I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
Just bloody name them then.
This one is quite an interesting one. In response to TSE commenting:
"Eight years without access to the single market might just be bad for the economy."
one poster commented as follows:
"It would be an even worse disaster for the Eurozone nations. Those who suggest that the day after a LEAVE we would simply not trade with the EU are insane. No Range Rovers going to Ireland or BMWs arriving from Germany? Yeah right! Maybe they'd just stop assembling Airbuses for a few years while the negotiations trundled on. Germany in particular relies on abuse of its position in the Euro to maintain an export model it should not by rights be able to sustain. We are a huge and vital market for the Eurozone. The EU could keep eg South Africa in the slow lane because nothing was going to break by so doing. Trying the same with the UK could actually precipitate the EU collapse SeanT was referring to."
My word you've copied and filed posts?
No idea who wrote that but I'd suggest you have issues.
No, I've not filed posts. Words on the internet are easy to find when you know where they're stored. When people are vehemently denying that they've ever held a particular view, it's always useful to be able to double-check your recollection.
To what end?
Somebody posted a view, people express views all day everyday. To spend time attempting to prove them wrong suggests issues with inadequacy.
The internet has spawned a whole bunch of weirdos.
To what end? To show that far too many Leavers are self-deceiving and backwards-rationalising.
The exercise took me approximately 5 minutes.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that it is somehow inappropriate to remind people of aggressively-expressed views that they have done 180 degree turns on.
It may or may not be appropriate but it is mind-numbingly tedious.
And this is how Brexit will fail. Its loudest advocates will lose the will to defend it.
@IanDunt: Over & over again May's problems come down to that rash promise she made at Tory conference to pull out the ECJ theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
@IanDunt: Remember that day? How jubilant Brexiters were - even the sensible ones? Everyone else said: She's going to come a cropper on that ECJ bit.
@IanDunt: And now here we are and on issue after issue after issue the ECJ promise is reducing her room to manouvre, increasing the chances of no-deal
@IanDunt: and forcing millions of EU cits in UK to live with uncertainty. All because she needed to placate the lunatic fringe
@IanDunt: of her party on an issue the country didn't give a damn about.
Another moron who doesn't understand the importance of being able to make one's own laws . It is amusing how completely bereft of understanding the Eurofanatics are about the importance of leaving the ECJ. It is the fundamental basis of the whole Brexit process. Claiming it is simply some side issue just reveals your utter ignorance.
How do you ensure that two courts do not interpret the same law differently? That is at the root of the citizens' rights issue. There has to be one court at the top to issue a definitive judgment. That may not be the ECJ, but it has to be something. That is, if we want to ensure that existing rights are protected.
The Supreme Court of the UK seems like a good place to start.
A joint Supreme Court/ECJ body would seem to be the obvious goodwill solution. There is an EEA/EFTA court, why not a BREU one?
I'm sorry that you're sorry, the bottom line is we voted to Leave and no amount of googling or whataboutery is going to change that. C & P all day, show that somebody said something that proved incorrect, bang the keyboard as hard as you like, its done mate, finished.
What is absolutely obvious is that you lost and were proven wrong, you sound like a bloke who's girlfriend ran off with his best friend and you want to tell everyone what a prick he is. The point is she preferred the prick to you.
Goldfish Leave, where we're all supposed to forget what Leavers asserted before the vote because Brexit.
Mr. Sandpit, I'm afraid it was about five months ago, at Ladbrokes. No idea if anyone here followed it. I was too late to back him to join Mercedes, but the unusually long title odds were still up.
I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
Just bloody name them then.
This one is quite an interesting one. In response to TSE commenting:
"Eight years without access to the single market might just be bad for the economy."
one poster commented as follows:
"It would be an even worse disaster for the Eurozone nations. Those who suggest that the day after a LEAVE we would simply not trade with the EU are insane. No Range Rovers going to Ireland or BMWs arriving from Germany? Yeah right! Maybe they'd just stop assembling Airbuses for a few years while the negotiations trundled on. Germany in particular relies on abuse of its position in the Euro to maintain an export model it should not by rights be able to sustain. We are a huge and vital market for the Eurozone. The EU could keep eg South Africa in the slow lane because nothing was going to break by so doing. Trying the same with the UK could actually precipitate the EU collapse SeanT was referring to."
My word you've copied and filed posts?
No idea who wrote that but I'd suggest you have issues.
No, I've not filed posts. Words on the internet are easy to find when you know where they're stored. When people are vehemently denying that they've ever held a particular view, it's always useful to be able to double-check your recollection.
To what end?
Somebody posted a view, people express views all day everyday. To spend time attempting to prove them wrong suggests issues with inadequacy.
The internet has spawned a whole bunch of weirdos.
To what end? To show that far too many Leavers are self-deceiving and backwards-rationalising.
The exercise took me approximately 5 minutes.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that it is somehow inappropriate to remind people of aggressively-expressed views that they have done 180 degree turns on.
It may or may not be appropriate but it is mind-numbingly tedious.
People generally do find it mind-numbingly tedious to be reminded of their unacknowledged voltes faces.
I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
Just bloody name them then.
This one is quite an interesting one. In response to TSE commenting:
"Eight years without access to the single market might just be bad for the economy."
one poster commented as follows:
"It would be an even worse disaster for the Eurozone nations. Those who suggest that the day after a LEAVE we would simply not trade with the EU are insane. No Range Rovers going to Ireland or BMWs arriving from Germany? Yeah right! Maybe they'd just stop assembling Airbuses for a few years while the negotiations trundled on. Germany in particular relies on abuse of its position in the Euro to maintain an export model it should not by rights be able to sustain. We are a huge and vital market for the Eurozone. The EU could keep eg South Africa in the slow lane because nothing was going to break by so doing. Trying the same with the UK could actually precipitate the EU collapse SeanT was referring to."
My word you've copied and filed posts?
No idea who wrote that but I'd suggest you have issues.
No, I've not filed posts. Words on the internet are easy to find when you know where they're stored. When people are vehemently denying that they've ever held a particular view, it's always useful to be able to double-check your recollection.
To what end?
Somebody posted a view, people express views all day everyday. To spend time attempting to prove them wrong suggests issues with inadequacy.
The internet has spawned a whole bunch of weirdos.
To what end? To show that far too many Leavers are self-deceiving and backwards-rationalising.
The exercise took me approximately 5 minutes.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that it is somehow inappropriate to remind people of aggressively-expressed views that they have done 180 degree turns on.
It may or may not be appropriate but it is mind-numbingly tedious.
And this is how Brexit will fail. Its loudest advocates will lose the will to defend it.
But not before its loudest detractors lose the ability to use an apostrophe correctly!
@benrileysmith: Michel Barnier not pulling punches. Attacks “illusion” that Brexit will have “no material impact” on those affected.
The EU approach is to state that there is no punishment intended, and all of this is just a natural consequence of Leaving the EU, whilst being careful to ensure there is as much pain felt as they can get away with.
@IanDunt: Over & over again May's problems come down to that rash promise she made at Tory conference to pull out the ECJ theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
@IanDunt: Remember that day? How jubilant Brexiters were - even the sensible ones? Everyone else said: She's going to come a cropper on that ECJ bit.
@IanDunt: And now here we are and on issue after issue after issue the ECJ promise is reducing her room to manouvre, increasing the chances of no-deal
@IanDunt: and forcing millions of EU cits in UK to live with uncertainty. All because she needed to placate the lunatic fringe
@IanDunt: of her party on an issue the country didn't give a damn about.
Another moron who doesn't understand the importance of being able to make one's own laws . It is amusing how completely bereft of understanding the Eurofanatics are about the importance of leaving the ECJ. It is the fundamental basis of the whole Brexit process. Claiming it is simply some side issue just reveals your utter ignorance.
How do you ensure that two courts do not interpret the same law differently? That is at the root of the citizens' rights issue. There has to be one court at the top to issue a definitive judgment. That may not be the ECJ, but it has to be something. That is, if we want to ensure that existing rights are protected.
The Supreme Court of the UK seems like a good place to start.
A joint Supreme Court/ECJ body would seem to be the obvious goodwill solution. There is an EEA/EFTA court, why not a BREU one?
@AlbertoNardelli: Barnier explaining for the millionth time there is no Brexit bill, this is about settling commitments
But the EU budget only runs to 2020, how do we possibly have any commitments past that date if we leave in 2019? They still think we'll agree to anything and/or are posturing for the sake of domestic audiences in Europe.
The governments of Ireland, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and others will take a very different view of Brexit when the actual negotiations get underway. All the EUcrats are doing right now is giving our PM a massive majority to tell them where to get off.
I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
Just bloody name them then.
This one is quite an interesting one. In response to TSE commenting:
"Eight years without access to the single market might just be bad for the economy."
one poster commented as follows:
"It would be an even worse disaster for the Eurozone nations. Those who suggest that the day after a LEAVE we would simply not trade with the EU are insane. No Range Rovers going to Ireland or BMWs arriving from Germany? Yeah right! Maybe they'd just stop assembling Airbuses for a few years while the negotiations trundled on. Germany in particular relies on abuse of its position in the Euro to maintain an export model it should not by rights be able to sustain. We are a huge and vital market for the Eurozone. The EU could keep eg South Africa in the slow lane because nothing was going to break by so doing. Trying the same with the UK could actually precipitate the EU collapse SeanT was referring to."
My word you've copied and filed posts?
No idea who wrote that but I'd suggest you have issues.
