Your argument here isn't exactly consistent, BethnalGreen. If you think the EU is going to use them as a bargaining chip, there's nothing we can actually do to prevent them - as such, it makes no sense to accuse someone of advocating letting them do so, since there's no way to not let them do so. Also, if you're not prepared to make the first move, then you're doing exactly what you're accusing the EU of doing - using citizens as bargaining chips. I'm really not sure where you intend to go with this.
It is entirely consistent. May has said that she wants to sort this one issue out early on. If the law does not have this guarantee in, she can go into negotiations and both sets of citizens can get their rights guaranteed and are not left in limbo. If it is in the law, then our citizens are going to get battered and bruised as they are left in limbo whilst being used as pawns by the EU. The best way to help both sides is to discuss this one issue at the start so let's keep it out of the law.
It's a no-brainer for them to keep everything on the table because a two-year time limit to exit negotiations plays into their hands. It forces the UK Government to make the issue of UK citizens in other EU countries a priority, and discuss it while the clock's ticking. The outcome of such discussions isn't really in doubt; but it takes time to finalise even an agreement that's a foregone conclusion, and that's time not spent discussing other more controversial issues that the Government might need a lot more time to discuss. Once the timer runs out, any continuation of negotiations must be by unanimous agreement. Conventional wisdom states that that eventuality is more beneficial to the EU27 than it is to the UK.
Well, this is a second thread where there's the usual aggressive, jingoistic attitude of "They should do precisely what I want them to do, in the way I think they ought them to do it, or they're a bunch of ignorant/arrogant/evil/malicious foreign bellends". Once again, the denizens of DS Politics illustrate perfectly why, if they were the ones doing the negotiating, we'd be severely f*cked.
From the EU's perspective, this whole narrative of "using people as a bargaining chip" is a ploy by the British Government to try to extend the time allowed for negotiations by fishing to see what it can get without even starting that process. Today it's continuation of citizen's rights. Tomorrow it'll be something equally innocuous and seemingly common-sense, like visa-free travel. Next week it'll be something else again like agreeing to apply regulations in terms of standards of fruits so we can get free trade on fruits. The week after that it'll be something else; drip, drip, drip, drip until the UK's managed to wangle half of what it wanted before the clock has even started ticking.
If you were the head of another EU state, would you let the UK get away with that, or would you say "f**k you I'm not playing that game, just invoke Article 50 and get round the table already"?
I am not sure I follow your reasoning here, why would the British Government want to extend the time allowed for negotiations? are they not under pressure to get the whole thing done as soon as possible? and would resolving an issue such as this before negotiations start not speed things up?
It is entirely consistent. May has said that she wants to sort this one issue out early on.
And it probably will be sorted out early on.
If the law does not have this guarantee in, she can go into negotiations and both sets of citizens can get their rights guaranteed and are not left in limbo. If it is in the law, then our citizens are going to get battered and bruised as they are left in limbo whilst being used as pawns by the EU. The best way to help both sides is to discuss this one issue at the start so let's keep it out of the law.
Whether it's in our domestic law or not, doesn't really make any difference to our international allies if a reciprocal agreement must be negotiated. It doesn't change anything in respect of the position of UK citizens either.
In any event, all you're advocating is still letting the EU use UK citizens as a bargaining chip. It's just that you want to use non-UK EU citizens as one as well.
I am not sure I follow your reasoning here, why would the British Government want to extend the time allowed for negotiations? are they not under pressure to get the whole thing done as soon as possible? and would resolving an issue such as this before negotiations start not speed things up?
The Government is under pressure to get things started as soon as possible - unwisely, in my view, since I want the Government to get the best deal it can out of Brexit negotiations, and preparation is far more important than speed - particularly as DEXEU is full of people new to their jobs and we are short of experienced negotiators of our own.
An unprepared, green Government negotiating team, rushed into swift exit talks, risks the very "cliff-edge" Brexit and extremely bumpy landing that we all want to avoid. We want to agree as much as possible as quickly as we can - because when the two-year time limit is up, any further progress we might be able to make would be contingent upon the good graces of our erstwhile allies. That's not a strong position to be in. What we don't want is a situation where our negotiations are still trying to work out where the toilets and cafeteria are once talks have already started. We want a negotiating team that's fully prepared. I'm not entirely convinced that they will be by the time Theresa May fires the starting pistol.
