@StevePeers: 5 ...argues EU proposal is too generous to EU citizens in UK it is equally in effect arguing that UK citizens in EU should be protected less
Does he imagine that equivalent welfare and pensions systems exist all across the EU? If he does, he's an idiot.
Nope - the principle is one of reciprocity. EU27 nationals are entitled to the same rights as UK citizens in the UK. UK citizens living in an EU27 country are entitled to the same rights as the citizens of that country.
I'd prefer it if EU citizens were entitled to the same benefits here that they are at home.
I was willing to tolerate this until he said we need ECJ law operating in our country because we "need grown up supervision".
Ugh. Fuck off. Really. Enough of this fucking nonsense. England is the land of Magna Carta, of the Glorious Revolution and the Mother of Parliaments. The ECJ is a bunch of Moldovans, Germans, commies and Belgians sitting in Luxembourg daring to lecture us on human rights, because we need *grown-up supervision*?
Haddaway and shite, you pathetic, spineless Remoaners. Have some self respect. You are BRITISH.
He didn't say that. He described the ECJ proposal as provocative. However, we clearly need a mechanism to ensure that rights are guaranteed. That is where the negotiation should be centred, not on whether the rights should continue to exist.
The rights should be guaranteed under British law just as they should be for any other person permanently settled in the UK.
The rights that EU citizens have currently are, with a few very narrowly enshrined exceptions, the ones that all UK citizens enjoy. There is no difference. That is not the case with citizens of third-countries permanently settled in the UK. The same principle applies to UK citizens in the EU27. The EU is proposing that this continue. It looks horribly like the UK is not. Hopefully, that is not correct. It would be nice if the government would say.
The Government is saying that everyone in the UK should have the same rights, not different ones just for people who happen to be from another country originally.
Do you really want to establish the principle that we should treat foreign born people differently to our own citizens. I would suggest it sets a very dangerous precedent.
Different people do have different rights already. The principle for EU citizens is that they have the same rights as UK citizens in the UK. And vice versa for UK citizens living in the EU27. A UK permanent resident with Russian or Indian citizenship does not necessarily enjoy the same rights.
I was willing to tolerate this until he said we need ECJ law operating in our country because we "need grown up supervision".
Ugh. Fuck off. Really. Enough of this fucking nonsense. England is the land of Magna Carta, of the Glorious Revolution and the Mother of Parliaments. The ECJ is a bunch of Moldovans, Germans, commies and Belgians sitting in Luxembourg daring to lecture us on human rights, because we need *grown-up supervision*?
Haddaway and shite, you pathetic, spineless Remoaners. Have some self respect. You are BRITISH.
He didn't say that. He described the ECJ proposal as provocative. However, we clearly need a mechanism to ensure that rights are guaranteed. That is where the negotiation should be centred, not on whether the rights should continue to exist.
The rights should be guaranteed under British law just as they should be for any other person permanently settled in the UK.
The rights that EU citizens have currently are, with a few very narrowly enshrined exceptions, the ones that all UK citizens enjoy. There is no difference. That is not the case with citizens of third-countries permanently settled in the UK. The same principle applies to UK citizens in the EU27. The EU is proposing that this continue. It looks horribly like the UK is not. Hopefully, that is not correct. It would be nice if the government would say.
The Government is saying that everyone in the UK should have the same rights, not different ones just for people who happen to be from another country originally.
Do you really want to establish the principle that we should treat foreign born people differently to our own citizens. I would suggest it sets a very dangerous precedent.
Different people do have different rights already. The principle for EU citizens is that they have the same rights as UK citizens in the UK. And vice versa for UK citizens living in the EU27. A UK permanent resident with Russian or Indian citizenship does not necessarily enjoy the same rights.
That's exactly what will happen if the UK is opposed to honouring existing rights enjoyed by EU citizens.
@StevePeers: 2 First of all, DAG does mention this, but since so many reports don't, I'll repeat it: this issue is now also about *UK citizens in the EU*
@StevePeers: 3 UK govt refused to protect EU citizens' rights unilaterally, insisting that talks were needed to ensure UK citizens in EU were protected.
@StevePeers: 4 That means the issue from now one concerns both groups, and should be reported as such by UK media. It also means that any time UK govt...
@StevePeers: 5 ...argues EU proposal is too generous to EU citizens in UK it is equally in effect arguing that UK citizens in EU should be protected less
@StevePeers: 6 You might very well conclude UK govt's concern for UK citizens in the EU is therefore quite hypocritical; but I couldn't possibly comment.