No, I've not filed posts. Words on the internet are easy to find when you know where they're stored. When people are vehemently denying that they've ever held a particular view, it's always useful to be able to double-check your recollection.
To what end?
Somebody posted a view, people express views all day everyday. To spend time attempting to prove them wrong suggests issues with inadequacy.
The internet has spawned a whole bunch of weirdos.
To what end? To show that far too many Leavers are self-deceiving and backwards-rationalising.
The exercise took me approximately 5 minutes.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that it is somehow inappropriate to remind people of aggressively-expressed views that they have done 180 degree turns on.
It may or may not be appropriate but it is mind-numbingly tedious.
People generally do find it mind-numbingly tedious to be reminded of their unacknowledged voltes faces.
It's not as tedious as the broken record some posters on here have become.
@IanDunt: Over & over again May's problems come down to that rash promise she made at Tory conference to pull out the ECJ theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
@IanDunt: Remember that day? How jubilant Brexiters were - even the sensible ones? Everyone else said: She's going to come a cropper on that ECJ bit.
@IanDunt: And now here we are and on issue after issue after issue the ECJ promise is reducing her room to manouvre, increasing the chances of no-deal
@IanDunt: and forcing millions of EU cits in UK to live with uncertainty. All because she needed to placate the lunatic fringe
@IanDunt: of her party on an issue the country didn't give a damn about.
Another moron who doesn't understand the importance of being able to make one's own laws . It is amusing how completely bereft of understanding the Eurofanatics are about the importance of leaving the ECJ. It is the fundamental basis of the whole Brexit process. Claiming it is simply some side issue just reveals your utter ignorance.
How do you ensure that two courts do not interpret the same law differently? That is at the root of the citizens' rights issue. There has to be one court at the top to issue a definitive judgment. That may not be the ECJ, but it has to be something. That is, if we want to ensure that existing rights are protected.
The Supreme Court of the UK seems like a good place to start.
A joint Supreme Court/ECJ body would seem to be the obvious goodwill solution. There is an EEA/EFTA court, why not a BREU one?
First sensible thing you've said all day.
I've been talking sense all day. It's just that now you agree with me!
I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
Just bloody name them then.
This one is quite an interesting one. In response to TSE commenting:
"Eight years without access to the single market might just be bad for the economy."
one poster commented as follows:
"It would be an even worse disaster for the Eurozone nations. Those who suggest that the day after a LEAVE we would simply not trade with the EU are insane. No Range Rovers going to Ireland or BMWs arriving from Germany? Yeah right! Maybe they'd just stop assembling Airbuses for a few years while the negotiations trundled on. Germany in particular relies on abuse of its position in the Euro to maintain an export model it should not by rights be able to sustain. We are a huge and vital market for the Eurozone. The EU could keep eg South Africa in the slow lane because nothing was going to break by so doing. Trying the same with the UK could actually precipitate the EU collapse SeanT was referring to."
My word you've copied and filed posts?
No idea who wrote that but I'd suggest you have issues.
No, I've not filed posts. Words on the internet are easy to find when you know where they're stored. When people are vehemently denying that they've ever held a particular view, it's always useful to be able to double-check your recollection.
To what end?
Somebody posted a view, people express views all day everyday. To spend time attempting to prove them wrong suggests issues with inadequacy.
The internet has spawned a whole bunch of weirdos.
To what end? To show that far too many Leavers are self-deceiving and backwards-rationalising.
The exercise took me approximately 5 minutes.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that it is somehow inappropriate to remind people of aggressively-expressed views that they have done 180 degree turns on.
It may or may not be appropriate but it is mind-numbingly tedious.
People generally do find it mind-numbingly tedious to be reminded of their unacknowledged voltes faces.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a leaver or a remainer. I expect the leavers find refighting the referendum every bit as fascinating as you do, but for the rest of us it's just incredibly dull.
A theoretical question - you've been egged on by your mates and after repeatedly turning up at his house with graffiti can in hand you've cast aspersions on his mother. Suddenly after some brash overconfidence and goading you find yourself gloves laced up in the ring and he sits across from you, Anthony Joshua. What do you do ;p ?
Put a horseshoe in my gloves - or kick him in the nuts. His rules aren't my rules.
Morning all. On topic, and as mentioned previously, Le Pen is 3.2 on Betfair to win 35-40% of the vote, which is in line with nearly all the polls. The 40-45% band is also available for 2.62 as a cover, for an average of 1.455 assuming the same stakes on both bets.
A pretty much nailed on 45.5%* return in three days, unless I'm missing something?
You're not missing something. It has to be a 90+% chance that she's inside those bands
Edit to add: are you remembering your Betfair commission?
* 41.86% net return after Betfair's commission according to the wonderful arbcruncher.com, but still attractive. This market is quite active, so it might be worth asking for a slightly higher price than is shown as being readily available. That's what I did anyway and was matched within a couple of minutes.
