" are there or not.
6. Furthermore: May explicitly included Euratom in the A50 letter - see third paragraph: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... article-50
7. The language on Euratom is legalistic, not by a politician. The mention is not by accident. It was deliberate. Legal advice was obtained.
8. Some say that leaving the Euratom treaty was implicit in A50 - but if so, that does not matter, as the letter spelled it out anyway.
9. All this means that for UK to reverse on Euratom requires (imo) the Article 50 letter itself to be revoked or amended.
10. I cannot see how the issue can be fudged. A formal notice on quitting Euratom can only be rescinded with equal formality.
11. It is not open to May to say "whoops, I meant to insert a "not" in the sentence about leaving Euratom."
12. And so, if that is the case, the question becomes whether that can be done unilaterally by UK, or only by agreement with EU27.
13. And, in turn, that opens the questions as to whether the A50 letter in respect of leaving EU as a whole is revocable and, if so, how.
14. One can be certain that a minister saying there are not the "numbers" any more will not be enough to stop a formal notice in its tracks.
15. The cat, genie and horse are all out of their respective containers on that.
16. It will not be for ministers or parliament to simply reverse Euratom on a whim. No doubt that notice will have to be revoked or amended.
17. The second assumption is that the EU will go along with only those parts of Brexit for which there are "numbers" in UK parliament.
18. The EU do not care which parts of Brexit have numbers in Commons. It will make no difference. The EU has already set out its position.
19. Cross-bench alliances can vote for all sorts of concessions and compromises on Brexit, but no reason why EU will notice still less care.
20. Parliament, and UK ministers, are no longer in control of Brexit, whatever the "numbers".
/ends

ISTM that DAG is correct: we have officially told the EU the UK is leaving Euratom and we cannot now simply decide we are not. But if we do want to (or the Government is forced to) rescind that part of the A50 notification, then the other part must surely also be capable of being rescinded?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1935 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2017, 7:18 pm

Plan? What plan? Boris Johnson Says There Is ‘No Plan’ For Brexit Without A Deal But David Davis Said There Was
Theresa May has been asked to urgently clear up the “shocking” confusion over the Brexit process, after Boris Johnson today directly contradicted David Davis over whether the government had made contingency plans for leaving the EU without a deal.


They don't seem to have a plan for any sort of a deal, so why expect them to have a plan for no deal?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1936 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2017, 9:33 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Banks begin London exodus as hopes of transitional deal fade
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain may have left it too late to convince major banks that it can strike a deal to soften the impact of Brexit before they start shifting jobs from London.

Top executives at five of the largest banks in the capital told Reuters a staggered deal on leaving the European Union is only likely to be agreed late on in talks with Brussels, meaning they have already begun relocating staff.

And a more conciliatory government tone towards business, having largely refrained from engaging with corporate leaders about Brexit ahead of last month's election, may be too late.

"The timeframe for when we wanted a transitional deal has already passed," an executive at one global bank said, adding it had taken a decision to move hundreds of roles to continental Europe regardless of what the government does.

Finance minister Philip Hammond said last week that Britain should push for a transitional deal to help businesses, while the government held its first high level meeting with corporate leaders in months to discuss Brexit.

But James Bardrick, the UK head of U.S. bank Citi (C.N), said the government has been too slow to get any early deals with Europe and banks will have to be ready by September 2018.

"There's been a lot of talk and not a lot of action for a long time. I am anxious it is all a bit late," Bardrick said.

Executives say the timetable to relocate staff and operations is tighter than it looks because it could take longer than eighteen months to set up new buildings, get licenses, hire or relocate staff and build up the capital of EU divisions.

The chairman of one of Britain's largest banks told Reuters he recently resisted pressure from staff to enact his company's contingency plan, but he will probably have to give the go-ahead by the end of the summer.

"Every single day I have people coming into my office asking me to press the button on contingency plans," he said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5943
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1937 Postby animist » July 12th, 2017, 8:55 am

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Banks begin London exodus as hopes of transitional deal fade
did you see the bit at the end? The Governor of the Bank of England is in effect advising banks to leave the UK:

"Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has also previously said that banks will have to begin relocating activities to other countries by September. Carney has asked banks to show by Friday how they can avoid their customers being abruptly cut off after Brexit, which bankers say may inadvertently speed up the departure of jobs from Britain."

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1938 Postby Alan H » July 12th, 2017, 10:33 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Banks begin London exodus as hopes of transitional deal fade
did you see the bit at the end? The Governor of the Bank of England is in effect advising banks to leave the UK:

"Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has also previously said that banks will have to begin relocating activities to other countries by September. Carney has asked banks to show by Friday how they can avoid their customers being abruptly cut off after Brexit, which bankers say may inadvertently speed up the departure of jobs from Britain."
Indeed. Good business sense anyway but Carney is obviously concerned about their customers. Pity we don't have a Government concerned about how Brexit will affect the rest of us.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1939 Postby Alan H » July 12th, 2017, 1:23 pm

Those damnable nasty EU bureaucrats demanding the UK gets a move on... Brexit: EU demands answers from UK on fate of its citizens within five days - and says 'the clock is ticking'
The EU has piled further pressure on Britain to settle its “divorce bill” and the fate of EU citizens after Brexit – demanding answers within five days.

Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, also ridiculed Boris Johnson’s claim that the EU could “go whistle” over the multi-billion pound exit settlement.

“I'm not hearing any whistling, just the clock ticking,” Mr Barnier told a Brussels conference - underlining where the power lies, in his view.

The second round of the withdrawal negotiations will get underway next Monday, bringing Mr Barnier face-to-face with Brexit Secretary David Davis again.

But the chief negotiator said he wanted clarification “before the beginning of the second round” – making clear he was willing to work through the weekend to make progress.

Mr Barnier also insisted he was not trying to push Theresa May into walking out of the talks by requiring the continued jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, including over the rights of citizens.

“I don’t want to push anybody over the edge, but we have to find clear and sustainable solutions,” he said.
Mr Barnier’s comments came as credit ratings agency Moody's warned that Britain would face “materially weaker” growth if it failed to secure a good deal on trade after Brexit.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5943
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1940 Postby animist » July 12th, 2017, 1:38 pm

Alan H wrote:Those damnable nasty EU bureaucrats demanding the UK gets a move on... Brexit: EU demands answers from UK on fate of its citizens within five days - and says 'the clock is ticking'

"But the chief negotiator said he wanted clarification “before the beginning of the second round” – making clear he was willing to work through the weekend to make progress."

I hope he bills Britain for the overtime! :D

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22036
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1941 Postby Alan H » July 12th, 2017, 4:02 pm

UK offer makes Europeans ‘second class’ citizens, say MEPs
A cross-party group of European parliamentarians on Monday called the U.K.’s offer on citizenship a “damp squib,” and threatened to veto any Brexit deal come 2019 if the U.K. doesn’t improve it.

In a letter to the Guardian, the MEPs — including Guy Verhofstadt of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, Manfred Weber of the European Peoples’ Party, and Gianni Pittella of the Socialists and Democrats — accused the U.K. of becoming the “new champion of red tape” for making it more difficult for EU citizen to move to and remain in the Britain.

“It creates a type of a second class citizenship for European citizens living in the U.K.,” Verhofstadt told BBC Radio 4 on Monday. “We don’t see why these rights should be diminished.”

The MEPs’ main contentions were that under the British proposal, family reunification would become “very difficult,” and it would not allow EU citizens to participate in British local elections.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest