EU Brexit thread

[cherdano]

I think it's a case of "If we rule out this option, then we lose it as a bargaining chip". I have every expectation that EU citizens in the UK and Brits in the EU will get reciprocal rights and that they will see very little change, but if the UK says "yes you can all stay", the EU has a free hand to offer what it likes.

It's only a bargaining position if it can plausibly happen. How would you feel about hearing "No, Cyberyeti probably won't have to leave this country (where he has been living for 15 years, he has his job and his kids are going to school). He is only being used as a bargaining chip."

 

But it doesn't even make sense as a bargaining chip. Do you really think other EU countries mind if they "have to" let highly qualified doctors immigrate? Many EU countries have a shortfall on doctors, and some of them have a government with reasonable views on immigration.

 

I think May announced that foreign NHS doctors will lose their jobs because that's what she wants to do, or what she thinks voters want to hear, not in order to improve her non-existing bargaining leverage.

[fromageGB]

I am sure your friends are protesting, now that Theresa May has made clear that the mandate from Brexit is to throw out foreign doctors, and enable hostility to all other kinds of foreign workers?

You and I are reading different things. I have not seen a report of May espousing throwing out foreign doctors and hostility to all kinds of foreign workers. What I have see in that we might now start accepting for training those qualified UK medical students who have in the past applied but been rejected in favour of saving money by bringing in more doctors from abroad, and I have seen that a possible option would be to introduce work permits to allow import of workers, rather than letting any immigrant in who wishes just to be unemployed and perhaps look for work.

 

Are these bad ideas?

[cherdano]

You and I are reading different things.

We do.

I have not seen a report of May espousing throwing out foreign doctors and hostility to all kinds of foreign workers.

Hunt promised to make the NHS "self-sufficient in doctors" by 2025. Logically, that means asking foreign doctors have to leave by then.

 

May was asked to clarify by BBC breakfast, and said "Yes, there will be staff here from overseas in the interim period until the further numbers of British doctors are trained and come on board in terms of being able to work in our hospitals, so we will ensure that the numbers are there."

(Emphasis mine.)

 

As for hostility against foreign workers, how else would you describe a plan forcing companies to publicly list all their foreign employees? Here is a timeline:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-tories-foreign-workers-list-9030397

 

Of course, this plan is so idiotic that even a UKIP/Tory government would never implement it, but the mere announcement is clearly aimed at pandering to and encouraging the xenophobes.

[fromageGB]

I see hedge funds are more important than democratic decisions.

 

Parliament voted 544 to 53 to refer the EU membership decision to the people. Voters were given a booklet saying "this is your decision, the government will implement what you decide". Voters decided to leave.

 

Now bigwigs are apparently saying that the vote meant nothing, that we voted the wrong way, and that it doesn't count. Well, I was perhaps naive, but for a while I believed in democracy.

[helene_t]

The bigwigs didn't turn over brexit. They just turned over Teressa May's dictatorial powers. Sounds reasonable to me. It is very unlikely that the parlament will vote against Brexit, but at least May is now forced to provide some transparency.

 

UK is not a full democracy - the press and the government are both owned by big money, the electoral system is a joke, and the once independent BBC has been bullied into becoming yet another arm of the government's propaganda machine.

 

What makes UK in a better position than other nominal democracies such as Turkey, Russia and Poland is that at least the judiciary is independent. For now.

[Zelandakh]

The European Union Referendum Act did not state any consequences that would follow from the vote, nor was it legally binding on any government. Thus it actually has no real status legally. Given that the UK is a parliamentary democracy it is therefore quite right that parliament is sovereign. The government and other MPs could easily have made it so that the EURA was sufficient of itself without requiring a further vote.

 

Of course the government does not need a further Act giving away the detailed negotiating position as is being suggested in some quarters. A fairly simple Bill will suffice as it would be almost impossible for the opposition parties to block it without losing a huge standing in the country. It might yet not come to that either as the government has an appeal going through next month.

 

Anyone who is hoping (or fearing) that this ruling will mean that Article 50 is not triggered is going to be extremely disappointed (or relieved).