@faisalislam: BArnier says the ECJ should be the arbitrator of the Article 50 settlement - technically UK will be an EU member throughout the process
Well, the ECJ can certainly rule if they think it is illegal for the EU to sign Art50. But this is unlikely - the more important question is over arbitration and enforcement post-Brexit. That clearly can't be the ECJ.
I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
Just bloody name them then.
This one is quite an interesting one. In response to TSE commenting:
"Eight years without access to the single market might just be bad for the economy."
one poster commented as follows:
"It would be an even worse disaster for the Eurozone nations. Those who suggest that the day after a LEAVE we would simply not trade with the EU are insane. No Range Rovers going to Ireland or BMWs arriving from Germany? Yeah right! Maybe they'd just stop assembling Airbuses for a few years while the negotiations trundled on. Germany in particular relies on abuse of its position in the Euro to maintain an export model it should not by rights be able to sustain. We are a huge and vital market for the Eurozone. The EU could keep eg South Africa in the slow lane because nothing was going to break by so doing. Trying the same with the UK could actually precipitate the EU collapse SeanT was referring to."
My word you've copied and filed posts?
No idea who wrote that but I'd suggest you have issues.
No, I've not filed posts. Words on the internet are easy to find when you know where they're stored. When people are vehemently denying that they've ever held a particular view, it's always useful to be able to double-check your recollection.
Gets a bit trickier when folk depart and then return with new usernames of course..
I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
Just bloody name them then.
This one is quite an interesting one. In response to TSE commenting:
"Eight years without access to the single market might just be bad for the economy."
one poster commented as follows:
"rring to."
My word you've copied and filed posts?
No idea who wrote that but I'd suggest you have issues.
No, I've not filed posts. Words on the internet are easy to find when you know where they're stored. When people are vehemently denying that they've ever held a particular view, it's always useful to be able to double-check your recollection.
To what end?
Somebody posted a view, people express views all day everyday. To spend time attempting to prove them wrong suggests issues with inadequacy.
The internet has spawned a whole bunch of weirdos.
To what end? To show that far too many Leavers are self-deceiving and backwards-rationalising.
The exercise took me approximately 5 minutes.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that it is somehow inappropriate to remind people of aggressively-expressed views that they have done 180 degree turns on.
It may or may not be appropriate but it is mind-numbingly tedious.
And this is how Brexit will fail. Its loudest advocates will lose the will to defend it.
But not before its loudest detractors lose the ability to use an apostrophe correctly!
Edit: I saw that before you edited it. Too late!
To return to the Samsung/Apple discussion, the blame for that is with my iPhone's autocorrect.
Mr. Sandpit, I'm afraid it was about five months ago, at Ladbrokes. No idea if anyone here followed it. I was too late to back him to join Mercedes, but the unusually long title odds were still up.
Ah okay. I backed him to join Mercedes a couple of days after Rosberg announced he was off, so I already won that one and don't have to wait until the end of November to get paid.
Mr. Penny, there's a scene in The Adventures of Sir Edric when the eponymous knight is challenged to a fight by a four-armed swordsman. He responds by shooting the swordsman in the head with his crossbow.
Also, Anthony Joshua appears to be a down-to-earth, sensible and decent sort of chap. Grossly unfair to compare him to the EU or Juncker.
@IanDunt: Over & over again May's problems come down to that rash promise she made at Tory conference to pull out the ECJ theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
@IanDunt: Remember that day? How jubilant Brexiters were - even the sensible ones? Everyone else said: She's going to come a cropper on that ECJ bit.
@IanDunt: And now here we are and on issue after issue after issue the ECJ promise is reducing her room to manouvre, increasing the chances of no-deal
@IanDunt: and forcing millions of EU cits in UK to live with uncertainty. All because she needed to placate the lunatic fringe
@IanDunt: of her party on an issue the country didn't give a damn about.
Another moron who doesn't understand the importance of being able to make one's own laws . It is amusing how completely bereft of understanding the Eurofanatics are about the importance of leaving the ECJ. It is the fundamental basis of the whole Brexit process. Claiming it is simply some side issue just reveals your utter ignorance.
How do you ensure that two courts do not interpret the same law differently? That is at the root of the citizens' rights issue. There has to be one court at the top to issue a definitive judgment. That may not be the ECJ, but it has to be something. That is, if we want to ensure that existing rights are protected.
The Supreme Court of the UK seems like a good place to start.
A joint Supreme Court/ECJ body would seem to be the obvious goodwill solution. There is an EEA/EFTA court, why not a BREU one?
First sensible thing you've said all day.
I've been talking sense all day. It's just that now you agree with me!