@StevePeers: 8 Let's go further back than DAG goes on this. Here's the Leave side fishing for votes from UK expats: telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopic…
@StevePeers: 9 They make a specific legal argument that acquired rights are protected, so it's fine to vote for Brexit. This article was *repeatedly*...
@StevePeers: 10 ...linked to by Leave side keyboard warriors throughout referendum debate. Any questioning of the acquired rights line was "Project Fear"
Yep - by not guaranteeing the existing rights that EU citizens have here, the government is effectively opening the way for rights currently enjoyed by UK citizens in the EU27 to be removed. The current foreign secretary explicitly said that this would not happen.
They don't enjoy equivalent rights now.
What's the minimum wage in Latvia?
UK citizens living in Latvia are entitled to receive Latvia's minimum wage, just as Latvians living here are entitled to receive the UK minimum wage.
They are not the same thing financially so their rights are different.If memory serves, there are a number of countries in the EU that don't even have a minimum wage.
The same applies to pension provision, housing support, healthcare etc.
The EU's uniformity of rights is a myth.
It's not uniformity of rights, it is reciprocity of rights. You get what the locals get, not what you would get at home.
"The largest British political scandal ever" - really, what about the South Sea Bubble which embroiled the Monarchy, was the cause of several deaths and heralded the longest termof office of any British Prime Minister.
Looking at all these polls the story of the election so far is that the Lib Dems can't crack an egg never mind a major breakthrough with the voters so far.
They are at 10-11% in a lot of these polls and they scored just short of 8% in 2015 when they were crapped upon by the British public who obviously didn't appreciate them for what a fine bunch they are.
We all knew about Corbyn, the useless beard stroker that he is, but that is poor for the Liub Dems if it is borne out on polling day.
Their refusal to accept the referendum result is stifling their recovery.
Agreed, its not doing the SNP any favours either, and because neither they or their Independence cause have benefited from their constant whinging about Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will. The Libdems have to be careful that they don't end up being seen to be trying to cynically disrupt the efforts of the Government to get the best Brexit deal for UKplc like the SNP.
"The largest British political scandal ever" - really, what about the South Sea Bubble which embroiled the Monarchy, was the cause of several deaths and heralded the longest termof office of any British Prime Minister.
Hah, fair point Biggest scandal of our democratic times, let's go for.
I think 'rigging an election' is a slightly hyperbolic turn of phrase. Nobody is accused of stuffing ballots.
Stuffing ballots isn't the only way to do that however... Election law makes it illegal to do certain things in pursuit of votes. One of those is over-spending the legal limit, and breaking those limits would be absolutely central to trying to win votes by illegal means - which makes "rigging" a fair description IMHO.
Dear me, what an absurdly partisan take from Mark. "we already know that there is a very strong case against many if not all of the thirty plus. "
Look at what the independent regulator has already investigated, concluded and fined the Conservative Party on the basis of. That process unambiguously concluded that spending which should have been included against candidates' limits was not. The wording of their published ruling is very explicit on this. When the regulator concludes that the rules have been broken, saying "there is a very strong case" is an accurate description.
Dear me, what an absurdly partisan take from Mark. "we already know that there is a very strong case against many if not all of the thirty plus. "
Look at what the independent regulator has already investigated, concluded and fined the Conservative Party on the basis of. That process unambiguously concluded that spending which should have been included against candidates' limits was not. The wording of their published ruling is very explicit on this. When the regulator concludes that the rules have been broken, saying "there is a very strong case" is an accurate description.
No it's not. A very strong case in a criminal prosecution requires evidence of dishonesty, by the candidates personally.
But you know this of course, in principle. If it was anyone other than a Conservative potentially being charged, your solid Liberal principles would mean you would immediately see the difference, as well as assuming innocence until proven guilty. Remember that old-fashioned principle, one that Liberals used to be very keen to defend?
"Perhaps the CPS will decide not to prosecute. The CPS could come to a different view of the facts than the Commission. Or decide that although they think the law was broken that the only charges they can proceed on require proving a dishonest motivation and that won’t be possible. Certainly possible, but by no means certain."
I don't know who Mark Pack is but I don't think he left himself out on a limb.
Comments
That is freedom of movement
But you know this of course, in principle. If it was anyone other than a Conservative potentially being charged, your solid Liberal principles would mean you would immediately see the difference, as well as assuming innocence until proven guilty. Remember that old-fashioned principle, one that Liberals used to be very keen to defend?
I don't know who Mark Pack is but I don't think he left himself out on a limb.