The Government is under pressure to get things started as soon as possible - unwisely, in my view, since I want the Government to get the best deal it can out of Brexit negotiations, and preparation is far more important than speed - particularly as DEXEU is full of people new to their jobs and we are short of experienced negotiators of our own.
An unprepared, green Government negotiating team, rushed into swift exit talks, risks the very "cliff-edge" Brexit and extremely bumpy landing that we all want to avoid. We want to agree as much as possible as quickly as we can - because when the two-year time limit is up, any further progress we might be able to make would be contingent upon the good graces of our erstwhile allies. That's not a strong position to be in. What we don't want is a situation where our negotiations are still trying to work out where the toilets and cafeteria are once talks have already started. We want a negotiating team that's fully prepared. I'm not entirely convinced that they will be by the time Theresa May fires the starting pistol.
Whether it's in our domestic law or not, doesn't really make any difference to our international allies if a reciprocal agreement must be negotiated. It doesn't change anything in respect of the position of UK citizens either.
Surely it would make the "deal" simpler if our side of it is already written into UK law. We would just say "We've done our part. Now you do yours"
Of course the one group of citizens that most people are forgetting are UK citizens who currently live in the UK. We are the ones about to lose the most rights while negotiating teams argue over the rights of ex-pats.
Surely it would make the "deal" simpler if our side of it is already written into UK law. We would just say "We've done our part. Now you do yours"
That's certainly an argument worthy of consideration. BethnalGreen apparently demurs from that position, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
Of course the one group of citizens that most people are forgetting are UK citizens who currently live in the UK. We are the ones about to lose the most rights while negotiating teams argue over the rights of ex-pats.
Yeah, well, we chose to make that bed by majority vote, so we all have to lie in it.
Surely it would make the "deal" simpler if our side of it is already written into UK law. We would just say "We've done our part. Now you do yours"
That's certainly an argument worthy of consideration. BethnalGreen apparently demurs from that position, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
Of course the one group of citizens that most people are forgetting are UK citizens who currently live in the UK. We are the ones about to lose the most rights while negotiating teams argue over the rights of ex-pats.
Yeah, well, we chose to make that bed by majority vote, so we all have to lie in it. I think the only way to have any hope of escaping that would be to high-tail it to another EU country before Article 50 is invoked - and let's be honest, with the current assortment of difficulties in the EU, there aren't that many attractive options, absent any other considerations of who and what you might have to leave behind, assets you might have to liquidate, dependants' lives you might disrupt, the inevitable culture shock and initial language barrier...
The Government is under pressure to get things started as soon as possible - unwisely, in my view, since I want the Government to get the best deal it can out of Brexit negotiations, and preparation is far more important than speed - particularly as DEXEU is full of people new to their jobs and we are short of experienced negotiators of our own.
An unprepared, green Government negotiating team, rushed into swift exit talks, risks the very "cliff-edge" Brexit and extremely bumpy landing that we all want to avoid. We want to agree as much as possible as quickly as we can - because when the two-year time limit is up, any further progress we might be able to make would be contingent upon the good graces of our erstwhile allies. That's not a strong position to be in. What we don't want is a situation where our negotiations are still trying to work out where the toilets and cafeteria are once talks have already started. We want a negotiating team that's fully prepared. I'm not entirely convinced that they will be by the time Theresa May fires the starting pistol.
As soon as Theresa May fires the Brexit gun, the clock is already ticking down. I'm not sure people fully realise this and that her "no deal is better than a bad deal" comment may well come true.
As soon as Theresa May fires the Brexit gun, the clock is already ticking down. I'm not sure people fully realise this and that her "no deal is better than a bad deal" comment may well come true.
Of course people know about the procedure and the time frame. We are told about it seven hundred times per day!
Of course people know about the procedure and the time frame. We are told about it seven hundred times per day!
Yes indeed, but we've had Theresa May saying in her oh so soothing voice that "We will be seeking the best possible deal for Britain". What happens when the clock is ticking down towards zero and there is not even the slightest sign of a deal in place? It's been very much the phoney war up until now, the real war is about to kick off and like all wars, people haven't a clue how things will pan out.
On the issue of EU citizens in UK and vice versa does anyone thing the EU 27 might not be totally united on that front. Poland,with the highest number of its citizens in the UK, would almost certainly want an agreement that allows EU/UK citizens to be able to stay in the UK/EU and be treated similarly to nationals re. benefits, health care etc. Spain, on the other hand, with the highest number of UK citizens including a large proportion of retired UK expats, might not be so keen on such a deal. How can the EU reach a deal that benefits some countries without penalising others.