You talk a lot of sense when you aren't venting or indulging in your partisan side ;-)
Morning all. On topic, and as mentioned previously, Le Pen is 3.2 on Betfair to win 35-40% of the vote, which is in line with nearly all the polls. The 40-45% band is also available for 2.62 as a cover, for an average of 1.455 assuming the same stakes on both bets.
A pretty much nailed on 45.5%* return in three days, unless I'm missing something?
You're not missing something. It has to be a 90+% chance that she's inside those bands
Edit to add: are you remembering your Betfair commission?
* 41.86% net return after Betfair's commission according to the wonderful arbcruncher.com, but still attractive. This market is quite active, so it might be worth asking for a slightly higher price than is shown as being readily available. That's what I did anyway and was matched within a couple of minutes.
Ooh, that's an interesting website, thanks for linking. And yes, I forgot the BF commission as I usually do, but it's still a good bet that's clearly within the range of every single poll so far.
@benrileysmith: Big area of disagreement - Barnier says rights of 3m EU citizens in UK must be guaranteed by ECJ. Britain says not.
@tom_nuttall: EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life, says Barnier.
I don't see any difficulty in this at all.
The logical position for UK to adopt is up to and equal to UK citizens and adhering to the laws of the UK government of the day.
If the EU desire a higher level for EU citizens, I'm sure they can provide it at their cost, if that is their wish, subject to comparability with UK law.
"EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life" - will continue mass immigration.
Surely they mean "EU citizens *currently* in UK..."? But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
Listening to the Parliament and Barnier this morning it is apparent that they are both going to come under intense scrutiny and will have a myriad of difficult questions to answer in front of the Europeam and British press and media.
This is not a one way street. The agitation within individual countries is going to grow if they think their trade with the UK will be put at risk. There is a real possibility that a group of nations will start there own pressure alliance and of course Europe wide business groups are going to come together to defend their jobs and businesses
Fascinating and don't forget there's another 4-5% who voted for other candidates in the first round. Some very crude number crunching and I get Macron home 57-43 so it may be Le Pen will do better than the 40% level.
The debate might change things of course but it will have to be something dramatic,
Roger Mullin (@RogMull) 02/05/2017, 16:12 My last letter as current MP. Continuing to fight against #ToryDirtyMoney I call for an urgent inquiry. RT if you agree. pic.twitter.com/385MgUaBoV
@BBCNormanS: EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says a Theresa May landslide will change nothing in Brexit talks
What do you expect them to say? "A Theresa May landslide will blow our strategy of playing the UK government off against MPs and Lords out of the water"?
This seems key to me - it suggest it won't all be under the ECJ, but the ECJ will play the leading role for the EU:
III.5. Governance of the Agreement 39. The Agreement should set up an institutional structure to ensure an effective enforcement of the commitments under the Agreement, bearing in mind the Union's interest in effectively protecting its autonomy and its legal order, including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Well, at least Tim is out there taking on the hostile voters. May is hiding behind her stage-managed events. Needless to say, there will be those who argue with the current Conservative ratings, there are no hostile anti-Conservative voters for May to meet.
Mr. Nabavi, indeed. Taking what the EU says at face value, as if it's objective and factual rather than subjective and with a view to negotiation, is credulous to the point of daftness.
"EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life" - will continue mass immigration.
Surely they mean "EU citizens *currently* in UK..."? But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
The current right of EU citizens in the UK is equal treatment with UK citizens, subject to a few specified exceptions. The same applies to UK citizens in EU27 countries. It seems that some more extreme Brexiteers are willing to sell these Brits down the river.
"EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life" - will continue mass immigration.
Surely they mean "EU citizens *currently* in UK..."? But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
The Irish let the cat out of the bag yesterday - the EU want a cut-off date agreed.
Up to that date, any arrivals are protected - after that date, they are not.
All in all it's a trifling issue because of the five year residency rule.
"EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life" - will continue mass immigration.
Surely they mean "EU citizens *currently* in UK..."? But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
The current right of EU citizens in the UK is equal treatment with UK citizens, subject to a few specified exceptions. The same applies to UK citizens in EU27 countries. It seems that some more extreme Brexiteers are willing to sell these Brits down the river.
How many Brits are claiming welfare in other EU countries, are there any statistics on this anywhere?
Roger Mullin (@RogMull) 02/05/2017, 16:12 My last letter as current MP. Continuing to fight against #ToryDirtyMoney I call for an urgent inquiry. RT if you agree. pic.twitter.com/385MgUaBoV
This seems key to me - it suggest it won't all be under the ECJ, but the ECJ will play the leading role for the EU:
III.5. Governance of the Agreement 39. The Agreement should set up an institutional structure to ensure an effective enforcement of the commitments under the Agreement, bearing in mind the Union's interest in effectively protecting its autonomy and its legal order, including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Well, at least Tim is out there taking on the hostile voters. May is hiding behind her stage-managed events. Needless to say, there will be those who argue with the current Conservative ratings, there are no hostile anti-Conservative voters for May to meet.
