The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[NurembergVillan]

53 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

That tit to the front of the queue please.

He looks like someone who still thinks Men Behaving Badly is current comedy.

I was in a Wetherspoons recently, to use the toilet, and every table had got loads of pro-Brexit marketing on.  It was kinda weird.

[ml1dch]

Just now, NurembergVillan said:

I was in a Wetherspoons recently, to use the toilet, and every table had got loads of pro-Brexit marketing on.  It was kinda weird.

I trust you took a good selection into the cubicle and put it to appropriate use.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said:

I was in a Wetherspoons recently, to use the toilet, and every table had got loads of pro-Brexit marketing on.  It was kinda weird.

A typical Wetherspoons is kinda weird at the best of times..... 

[mjmooney]

[snowychap]

Staring into the Abyss: Citizens’ Rights after a No Deal Brexit.

Quote

Analysis of the UK Government and EU plans on the rights of the EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in the European Union in the event of a no deal Brexit.

Having resisted unilateral guarantees for EU27 citizens in the UK for over two years, and having promised to protect EU27 citizens unilaterally after all back in September, the UK government finally produced a paper yesterday on what happens to EU27 citizens in the UK – and UK citizens in the EU27 – in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit outcome. The Commission’s recent communication on a ‘no deal’ Brexit included its view on the same issue from the EU side. With the vote on the Withdrawal Agreement looming in the UK Parliament (see my overview of the whole agreement here), it’s an opportune moment to examine what would happen to these five million people if there’s no agreement.

EU27 citizens in the UK

The starting point is that the ‘Settled Status’ scheme for EU27 citizens in the UK would work in the same way as under the Withdrawal Agreement (which I discussed the details of here), including a five year period to leave and then return. However, this would not be an international law obligation, so the UK government would be free to change the details at some later date. For instance, it could have stricter rules on what happens when workers become unemployed, or otherwise regarding the definition of ‘worker’, or as regards qualification for permanent residence. But for now, the government does not intend to do so, stating that the ‘basis for qualifying will remain the same’ as under the planned scheme.

There are some differences with the planned settled status scheme, however. There would not be a transition period to the end of 2020 (extendable to 2022), because the withdrawal agreement creating it would not exist (on that transition period, see discussion here). So EU27 citizens arriving after Brexit Day would not be able to qualify under the new scheme. The deadline for registration for settled status would end earlier, at the end of 2020. The lower threshold for expulsion under UK law would apply for crimes committed after Brexit Day, rather than crimes committed after the end of the transition period.

For family reunion, there would be two cut off dates for applying the more generous rules on EU free movement law. First, there could be family reunion under the EU rules if the family link was created by Brexit Day. Such family reunion could take place within the following three years. Secondly, EU citizens with settled status could invoke the EU rules for family links created after Brexit Day if the family reunion took place before the end of 2020. After then, stricter UK rules would apply. This is stricter than under the withdrawal agreement, which would apply the EU family reunion rules without a time limit as long as the family link was created by the end of the transition period.

In institutional terms, there would be no jurisdiction for the CJEU as regards EU27 citizens in the UK (it would have residual jurisdiction for eight years after the end of the transition period, under the withdrawal agreement, to interpret the citizens’ rights part of that treaty). It is not clear if the independent monitoring authority for the rights of EU27 citizens in the UK, which would be set up under the withdrawal agreement, will still be set up in a no deal scenario. There would not be a right of appeal for EU27 citizens, but rather just administrative review and judicial review.

There would be equal treatment for access to benefits, education "broadly on the same terms as now”. The apparent qualification is not further explained. There is no reference to the export of benefits, ie to children of Polish workers in the UK who are still living in Poland. Qualifications recognised if an application to that effect is made before Brexit Day, or if they were already recognised by then.

UK citizens in the EU27

As it admits, the UK government cannot alter the position of UK citizens in the EU27. It can make decisions on some issues, however. The government commits itself to uprate pensions for UK citizens in the EU27, subject to reciprocity. It makes no comment on EU27 citizens who have paid into a UK state pension and then returned to the EU27. It will give UK citizens equal access to the NHS if they return to the UK.