Yes indeed, but we've had Theresa May saying in her oh so soothing voice that "We will be seeking the best possible deal for Britain". What happens when the clock is ticking down towards zero and there is not even the slightest sign of a deal in place? It's been very much the phoney war up until now, the real war is about to kick off and like all wars, people haven't a clue how things will pan out.
The Government are not just going to sit around with the EU. During negotiations, the UK will be seeking deals and partnerships with other countries too. Once we leave, these deals will be ready to sign. Anyone who just thinks that the UK is just going to say"yes, sir, please sir, thank you sir" to the EU are extremely naive.
The Government are not just going to sit around with the EU. During negotiations, the UK will be seeking deals and partnerships with other countries too. Once we leave, these deals will be ready to sign. Anyone who just thinks that the UK is just going to say"yes, sir, please sir, thank you sir" to the EU are extremely naive.
That's not what's being suggested.
Rather, the point Eurostar is making is that there is a lot of stuff to sort out with our erstwhile partners: the border with Ireland, reciprocal rights for citizens, free trade, access for financial institutions, who picks up the kids on a Friday night, who gets the Evanescence CDs... we do, after all, want a deal with them too. After all, between them the EU27 account for the lion's share of our external trade, and for all that we might be able to strike deals with other countries, even with all its woes the EU27 is a significant share of the global market and consists of our nearest neighbours.
There's a lot to sort out in two years. (Except the CDs. Obviously we use them for clay-pigeon shooting.) And we don't really want to leave a lot of this simply hanging.
On the issue of EU citizens in UK and vice versa does anyone thing the EU 27 might not be totally united on that front. Poland,with the highest number of its citizens in the UK, would almost certainly want an agreement that allows EU/UK citizens to be able to stay in the UK/EU and be treated similarly to nationals re. benefits, health care etc. Spain, on the other hand, with the highest number of UK citizens including a large proportion of retired UK expats, might not be so keen on such a deal. How can the EU reach a deal that benefits some countries without penalising others.
well the retired UK expats are spending their UK pensions in Spain so why would Spain want to lose those funds?
I actually find it astounding that this is even being discussed. What about the rights of UK citizens living abroad? You fundamentally put them at risk if you unilaterally agree the rights of EU nationals in this country.
Does no one actually care about them?
I actually find it astounding that this is even being discussed. What about the rights of UK citizens living abroad? You fundamentally put them at risk if you unilaterally agree the rights of EU nationals in this country.
Does no one actually care about them?
Well, some posters do, some posters don't. Depends on what side of the argument you're on. I am with the Government on this one, who have always said that "they want to and expect to secure the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, just as soon as the EU secures the same for UK citizens living in the EU"
After all, what people are neglecting, is that the UK Government's priority is to maintain the safety and well being of UK citizens. Remember also, EU citizens chose to come here. Just as UK citizens chose to live abroad. Therefore, when you make a choice you have to abide by the will of the Government of that host country. If I chose to live in Australia and they changed the rules about my status whilst I was there, I'd have to abide with them.
What is different here is that until A50 is triggered, NO CHANGES TO RULES regarding EU citizens have been made. Therefore, currently, all EU citizens have the same rights as they had before last June.
Meanwhile the EU seems to be expecting the UK to continue to pay into the EU up until the end of 2023
“The Commission wants the UK to pay in instalments from the day of departure in 2019 up until 2023, which is when the financial demands of the EU’s seven-year budget cycle are at their highest,” said an EU diplomatic source with knowledge of the meeting"
I understand that a 'divorce' payment will be needed and to pay this in instalments would probably be beneficial to both sides, I think the actual amount is going to be a huge issue especially as France and Germany apparently don't see the need for the UK to have our share of the EU's assets to be offset,
however the commission does seem to have conceded David Davis's point that trade deals and 'divorce' settlement should be negotiated together - maybe our negotiators do know what they are doing after all!
I actually find it astounding that this is even being discussed. What about the rights of UK citizens living abroad? You fundamentally put them at risk if you unilaterally agree the rights of EU nationals in this country.
Does no one actually care about them?
Of people care about them.
The point I've been trying to get across, and pro-Brexit people seemingly keep missing, is that both sides should confirm the rights of each others' citizens before the negotiations start. But regardless of what the EU do, the UK should guarantee the rights of UK citizens - and vice versa. And the fact the UK has the opportunity to do that now, via the Article 50 legislation, is why it's pertinent.