You really are out of touch. Yesterday BBC and Sky both provided extensive coverage of her canvassing in Cornwall, entering a discussion with a voter who disagreed with her, and undertaking interviews
Well, at least Tim is out there taking on the hostile voters. May is hiding behind her stage-managed events. Needless to say, there will be those who argue with the current Conservative ratings, there are no hostile anti-Conservative voters for May to meet.
Haven't you heard?
There are no voters hostile to May, so she is bound to come across fawning civility and love from all voters.
This is not a case of punishment, its a case of tying to stop the UK getting out.
The UK is not respecting the vote of the nation of Scotland in the referendum, nor the position of the elected Scottish government. Europe now has a bad actor in the west, and the EU must be absolutely rigorous in dealing with it.
"EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life" - will continue mass immigration.
Surely they mean "EU citizens *currently* in UK..."? But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
The current right of EU citizens in the UK is equal treatment with UK citizens, subject to a few specified exceptions. The same applies to UK citizens in EU27 countries. It seems that some more extreme Brexiteers are willing to sell these Brits down the river.
The EU may be ready to diverge on those rules to an extent as Cameron's agreement on Child Benefit rates demonstrated.
Remember, this is a live issue within the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
This seems key to me - it suggest it won't all be under the ECJ, but the ECJ will play the leading role for the EU:
III.5. Governance of the Agreement 39. The Agreement should set up an institutional structure to ensure an effective enforcement of the commitments under the Agreement, bearing in mind the Union's interest in effectively protecting its autonomy and its legal order, including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Agreed - I'd like to see proper forecasting of what happens to jobs in companies that currently rely on European supply chains and/or have strong European sales should we leave precipitously and move to WTO rules. What happens to tax rates and takes with a diamond hard Brexit? What about spending on public services? To what extent would air and sea travel be affected? What happens if a lot of EU nationals leave and a lot of UK nationals return - what's the net affect? And so on. These are vitally important things to know. Hopefully, the government has been doing the sums.
The challenge will be doing this apolitically. Ask businesses what they would actually do if we imposed a £15 tariff on EU washing machines. The risk will be people like Nick Clegg who say 'If we leave the EU immediately 3 million jobs will go' or similar bullshit. It needs to be a cold, clinical, dispassionate analysis. That's hard to get on such a loaded question. What if, for example, they conclude we're actually better off just walking? Would May rock up at the next negotiating session and say 'sorry boys - we're done'? Doubt it. The whole 'disastrous hard Brexit' vs 'no deal better than bad deal' argument is based on nothing much at all right now. It's politicians tetlling bullshit stories to push their own preferred outcome. Bending 'facts' to suit the ideology.
I can tell we are heading for a brutal Brexit because it's being rebranded as a "diamond" Brexit in the pathetic hope that the masses will believe it's a good thing.
@BBCNormanS: Barnier says EU Brexit bill will be "incontestable"
He sounds serious doesn't he...
But the calculation method is to be agreed.
The sum at the end will be incontestable, but it will be contested before it gets there.
We will probably end up with some "halved the bill" nonsense, where we pay an amount upfront and continue net contributions across the 3-year transition period.
This seems key to me - it suggest it won't all be under the ECJ, but the ECJ will play the leading role for the EU:
III.5. Governance of the Agreement 39. The Agreement should set up an institutional structure to ensure an effective enforcement of the commitments under the Agreement, bearing in mind the Union's interest in effectively protecting its autonomy and its legal order, including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Yep - it's all there in black and white for anyone who cares to look. They key is to avoid having two court systems that may interpret the same law completely differently. It happens a lot in patents, for example. German and UK courts operate under the same law, get the same facts put in front of them and reach completely different conclusions. That's why we are getting a Unified Patent Court, which the government said last November it will take the UK into. The ECJ's role in it is not to issue judgments, but to define parameters of EU law when asked to do so by the patent court and then for the patent court to rule taking into account what the ECJ has said. It could do something similar post-Brexit for relevant issues such as citizens' rights, or there could be that BREU body I mentioned.
"EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life" - will continue mass immigration.
Surely they mean "EU citizens *currently* in UK..."? But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
The Irish let the cat out of the bag yesterday - the EU want a cut-off date agreed.
Up to that date, any arrivals are protected - after that date, they are not.
All in all it's a trifling issue because of the five year residency rule.
Indeed. No problem with EU citizens becoming UK residents or even citizens in the future, but why would we want to continue to pay indefinitely for those EU citizens who have never contributed a penny and are already a burden on our taxpayers?
This is not a case of punishment, its a case of tying to stop the UK getting out.
