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

[Chindie]

A document has 'leaked' laying out immigration plans post Brexit. It's predictable in its contents.

Free movement ends immediately on Brexit. EU immigration will be deterred in various ways, including strict residency permit time limits (2 years for low skilled, up to 5 for skilled) and restrictions on bringing family, etc etc.

...I hope the fruit growing communities have less of a problem with Indians than they do Poles.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

A document has 'leaked' laying out immigration plans post Brexit. It's predictable in its contents.

Free movement ends immediately on Brexit. EU immigration will be deterred in various ways, including strict residency permit time limits (2 years for low skilled, up to 5 for skilled) and restrictions on bringing family, etc etc.

...I hope the fruit growing communities have less of a problem with Indians than they do Poles.

If I could give that more likes than one, I would

[Chindie]

Labour are whipping MPs to oppose the Repeal Bill, supposedly. A few will still go with the government, so mark them as cowards morons or both, but about the first not entirely stupid Brexit thing Labour will attempt to do I think.

[Chindie]

The proposed immigration thing is doubly important as, obviously, it would spell the end of single market ambitions, unless we reckon we're capable of convincing the EU to give us a deal against their values with very little to leverage of our own, besides the old pointing a gun at our own head thing.

This government is obscenely stupid.

[snowychap]

Only a watertight withdrawal bill can put Brexit into effect

Quote

Very few MPs disagree with the need for a withdrawal bill to enable us to disentangle our 50-year relationship with the legal structures of the European Union and to enable us to function effectively outside of it. Having campaigned to remain in the EU, I voted to trigger Article 50, in response to the clearly expressed wish of the electorate. It must now be my duty as an MP to try to ensure that Brexit is as smooth as possible and that there is a sound legislative framework in place to bring this about. A chaotic departure is in no- one’s interest.

The challenge which the Government faces in bringing this about is considerable. Half a century of shared development and the growth of a common body of European law has affected many aspects of our domestic, economic, financial, social and legal order. EU law has evolved its own structures and rules to aid its interpretation and conferred rights on individuals and companies to challenge its application, based on general principles of law that are distinct from those which apply to us under our own law, in a purely domestic context. 

The Government has correctly recognised that this EU law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once. This is why the bill seeks to incorporate this law into our own statute book to ensure continuity, except where there is an immediate intention to bring in something different, such as in respect of immigration.

Unfortunately, the withdrawal bill is not, at present, up to addressing these issues. Even more worryingly, it seeks to confer powers on the Government  to carry out Brexit in breach of our constitutional principles, in a manner that no sovereign Parliament should allow.

The first objection lies in the way in which the Government is seeking to maintain legal continuity while bringing the current subordination of our legal system to the supremacy of EU law to an end. Once EU law ceases to be supreme it is unclear how this vast body of law, which will then be incorporated into our own domestic law, will be interpreted by our own courts. Some clauses of the bill  seek to confirm that all direct EU legislation operating before exit day survives and that all rights and remedies available under EU law persist, unless specifically abolished. The bill then seeks elsewhere to restrict the ability to enforce these rights, preventing our domestic courts from limiting or quashing the incorporated EU law on the basis that it is incompatible with the general principles on which EU law is based. In particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, whose principles form the bedrock of how EU law should be applied, ceases to apply after exit day.

The Charter has been criticised because of a tendency of the Court of Justice of the EU to interpret it in ways that are considered to wrongly expand its scope. But it and the general principles of EU law it reflects are essential safeguards for individuals and businesses that might be adversely affected by the application of EU law and they cannot and should not be removed in this fashion.

We are thus creating uncertainty as to how EU law will apply after incorporation. This is not a satisfactory position and it needs to be addressed during the passage of the legislation, as a lack of legal certainty is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. It was, I believe,  the reason why the president of our own Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, recently  expressed concern at the way the bill was drafted and at the difficult burden that this lack of clarity would place on our judiciary.   