[kenberg]

Some thoughts from afar (written as Zel was posting above). "this is your decision, the government will implement what you decide" sounds like a pledge, but so does "Read my lips, no new taxes", (approximate quote from the first Bush. Pledges get broken. But, on the other hand, there has been an election (or rather a PM selection by Parliamentary vote) since the referendum. Teresa May said she would implement the choice made in the referendum, and she is the PM. I am right so far? It would seem that Parliament is involved already. I am not an expert here, but the Parliament could have a vote of no confidence and replace her, could they not? Or maybe she gets a minimum length of stay before that can happen?

 

Anyway, I hope you work it all out, but from afar I am not seeing anything dictatorial about an elected Prime Minister doing what she promised to do. I was hoping Brexit would fail. I am hoping Clinton wins. We can all hope, but dreams don't always come true.

[Al_U_Card]

Brexit was an expression of democratic principles versus the "oppression" of un-elected bureaucrats deciding how citizens of their and other countries should behave and be allowed to act.

 

Clinton represents all that is good (on the surface) and all that is bad (the fetid under-belly) where large sums of money and the exercise of power are concerned. Those re-discovered e-mails will require Obama to pardon her much like Bill pardoned Marc Rich. The well-connected get to operate with impunity because they can finger their associates.

[Zelandakh]

Anyway, I hope you work it all out, but from afar I am not seeing anything dictatorial about an elected Prime Minister doing what she promised to do.

Obama promised to change healthcare but he was not allowed to create a healthcare bill in the HoR or Senate. His role is to enact what the elected houses bring. Parliament (together with the Lords) has the same role as these houses in the UK. In theory at least. In practice the ability of the PM to give parliamentary privileges means that they also control parliament in addition to their executive powers. But bypassing parliament completely could easily be seen as dictatorial - Kaitlyn would certainly label it so if HC tried it! ;)

 

As to the other points, yes there was an election. The PM has a fixed term of office now (a recent change) but this can be cut short by a vote of no confidence. There is some precedent for tying a vote of confidence to constitutional change too - John Major did so to force through the Maastricht treaty when parliament voted against it in 1992. Am confident that this will not happen for Brexit though!

[Cyberyeti]

The legal case is interesting, a court in Northern Ireland ruled the opposite way on the same facts and similar law. The point in question is whether you can rescind the invoking of article 50 after you've done it, and nobody has a clue. It would probably require a European court to decide that because it's unclear.

[mycroft]

Reading the court summary, all it's saying is that the State - Theresa May and her cabinet, "advising the Queen" - can't do this unilaterally, even with a mandate from the people (such as it was). Parliament needs to be consulted and must be the organ of government that triggers Art. 50. Given British History, being told that "the King can't do what he wants, without the backing of the people" - is ... a good thing?

 

As people are saying, that just means some more delay; the Conservatives have enough of a majority to ram this through without too much issue. What I have read, and think is a valid point, is that it will give an opportunity for Scotland to make very clear that it doesn't agree with Brexit, and will water the seeds of IndyRef2. Plus it will actually allow for debate to seep out into the real world, and after 800 years or so, the tactics of Loyal Opposition delay are very well organized.

 

Personally (as opposed to in my opinion), I am very disappointed. In the last few years, I have been allowed to apply for dual citizenship, and I was strongly tempted to go through the process. The biggest reason to do that is going away, and I am disappointed.

[fromageGB]

The legal case is interesting, a court in Northern Ireland ruled the opposite way on the same facts and similar law. The point in question is whether you can rescind the invoking of article 50 after you've done it, and nobody has a clue. It would probably require a European court to decide that because it's unclear.

What I find interesting is that after this high court decision has been upheld by the court of appeal, it will be the EU court that ultimately decides whether we can leave the EU !

 

Well, not really, but in a case like this the legality of their jurisdiction is arguable.

 

Incidentally, the reason I referred to "bigwigs" is that I do not think I have seen a bigger one :

[mike777]

the Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009

because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

 

the twelve justices do not all hear every case. Typically a case is heard by a panel of five justices, though sometimes the panel may consist of three, seven or nine members. All twelve justices are also members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and spend some of their time in that capacity.