These people's lives should not be a bargaining chip.
After all, what people are neglecting, is that the UK Government's priority is to maintain the safety and well being of UK citizens. Remember also, EU citizens chose to come here. Just as UK citizens chose to live abroad. Therefore, when you make a choice you have to abide by the will of the Government of that host country. If I chose to live in Australia and they changed the rules about my status whilst I was there, I'd have to abide with them.
The EU citizens living in this country didn't have a choice when it came to the referendum (except the Maltese, as members of the Commonwealth). Yet UK citizens living in the EU for <15 years did.
Why should the lives of those EU citizens be left in limbo because of a decision they could take no part in? Similarly, why doesn't the "Scotland rule" apply to the UK citizens - a collective decision where the majority outcome should be respected? And if that means needing to leave the country you're currently in, or go through a complicated visa process, then so be it.
The EU citizens living in this country didn't have a choice when it came to the referendum (except the Maltese, as members of the Commonwealth). Yet UK citizens living in the EU for <15 years did.
Why should the lives of those EU citizens be left in limbo because of a decision they could take no part in? Similarly, why doesn't the "Scotland rule" apply to the UK citizens - a collective decision where the majority outcome should be respected? And if that means needing to leave the country you're currently in, or go through a complicated visa process, then so be it.
Because they are not UK citizens and it was a UK referendum do you think if a similar referendum had taken place in France or Germany our ex pats would have been allowed a vote?
I am not sure what you mean by your second point, the majority outcome is being respected - we are leaving the EU
Because they are not UK citizens and it was a UK referendum do you think if a similar referendum had taken place in France or Germany our ex pats would have been allowed a vote?
Why should people who have chosen not to live here have a vote over those who have?
I have absolutely no idea what France or Germany would have done. But that's another "but what about them?" response, with no regard for what's actually right. Same as with the guaranteeing of rights.
I am not sure what you mean by your second point, the majority outcome is being respected - we are leaving the EU
People in Scotland are being told that, despite a majority of Scots who voted voting to remain, we are leaving and the consequences of that should be accepted.
Why, then, shouldn't expats be told the same? And if a consequence of leaving is no longer having the right to remain in their adopted country, tough? It was a collective decision that should be respected.
The same doesn't apply to EU nationals living here because they never had a say.
Why should people who have chosen not to live here have a vote over those who have?
I have absolutely no idea what France or Germany would have done. But that's another "but what about them?" response, with no regard for what's actually right. Same as with the guaranteeing of rights.
People in Scotland are being told that, despite a majority of Scots who voted voting to remain, we are leaving and the consequences of that should be accepted.
Why, then, shouldn't expats be told the same? And if a consequence of leaving is no longer having the right to remain in their adopted country, tough? It was a collective decision that should be respected.
The same doesn't apply to EU nationals living here because they never had a say.
because they are not entitled to have a say and nor should they, decisions about the UK should be put to UK citizens I don't understand why you would think that people who are citizens of other countries should have an equal say, they are able to participate in elections in their homeland
Do you have a personal interest in EU citizens living in the UK? I am genuinely curious and I hope this does not come across as being rude
because they are not entitled to have a say and nor should they, decisions about the UK should be put to UK citizens I don't understand why you would think that people who are citizens of other countries should have an equal say, they are able to participate in elections in their homeland
Because those "citizens of other countries" have chosen to make the UK their home. Whereas expats have chosen to make another country their home. Why should the latter have had a say but not the former?
Do you have a personal interest in EU citizens living in the UK? I am genuinely curious and I hope this does not come across as being rude
Yes. I have friends who have started families here but are now left in an uncertain position because the Government wants to use them as pawns.
because they are not entitled to have a say and nor should they, decisions about the UK should be put to UK citizens I don't understand why you would think that people who are citizens of other countries should have an equal say, they are able to participate in elections in their homeland
Because those "citizens of other countries" have chosen to make the UK their home. Whereas expats have chosen to make another country their home. Why should the latter have had a say but not the former? - Posted by Mark. -
Because EU citizens in the UK get to vote on things that affect their own countries and UK citizens living in those countries don't. It's exactly the same principal.
Comments
It is entirely consistent. May has said that she wants to sort this one issue out early on. If the law does not have this guarantee in, she can go into negotiations and both sets of citizens can get their rights guaranteed and are not left in limbo. If it is in the law, then our citizens are going to get battered and bruised as they are left in limbo whilst being used as pawns by the EU. The best way to help both sides is to discuss this one issue at the start so let's keep it out of the law.