Second, in order to try to address uncertainties in the legislation, the Government is seeking the power to remedy any deficiency in the bill by statutory instrument, a “Henry VIII” clause allowing for ministerial rule by decree on any matter that can be connected to a failure of the incorporation of EU law to operate effectively. The  judge of the effectiveness of the operation of the law will be the minister himself. Even before the bill was published, the House of Lords select committee on the constitution highlighted its concern at the creation of sweeping powers of this kind. As published in this bill, it allows for the possibility of vast areas of law being changed without full parliamentary process. It is essential that these powers should both be reduced and better defined in scope and made subject to a credible system of affirmative parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that they are only used where legitimately needed.

It is the final oddity of the withdrawal bill that it seeks to provide a legal framework for a complete severance of our country from the EU, when the Government is also committed to trying to negotiate a continuing relationship with the EU after Brexit. It is therefore unclear what further legislation might be needed before we leave the EU to provide for this, or how it might impact on the withdrawal bill itself. As presently drafted, no further reference to Parliament will in theory be needed before the final ending of our EU membership. Parliament should ensure that the withdrawal bill cannot be brought into force until the final agreement being negotiated by the Government has become crystallised. Otherwise we are simply leaving it to the executive to decide what is best. This is an abdication of our responsibility.

Scrutinising detail is not obstructing the referendum result. The electorate did not vote to “take back control” to see our domestic constitution and liberties vandalised. If the Government listens on this, we can all work together to effect this major constitutional change properly.

Dominic Grieve QC is the Conservative MP for Beaconsfield 

 

[Chindie]

This is a very good watch. It's a series of clips of a former Bank of England economist Adam Posen, more gas of the Petersen Institute for International Economics, discussing Brexit and it's impacts. It's well worth watching, a lot of it will be familiar but he presents his comments very well and ties back to post events for insight. He also makes a few more overtly political comments of interest, and attacks that common thread about the pounds drop being good for exports.

The key to take away?

Brexit is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really exceptionally **** stupid.

[magnkarl]

If I were an EU citizen right now I'd cut bait and leave. That document is beyond ridiculous and seems stricter than even the Australian model. If you haven't got private health insurance then now is the time to get it. Once most EU citizens decide that their home countries are better options than little Britain our public health system will likely collapse. 

Well done to our great political elite, one party pushed us over the edge while the opposition twiddled their thumbs until it was too late. Why the Lib Dems aren't making hay out of this I don't get. They could've looked at Switzerland and Norway and tried to emulate, instead they're singing 'rule Britannia' while standing at the bow of a sinking ship.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

If I were an EU citizen right now I'd cut bait and leave. That document is beyond ridiculous and seems stricter than even the Australian model. If you haven't got private health insurance then now is the time to get it. Once most EU citizens decide that their home countries are better options than little Britain our public health system will likely collapse. 

Well done to our great political elite, one party pushed us over the edge while the opposition twiddled their thumbs until it was too late. Why the Lib Dems aren't making hay out of this I don't get. They could've looked at Switzerland and Norway and tried to emulate, instead they're singing 'rule Britannia' while standing at the bow of a sinking ship.

2

No one trusts them, they only have themselves to blame

[HanoiVillan]

Brexit: Cabinet minsters 'revolt' against Theresa May's plan to curb migration

'Two of Theresa May’s most senior ministers have distanced themselves from her Brexit plans, it has been reported. 

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary and Damian Green, the First Secretary of State, are both said to have expressed “reservations” about Ms May’s leaked immigration plans. 

The radical suggestions to curb migration, which include a maximum two-year stay for low-skilled workers, sparked a backlash from business leaders and Brussels. 

Now both Ms Rudd and Mr Green have also indicated that Ms May’s plans do not have their full support, according to The Telegraph.

Mr Green hinted the Government could U-turn on the proposals as he was concerned about the effect it would have on the Brexit negations. 

Ms Rudd, whose department drew up the plans, may favour lighter regulations that make it easier for businesses to hire workers from the EU. 