Having watched the European Parliament and Barnier this morning I think there is a strong possibility that the EU will be in all kinds of trouble later this year with different interests pulling it apart. On the assumption that Merkel wins this will be resolved with a summit between Theresa May and Merkel
I'm still waiting for some Leavers who last year had thought that negotiating with the EU was going to be a doddle to put their hands up and admit that it's going to be harder than they thought.
They're all so strangely shy.
"It's a doodle" has now become "just walk away"
I think it's going to be a tad more difficult than adopting and stiff upper lip and invoking the Dunkirk spirit which a number of PB leavers think is all that will be necessary
Actually, reading on, they do suggest in a subsequent clause that this must be governed by the ECJ.
Of course, that won't work, because the UK must have its interests represented as well.
So presumably they are also suggesting that UK judges should continue to sit on and be appointed to the ECJ, otherwise it might be tainted with partiality. And pigs may fly over Strasbourg.
The obvious solution is to appoint an arbitration mechanism via Switzerland, which has the necessary experience and credibility.
"EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life" - will continue mass immigration.
Surely they mean "EU citizens *currently* in UK..."? But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
The Irish let the cat out of the bag yesterday - the EU want a cut-off date agreed.
Up to that date, any arrivals are protected - after that date, they are not.
All in all it's a trifling issue because of the five year residency rule.
Indeed. No problem with EU citizens becoming UK residents or even citizens in the future, but why would we want to continue to pay indefinitely for those EU citizens who have never contributed a penny and are already a burden on our taxpayers?
There aren't many that fit the never worked/never contributed scenario.
It's a far bigger problem among non-EU migrants who have been granted indefinite leave to remain.
The damage for the City will have reached its conclusion long before the two years are up. The damage will be done. There is nothing to negotiate about.
Are none of the leavers here worried that... Barnier might just be right ?
On what?
The amount of leverage the EU has over us on these talks when push comes to shove ?
The EU does have leverage, because we would be worse affected by no deal than they would be. But the UK also has leverage, on money, security and trade. It just has less leverage.
No deal means both sides would lose, and both sides recognise it's undesirable, so as long as the UK negotiates with skill, and is ultimately willing to walk if the EU does try to shove, then a reasonable deal should be agreed.
@BBCNormanS: Barnier says EU Brexit bill will be "incontestable"
He sounds serious doesn't he...
But the calculation method is to be agreed.
The sum at the end will be incontestable, but it will be contested before it gets there.
We will probably end up with some "halved the bill" nonsense, where we pay an amount upfront and continue net contributions across the 3-year transition period.
I imagine we will honour the budget we agreed until the end of it's cycle - 2020.
Obviously we have some obligation to the eurocrat public sector pension scheme as well.
I imagine our annual commitments will be very small from 2021.
Are none of the leavers here worried that... Barnier might just be right ?
On what?
The amount of leverage the EU has over us on these talks when push comes to shove ?
The EU does have leverage, because we would be worse affected by no deal than they would be. But the UK also has leverage, on money, security and trade. It just has less leverage.
No deal means both sides would lose, and both sides recognise it's undesirable, so as long as the UK negotiates with skill, and is ultimately willing to walk if the EU does try to shove, then a reasonable deal should be agreed.
I think the EU will be quite prepared for us to just walk away from the table. They know we'll be back at some point.
The damage for the City will have reached its conclusion long before the two years are up. The damage will be done. There is nothing to negotiate about.
To an extent that is probably true.
The negotiations are to make politicians look relevant, important and good.
Real life is run by non politicians (i.e. the rest of us), the people who find ways of working effectively round and through the hurdles that politicians present to them, in a way that is within the bounds of legality and social acceptance.
Davis, who will be leading the Brexit negotiations, insisted he could do a deal with Barnier. “I’ve dealt with Michel Barnier many years ago. You will never hear a word of criticism of him from me. He’s tough, he’s straightforward, he’s French, he’s very elegant. He’s determined, but he’s also done deals in the past.” He added: “We have said we will obey our legal obligations but they are not going to be determined for us by one side or the other; it will be a matter of negotiation.”
Comments
@tom_nuttall: EU citizens in UK must enjoy current rights for life, says Barnier.
Well, it's a view.
Edit: I saw that before you edited it. Too late!
@faisalislam: BArnier: as soon as the UK is ready for negotiations we will start. The clock is ticking.
@BethRigby: #Brexitbill. Those commitments have been made & have to be honoured. We're not trying to create problems we're trying to resolve problems"
The governments of Ireland, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and others will take a very different view of Brexit when the actual negotiations get underway. All the EUcrats are doing right now is giving our PM a massive majority to tell them where to get off.
Open Europe @OpenEurope
EU's Brexit negotiator @MichelBarnier: Commission's Recommendation to open Art50 negotiations are for 1st phase of negotiations only #Brexit
Further confirmation that they are backing off their barmy insistence that the trade deal can't be discussed in tandem with exit arrangements.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/annex-recommendation-uk-eu-negotiations_3-may-2017_en.pdf
If they want to enjoy British rights, they should apply for British residence.