There is an alarmingly vague statement about non-UK family members of UK citizens who return to the UK (this would apply to those with both EU and non-EU family). Surely in the interests of equality with EU27 in the UK, as well as protection of family life, it would make sense to maintain the government’s prior commitment to apply EU free movement rules to UK citizens who return with their families before the end of 2020.

Cumulation of social security contributions (ie combining contributions made in the UK and France) will be up to negotiations. The UK commits to voting rights for EU27 citizens in English local elections in May 2019 local elections (there is no mention of afterwards, and voting in Scotland and Wales is up to devolved governments to decide upon). The government is seeking reciprocity for voting rights of UK citizens in the EU27. (Note that because the issue relates to EU citizenship, voting rights are not covered by the citizens’ rights rules in the withdrawal agreement, and expressly excluded from the transition period rules).

For its sake, the recent Commission paper on the no deal scenario stated that UK citizens could apply for long-term residence status as non-EU citizens on the basis of the relevant EU law. But it made no reference to the position of those UK citizens who would not qualify, for instance due to spending less than five years in the country.

EFTA States

Even if there’s no deal with the EU, the UK would still seek a deal with EFTA States (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein), so EFTA States citizens in UK and UK citizens in EFTA States would have rights "broadly as now". There are no further details of what this might mean.

Comments

The UK government has now made clear that EU27 citizens in the UK would be mostly, but not entirely, in the same position as they would otherwise be if the withdrawal agreement is ratified. They would not, however, obtain rights if they entered during the transition period or have access to the CJEU. From Brexit Day, it would be easier to expel them and their family reunion rights would be curtailed. There might not be a monitoring body helping to enforce their rights. Along with EU citizens, there might be problems cumulating social security rights.

UK citizens in the EU face the utter indifference of the Commission, and so in practice their position would largely be up to national law. There is therefore a risk that, depending on their circumstances and the actions of the Member State where they reside, they would be far worse off than under the withdrawal agreement, despite its flaws (most notably, it fails to secure their continued right of free movement within the EU27).

The UK government could, of course, have announced unilateral guarantees two and a half years ago, sparing many EU27 citizens sleepless nights. For its part, the Commission could have proposed unilateral guarantees for UK citizens months ago. UK and EU27 citizens who have moved are caught between the Scylla of the UK government's cynicism, on the one hand, and the Charybdis of the Commission's indifference, on the other.

Alternative approaches are possible: either a treaty ring-fencing rights on both sides (as I suggested here), or a unilateral measure by the EU as a whole protecting UK citizens’ rights (as I suggested here). To achieve either objective, the European Parliament needs to get pushier with the Commission, making UK citizens’ acquired rights a genuine priority and exerting whatever pressure it can to shake the other institution out of its torpor. If that means cutting off the supply of cognac to the Berlaymont, so be it.

 

[peterms]

Norway?

 

[HanoiVillan]

That video is interesting, but notable that at least three of the four 'red lines' she says that the UK has were missing from Corbyn's op-ed in the Guardian this week (probably written by Starmer). These are Tory red lines; this option may become possible only with a change of government. 

[HanoiVillan]

On Carole Cadwalladr, since she was a topic of interest on here recently. Her tweet chain this morning is an absolute classic of the 'modern McCarthyite' genre:

The chain of connections she makes, for those wanting a summary, goes like this:

Seumas Milne hosted a panel discussion that Putin appeared on in 2014. A Conservative MP has published a report saying that Milne 'dovetails' with Russia's Ukraine policy. [Something about Trump and Farage that doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything]. Milne may or may not be having/have had an affair with a lawyer named Jennifer Robinson , who is a friend of Amal Clooney's* [seemingly this was important to mention] and is on Julian Assange's defence team. She then ties it all up with a bow saying '‘Organization 1’ is Wikileaks. Mueller has identified it as cut-out for Russian intelligence. Organization 1’s lawyer is close to Milne. Everyone has a right to a private life but at this point Corbyn needs to recognise the multiple conflicts of interest'. 