The Government has insisted the leaked proposals are just a draft and amendments are likely to be made. 

The news comes as it emerged that the Government had asked FTSE 100 companies to sign a public letter endorsing its Brexit strategy. 

“We believe this is a good time for employers to work with government and parliament to make a success of Brexit and secure a bright future for our country,” said the letter, circulated to the companies.

Some of the business leaders disclosed they had refused the request, causing more havoc for Ms May’s plans. 

A spokesman for the Prime Minister declined to comment but said there had been lots of engagement with companies over Brexit.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-immigration-theresa-may-leaked-plans-cabinet-ministers-amder-rudd-damian-green-a7933526.html

That's got to be pretty embarrassing, her political protege and her closest advisor are the first rats preparing lifeboats. 

And just LOL at Theresa's idea of 'listening' to and 'engagement' with business, which involves people signing their name to a prepared letter saying things that hardly any of them actually agree with. I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that she's the sort of person who likes 'listening' to nothing more than prepared remarks agreeing with her: it's hardly out of character. 

[Chindie]

The letter was apparently also said to be open to amendment after it was signed... And given that Brexit is basically completely stupid from a business point of view for most major companies...No wonder they didn't want to sign it. 

[tonyh29]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Brexit: Cabinet minsters 'revolt' against Theresa May's plan to curb migration

'Two of Theresa May’s most senior ministers have distanced themselves from her Brexit plans, it has been reported. 

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary and Damian Green, the First Secretary of State, are both said to have expressed “reservations” about Ms May’s leaked immigration plans. 

The radical suggestions to curb migration, which include a maximum two-year stay for low-skilled workers, sparked a backlash from business leaders and Brussels. 

Now both Ms Rudd and Mr Green have also indicated that Ms May’s plans do not have their full support, according to The Telegraph.

Mr Green hinted the Government could U-turn on the proposals as he was concerned about the effect it would have on the Brexit negations. 

Ms Rudd, whose department drew up the plans, may favour lighter regulations that make it easier for businesses to hire workers from the EU. 

The Government has insisted the leaked proposals are just a draft and amendments are likely to be made. 

The news comes as it emerged that the Government had asked FTSE 100 companies to sign a public letter endorsing its Brexit strategy. 

“We believe this is a good time for employers to work with government and parliament to make a success of Brexit and secure a bright future for our country,” said the letter, circulated to the companies.

Some of the business leaders disclosed they had refused the request, causing more havoc for Ms May’s plans. 

A spokesman for the Prime Minister declined to comment but said there had been lots of engagement with companies over Brexit.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-immigration-theresa-may-leaked-plans-cabinet-ministers-amder-rudd-damian-green-a7933526.html

That's got to be pretty embarrassing, her political protege and her closest advisor are the first rats preparing lifeboats. 

And just LOL at Theresa's idea of 'listening' to and 'engagement' with business, which involves people signing their name to a prepared letter saying things that hardly any of them actually agree with. I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that she's the sort of person who likes 'listening' to nothing more than prepared remarks agreeing with her: it's hardly out of character. 

surely we have to apply the "Corbyn even though I'm not a supporter"  rule here and say the document was an aspiration rather than a policy seeing as its never been passed as such ?

Or do we accept as fact a leaked document that the government have said was a working draft of a proposal that has been changed since anyway ...: 

tbf a part of me thinks it was probably leaked intentionally to test the water both with the public and maybe even with the EU  but maybe I'm just a cynic 

 

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

tbf a part of me thinks it was probably leaked intentionally to test the water both with the public and maybe even with the EU  but maybe I'm just a cynic 

Given the reaction is apparently...

"... the UK's leaked migration paper has provoked fury in Brussels, where it has been described as "simply toxic" by an influential group of Liberal MEPs. 

With expats now describing the UK as a "hostile environment", the Telegraph is also claiming that Barnier was left "incensed" by last week's round of negotiations and has told officials that British hopes of negotiating a "bespoke" transition deal had been "killed off" as a result of the UK delegation's attitude. 