'Sex allegation against Julian Assange a 'set-up' says Leo Sayer'
http://tinyurl.com/mu62rpf
Also, Anthony Joshua appears to be a down-to-earth, sensible and decent sort of chap. Grossly unfair to compare him to the EU or Juncker.
https://twitter.com/Cartoon4sale/status/859689430466138113
http://www.comresglobal.com/20-years-on-can-things-only-get-better-for-labour/
As do we all!
This is all very unsurprising to anyone who had taken the time to read the documents.
I sense some attempt at a good cop (Barnier/European Council)/bad cop (Juncker/Verhofstadht) routine here.
https://twitter.com/sam_lister_/status/859700774661697536
The logical position for UK to adopt is up to and equal to UK citizens and adhering to the laws of the UK government of the day.
If the EU desire a higher level for EU citizens, I'm sure they can provide it at their cost, if that is their wish, subject to comparability with UK law.
But no, it's bollocks. On the day we leave the EU we need to withdraw tax credits and housing benefits from anyone without UK resident status. We don't need to continue to have tens of thousands of Romanian Big Issue sellers in London, their families supported by British taxpayers.
@BBCNormanS: EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says a Theresa May landslide will change nothing in Brexit talks
This is not a one way street. The agitation within individual countries is going to grow if they think their trade with the UK will be put at risk. There is a real possibility that a group of nations will start there own pressure alliance and of course Europe wide business groups are going to come together to defend their jobs and businesses
The debate might change things of course but it will have to be something dramatic,
02/05/2017, 16:12
My last letter as current MP. Continuing to fight against #ToryDirtyMoney I call for an urgent inquiry. RT if you agree. pic.twitter.com/385MgUaBoV
III.5. Governance of the Agreement
39. The Agreement should set up an institutional structure to ensure an effective enforcement of the commitments under the Agreement, bearing in mind the Union's interest in effectively protecting its autonomy and its legal order, including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/annex-recommendation-uk-eu-negotiations_3-may-2017_en.pdf
Up to that date, any arrivals are protected - after that date, they are not.
All in all it's a trifling issue because of the five year residency rule.
This is not a case of punishment, its a case of tying to stop the UK getting out.
There are no voters hostile to May, so she is bound to come across fawning civility and love from all voters.
CON 47 (-2)
LAB 30 (+3)
LD 10 (=)
UKIP 5 (=)
GRN 2 (-1)
#GE2017
CON 47 (-2)
LAB 30 (+3)
LD 10 (NC)
UKIP 5 (NC)
GRN 2 (-1)
Remain 50 (+2)
Leave 50 (-2)
https://twitter.com/PanelbaseMD/status/859706053973467138
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39790805
Remember, this is a live issue within the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
Hmm...
Of course, that won't work, because the UK must have its interests represented as well.
Inconceivable!
The sum at the end will be incontestable, but it will be contested before it gets there.
We will probably end up with some "halved the bill" nonsense, where we pay an amount upfront and continue net contributions across the 3-year transition period.
(Said in a Faux Spanish accent)
I think it's going to be a tad more difficult than adopting and stiff upper lip and invoking the Dunkirk spirit which a number of PB leavers think is all that will be necessary
The obvious solution is to appoint an arbitration mechanism via Switzerland, which has the necessary experience and credibility.
'We have a signed direct debit from the UK Government, so we can take your money at will'
Something like that.
http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/W10470w2TablesForPublication020517.pdf
It's a far bigger problem among non-EU migrants who have been granted indefinite leave to remain.
Bank holiday.
No deal means both sides would lose, and both sides recognise it's undesirable, so as long as the UK negotiates with skill, and is ultimately willing to walk if the EU does try to shove, then a reasonable deal should be agreed.
Obviously we have some obligation to the eurocrat public sector pension scheme as well.
I imagine our annual commitments will be very small from 2021.
Funding French farmers is their problem.
The negotiations are to make politicians look relevant, important and good.
Real life is run by non politicians (i.e. the rest of us), the people who find ways of working effectively round and through the hurdles that politicians present to them, in a way that is within the bounds of legality and social acceptance.
Davis, who will be leading the Brexit negotiations, insisted he could do a deal with Barnier. “I’ve dealt with Michel Barnier many years ago. You will never hear a word of criticism of him from me. He’s tough, he’s straightforward, he’s French, he’s very elegant. He’s determined, but he’s also done deals in the past.”
He added: “We have said we will obey our legal obligations but they are not going to be determined for us by one side or the other; it will be a matter of negotiation.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/03/david-davis-rejects-claim-of-100bn-brexit-divorce-bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-must-absolutely-remain-labour-leader-should-he-lose-the-election-says-ally-chris-williamson_uk_59089d43e4b0bb2d0871f129?708