Jesus wept, what a bloody ridiculous storm in a teacup! All May needs to do is declare that the only threat to the EU citizens who are settled here will be if other Euro-states pre-empt it, and start deporting expat Brits, then there will be a commensurate deportation of the dissident country's citizens back to where they came from. Sorted!! FFS it isn't rocket science! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39151755
Seems perfectly reasonable for a reciprocal arrangement. How it's done is the issue of course. But it should be done.
It's done by making a simple statement 'If you chuck out our expats, then make no mistake, we'll chuck out yours.' Everybody seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
It seems to me that the best idea would be to let the expats be, whoever and wherever they are. Yes I'm guilty of simplistic thinking.
I think you are, and in your case it surprises me: The point is this: there are around a million expats in the various countries of the EU (it will obviously be more than that if Brit contract workers are taken into the equation); now, if we didn't have the quid pro quo arrangement, and any one of those countries or all of them began deporting Brits, then there wouldn't be enough housing in the UK for the expats on their return?
Most of them are married or have a job, they will be treated as every else immigrant : badly, but that's nothing against the brits.
We have a million UK expats in the EU and 3 million EU expats living in the UK. We'll take one for one with each nation involved. A reciprocal arrangement. Otherwise my fellow subjects are free to negotiate their citizenship with all other countries individually. We do have expats living in non EU countries. So it's hardly an issue. It's normatively done with every non EU country. Only the EU wants to be "special", but it isn't.
The issue is that the EU migrants in the UK require confidence that their positions will not be undermined. The May government do not want to grant the assurance until they have received corresponding assurance from the EU. The EU is refusing to grant such assurance until Article 50 is triggered. The House of Lords have bounced Article 50 because they want the EU migrants to be assured. Cerebus's suggestion does nothing to change the underlying positions, but re-phrases it in a manner that should provide sufficient assurance to the EU migrants living in the UK. But only if those EU migrants also believe that you are not "Nazi"s. I wonder if they do....
EU migrants don't require anything at all. Their presence here as a privilege. They are always welcome to leave. Any time. Our borders are always open to them to pass out through. If they think we are Nazi's they are free both to leave and not to come in the first place. As just about the worlds top migration destination I think it's pretty clear that they don't think we are Nazi's. Most likely we are more well known for being the opposition to the Nazi's. Unlike the EU, which is well known for being their historical homeland.
I don't know why on earth they should, but if they do believe it then the solution is in their own hands - that can return to their countries of origin. Nobody is going to force them to stay here.
Exactly. I can't help but feel that, as I have predicted - together with the Brussels jobsworths and the 27 member countries, m'Luds are going to drag this thing out for as long as they can, and we poor suckers will have to pay for it all. I'm beginning to get sick of the very word 'Brexit'.
The "meaningful vote" stipulation is more worrisome. https://www.ft.com/content/38341f28-3022-35c4-95e4-4da05f00933e
The link shows the four subscriptions options but doesn't explain what the meaningful vote is, and I can't find anything about it with a search. Any chance you can précis it for me please?
Here is a different link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/brexit-lords-vote-article-50-amendment-watch-live/ Basically, the "meaningful vote" catch will mean that Parliament can forestall Brexit indefinitely, by rejecting every negotiated proposal that is not exactly like staying in the EU. May's suggestion, a vote to either accept the proposal or leave on WTO terms, is far more certain.
We have Brexited with or without Parliament. They quite simply haven't been allowed a say since they don't represent anyone in this except for themselves. UKIP have the democratic mandate for the UK in the EU. Westminster only has a mandate to hold and respect an EU referendum. I see no reason for parliament not to vote on any new EU treaty. If they think the public will agree with one, they can put it to referendum. Rejecting a new agreement, however does not imply continued EU membership. Sorry. That is done. Personally, WTO is preferred. I won't be voting for EU by any other name.
Oh I see, thanks. You've probably seen this from yesterday: "European commission president says he regrets Brexit but hopes Britain will return in the future" Fat chance! He's just beginning to realise how much they're going to miss our colossal contributions. In fact, with our obsession with 'doing the right thing' and the need to 'lead from the front' in the morality stakes, it wouldn't surprise me to learn our contributions are subsidising the net beneficiaries to a far greater extent than is supposed. Also, seeing as we've been virtually out of the EU farce for about 7 or 8 months, our contributions during that time ought to be enough to meet our divorce settlement without paying the notional 60 billion euros. The sooner we can wash our hands of this bureaucratic imbroglio the better.
Makes no difference to them if we leave. Our reduced contributions won't reduce any of their pay cheques. He probably means what he says. And good for him, why be a asshat about it. We are off, no need to rub anyone's noses in anything. Not even dicks like him. Oh what am I saying. I want Nigel Farage to deliver A50 to the EU in chamber. And I want him to rip the living piss out of them when he does. And then come home and get knighted by the Queen directly afterwards. The old two fingered salute.
It would take 7 years of current net contributions (8.5bln) to equal the 60 billion. However, under a WTO exit there will also be a net tariff income of 7.7bln pa on net EU imports, reducing the payment period from 7 years to 4 years. Obviously the EU will be better off in the long term by forgetting the 60 billion and getting exempt from UK tariffs.
Well with at least 3 elections coming up in the near future a lot can happen in that time. If the EU goes pear-shaped as I fully expect it to, the ramifications of 'EU imports' will become academic, because they won't be making anything to export? Nor be able to afford to buy what we have to export for that matter. Greece certainly couldn't afford to buy anything right now.
Exempt from UK tariffs my arse. We have a trade imbalance with the EU. It is about to get rectified. WTO style. The days of bribery are over.