This is McCarthyism. Lawyers represent their clients in court; they are not the same people as the clients themselves. If I am accused of murder, my lawyer is not accused of murder alongside me. If Seumas Milne is having an affair with a lawyer, then I feel sorry for his wife, I guess, but the inference here is that he's having an affair with a lawyer who knows Julian Assange therefore because Julian Assange has ties to Russian government, it must follow that Milne has a 'conflict of interest' with regard to Russia, and because Russia may or may not have attempted to influence the 2016 referendum it must be the case that Milne must be directed by Moscow and therefore we should see Labour's policy in that light and on and on and on. What's missing is any actual evidence, of anything (except possibly that Milne is or was having an affair at some point). 

What's even more breathtaking is that some people push this stuff and at the same time bemoan the fact that people don't trust 'experts' any more. 

Spoiler

*Doubtless we'll be finding out in the next installment just how compromised Nespresso are. 

 

[peterms]

59 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On Carole Cadwalladr, since she was a topic of interest on here recently. Her tweet chain this morning is an absolute classic of the 'modern McCarthyite' genre:

Part of the picture on this is that the Guardian and many of its staff have a fervent hatred of Assange.

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, peterms said:

Part of the picture on this is that the Guardian and many of its staff have a fervent hatred of Assange.

Im not sure why you say that, or think that  but even if it were so, I dont see what that says about the story. The Washington Post didn't much like Nixon, but that didnt mean their posts on Watergate were made up. The same notion applied to many other stories. Papers hostile to Blair, to Thatcher, etc. Investigated stories and revealed dirt about WMDs and so on. CC's stories have yet to join all the dots on Brexit, or on this one, but "motive" is a weak retort, were it to be made.

[HanoiVillan]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

Im not sure why you say that, or think that  but even if it were so, I dont see what that says about the story. The Washington Post didn't much like Nixon, but that didnt mean their posts on Watergate were made up. The same notion applied to many other stories. Papers hostile to Blair, to Thatcher, etc. Investigated stories and revealed dirt about WMDs and so on. CC's stories have yet to join all the dots on Brexit, or on this one, but "motive" is a weak retort, were it to be made.

The radical thought occurs that maybe she could refrain from publishing until she has 'joined the dots'. 

[bickster]

Seamus Milne is not only a Putin apologist, he also has a rather romanticised view of soviet communism

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Im not sure why you say that, or think that  but even if it were so, I dont see what that says about the story.

Because of the remarks they have made about him over the course of several years, both in the paper and on twitter (eg Suzanne Moore, Deborah Orr, Luke Harding, James Ball, Heather Brooke).

Just a few days ago the paper ran a story about Manafort visiting Assange, which seems to be a fabrication (and they are now rowing back, it seems).

It's the context, and comments in the Guardian on things which mention Assange are best viewed with that context in mind.

[ml1dch]

4 hours ago, peterms said:

Part of the picture on this is that the Guardian and many of its staff have a fervent hatred of Assange.

Surely that's like having a hatred of wasps? Or flu.

I wouldn't have seen it as a particularly controversial position.

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Surely that's like having a hatred of wasps? Or flu.

I wouldn't have seen it as a particularly controversial position.

Based on...the sex allegations in Sweden?  Or something more substantial?

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

Based on...the sex allegations in Sweden?  Or something more substantial?

Based on the fact he's turned himself into a willing stooge of the Kremlin I'd imagine. It's one thing wanting all information out in the open, it's another to be used by One State in order to attempt to disrupt the democracy (I know, I Know) of another

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Based on the fact he's turned himself into a willing stooge of the Kremlin I'd imagine. It's one thing wanting all information out in the open, it's another to be used by One State in order to attempt to disrupt the democracy (I know, I Know) of another

This is rhetoric without substance.

Willing stooge of the Kremlin...reads like a Mail editorial circa 1950, tbh.

The documents Wikileaks has published have been pretty embarrassing to a wide range of people.  In fact the Guardian once eagerly took the opportunity to reprint some of them.

Should we not welcome information made available which our leaders would prefer us not to see?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

This is rhetoric without substance.

 

So you don't believe WikiLeaks is Organisation 1, I do, therefore from my perspective, it is not without substance

it is named in the Steele dossier so there's some substance. We can not believe anything if we want to but I think there's plenty out there, enough for me to believe in my opinion

[LondonLax]

Funny how female accuses of sexual assaults should be believed sometimes but not others. 

[chrisp65]