As always in these matters, we are relying on anonymous sources, and here it is a "senior EU diplomatic source with knowledge of Mr Barnier's feedback to EU capitals". He is cited as saying: "The Brits have passed the threshold when anything 'bespoke' is possible". Instead, we are told that Barnier is suggested that Britain will have to settle for an "off the shelf" transition deal, similar to the Efta/EEA option. 

This meshes with a report in the Irish Times which says that the leaked proposals on immigration "would represent a hardening of Britain's approach to Brexit, making impossible the kind of transitional arrangement suggested by UK ministers"

So that testing of the water seems to have gone well.

(quote from www.eureferendum.com)

Edited September 7, 2017 by ml1dch

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

surely we have to apply the "Corbyn even though I'm not a supporter"  rule here and say the document was an aspiration rather than a policy seeing as its never been passed as such ?

Or do we accept as fact a leaked document that the government have said was a working draft of a proposal that has been changed since anyway ...: 

'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'

As @ml1dch says, if it was 'testing the water' (which is not impossible, I do agree) it has backfired spectacularly. 

[chrisp65]

49 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

surely we have to apply the "Corbyn even though I'm not a supporter"  rule here and say the document was an aspiration rather than a policy seeing as its never been passed as such ?

Or do we accept as fact a leaked document that the government have said was a working draft of a proposal that has been changed since anyway ...: 

tbf a part of me thinks it was probably leaked intentionally to test the water both with the public and maybe even with the EU  but maybe I'm just a cynic 

 

Newsnight last night said that they knew of six other drafts that already supersede that version. Now, admittedly they might only be correcting spelling errors. But clearly this is ‘draft’ in the true sense of the word. Yes, probably handy as a test the water thing, probably useful to put some extreme stuff in there and row back in later versions. But you really can’t kick someone too hard for a leak of an out of date never published document that’s already been through six further updates.
The document apparently still includes mention of foreign workers needing to submit fingerprints. Again, according to Newsnight, that absolutely is not going to happen and is also due to be removed from the document on the seventh re write. 
 

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

put some extreme stuff in there and row back in later versions

I'm not sure we should assume that they row back in later versions.

This may well be an out of date never published document but that it was written at all and appears to contain (according to some of the 'commentariat') factual errors as well as policy proposals that go down very badly with a wide variety of people is still of significance. It may have been a test the water thing but there are only so many grenades you can throw in to the pool before there's no water left.

Given the Home Office errors over the summer, the poor performance history of the Home Office over decades, British governments' poor records on nationality and citizenship promises and that someone can have come up with a document like this at all, I don't think any EU citizen should have any confidence in what their status may or may not be on exit day (whichever one they decide upon) and afterwards.

[chrisp65]

oh yeah, I agree with all that, but I still don't think this document is the relevant place to pick the fight.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'

As @ml1dch says, if it was 'testing the water' (which is not impossible, I do agree) it has backfired spectacularly. 

I'd say the water hit them in the face like a 20 meter tsunami.

EU citizens in disbelief over UK's leaked Brexit proposals

Quote

Europeans living in the UK say they are disgusted by Home Office immigration paper revealed by the Guardian

I thought she was trying to be strong and stable..

Edited September 7, 2017 by magnkarl

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I'd say the water hit them in the face like a 20 meter tsunami.

EU citizens in disbelief over UK's leaked Brexit proposals

I thought she was trying to be strong and stable..

My supposed 'overreaction' from the previous EU referendum thread does not look so far fetched after all. 

 

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

the previous EU referendum thread

Blimey, from my first post in there, I doubted there would even be a referendum.

[ml1dch]

16 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Blimey, from my first post in there, I doubted there would even be a referendum.

Although you were pretty prescient on this:

"I don't have an issue with a referendum but I wouldn't see the different sides being put forward in such a way that a vote would take place in anything other than a theatre of scaremongering, misinformation and, probably, outright lies"