[Vampyr]

a load of xenophobes and other ignoramuses screwed me and my descendants. why would anyone not be bitter about that?

 

Sure, you might be unhappy about the potential effect on you. My comment was about how bitter (and possibly jealous) Trinidad was.

[cherdano]

What I find interesting is that after this high court decision has been upheld by the court of appeal, it will be the EU court that ultimately decides whether we can leave the EU !

 

LOL. You come back to post this non-sense?

[Cyberyeti]

LOL. You come back to post this non-sense?

 

It's not quite as stupid as it seems.

 

The question was never whether we could leave, or whether a parliamentary debate was required, but whether we needed a debate before invoking article 50. This depends on European law as to whether you can rescind invoking article 50 after you've done it. If not you need the debate now, if you can, it can wait. A court in NI ruled you could skip the debate now, the high court disagreed, in fact only a European court can really answer whether you can rescind article 50. If the court of appeal overturns the ruling, then it goes to the supreme court and then indeed to Europe.

[PeterAlan]

... If the court of appeal overturns the ruling, then it goes to the supreme court ...

It's going direct to the Supreme Court, skipping the Appeal Court step.

[Aberlour10]

It looks like at the moment... it will be a dirty divorce.

[Cyberyeti]

It looks like at the moment... it will be a dirty divorce.

 

I'm hoping a certain amount of common sense will break out.

 

I'm hearing a lot more sense from politicians actually IN the member states as against the ones in Brussels whose toys are going out the pram.

[Zelandakh]

France and Germany have upcoming elections. The results of these will have a very large impact on the way the negotiations might go. That makes the time before those elections something of a positioning game. I doubt we will really get down to the nitty-gritty of the thing for some months.

[cherdano]

France and Germany have upcoming elections. The results of these will have a very large impact on the way the negotiations might go. That makes the time before those elections something of a positioning game. I doubt we will really get down to the nitty-gritty of the thing for some months.

France would obviously have a big impact if it went wrong.

But could you predict the effect of a Schulze victory versus a Merkel reelection? Obviously, Merkel has been at this game for a bit longer, and she knows what she is doing. Probably so would Schulze, but you never know beforehand.

[Aberlour10]

France and Germany have upcoming elections. The results of these will have a very large impact on the way the negotiations might go. That makes the time before those elections something of a positioning game. I doubt we will really get down to the nitty-gritty of the thing for some months.

 

Surely, Germany and France take always the leading role in such negotiations,,,but this time there are more players at the table. The final agreement about exit must be signed by all 26 others in the EU,,,and all of them have different interests....take we for example Poland

 

the key problem is the access to the EU single market....many countries, especially Poland will agree only if the free movement for EU citiziens will remain.

 

and now?

[Cyberyeti]

Surely, Germany and France take always the leading role in such negotiations,,,but this time there are more players at the table. The final agreement about exit must be signed by all 26 others in the EU,,,and all of them have different interests....take we for example Poland

 

the key problem is the access to the EU single market....many countries, especially Poland will agree only if the free movement for EU citiziens will remain.

 

and now?

 

If Germany and France want something in Europe, they tend to get it, and I think this will be even more the case after Brexit. I can see smaller (in economic terms) countries coming under immense pressure along the lines of "Britain has gone, if our economies turn down because you're not allowing us to trade with them on good terms, where do you think the money for you is coming from".

 

The question is what Germany and France will want.

[Aberlour10]

If Germany and France want something in Europe, they tend to get it, and I think this will be even more the case after Brexit. I can see smaller (in economic terms) countries coming under immense pressure along the lines of "Britain has gone, if our economies turn down because you're not allowing us to trade with them on good terms, where do you think the money for you is coming from".

 

The question is what Germany and France will want.

 

Times are changing, the times in which " Brussels compromises" were equal with...what Merkel wants, are over.

[gwnn]

I'm hoping a certain amount of common sense will break out.

LOL