I am not sure I follow your reasoning here, why would the British Government want to extend the time allowed for negotiations? are they not under pressure to get the whole thing done as soon as possible? and would resolving an issue such as this before negotiations start not speed things up?
And it probably will be sorted out early on.
Whether it's in our domestic law or not, doesn't really make any difference to our international allies if a reciprocal agreement must be negotiated. It doesn't change anything in respect of the position of UK citizens either.
In any event, all you're advocating is still letting the EU use UK citizens as a bargaining chip. It's just that you want to use non-UK EU citizens as one as well.
The Government is under pressure to get things started as soon as possible - unwisely, in my view, since I want the Government to get the best deal it can out of Brexit negotiations, and preparation is far more important than speed - particularly as DEXEU is full of people new to their jobs and we are short of experienced negotiators of our own.
An unprepared, green Government negotiating team, rushed into swift exit talks, risks the very "cliff-edge" Brexit and extremely bumpy landing that we all want to avoid. We want to agree as much as possible as quickly as we can - because when the two-year time limit is up, any further progress we might be able to make would be contingent upon the good graces of our erstwhile allies. That's not a strong position to be in. What we don't want is a situation where our negotiations are still trying to work out where the toilets and cafeteria are once talks have already started. We want a negotiating team that's fully prepared. I'm not entirely convinced that they will be by the time Theresa May fires the starting pistol.
thank you for clarifying
Surely it would make the "deal" simpler if our side of it is already written into UK law. We would just say "We've done our part. Now you do yours"
Of course the one group of citizens that most people are forgetting are UK citizens who currently live in the UK. We are the ones about to lose the most rights while negotiating teams argue over the rights of ex-pats.
That's certainly an argument worthy of consideration. BethnalGreen apparently demurs from that position, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
Yeah, well, we chose to make that bed by majority vote, so we all have to lie in it.
That's certainly an argument worthy of consideration. BethnalGreen apparently demurs from that position, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
Yeah, well, we chose to make that bed by majority vote, so we all have to lie in it. I think the only way to have any hope of escaping that would be to high-tail it to another EU country before Article 50 is invoked - and let's be honest, with the current assortment of difficulties in the EU, there aren't that many attractive options, absent any other considerations of who and what you might have to leave behind, assets you might have to liquidate, dependants' lives you might disrupt, the inevitable culture shock and initial language barrier...
As soon as Theresa May fires the Brexit gun, the clock is already ticking down. I'm not sure people fully realise this and that her "no deal is better than a bad deal" comment may well come true.
Of course people know about the procedure and the time frame. We are told about it seven hundred times per day!
Yes indeed, but we've had Theresa May saying in her oh so soothing voice that "We will be seeking the best possible deal for Britain". What happens when the clock is ticking down towards zero and there is not even the slightest sign of a deal in place? It's been very much the phoney war up until now, the real war is about to kick off and like all wars, people haven't a clue how things will pan out.
The Government are not just going to sit around with the EU. During negotiations, the UK will be seeking deals and partnerships with other countries too. Once we leave, these deals will be ready to sign. Anyone who just thinks that the UK is just going to say"yes, sir, please sir, thank you sir" to the EU are extremely naive.
That's not what's being suggested.
Rather, the point Eurostar is making is that there is a lot of stuff to sort out with our erstwhile partners: the border with Ireland, reciprocal rights for citizens, free trade, access for financial institutions, who picks up the kids on a Friday night, who gets the Evanescence CDs... we do, after all, want a deal with them too. After all, between them the EU27 account for the lion's share of our external trade, and for all that we might be able to strike deals with other countries, even with all its woes the EU27 is a significant share of the global market and consists of our nearest neighbours.
There's a lot to sort out in two years. (Except the CDs. Obviously we use them for clay-pigeon shooting.) And we don't really want to leave a lot of this simply hanging.
well the retired UK expats are spending their UK pensions in Spain so why would Spain want to lose those funds?
Does no one actually care about them?
Well, some posters do, some posters don't. Depends on what side of the argument you're on. I am with the Government on this one, who have always said that "they want to and expect to secure the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, just as soon as the EU secures the same for UK citizens living in the EU"
After all, what people are neglecting, is that the UK Government's priority is to maintain the safety and well being of UK citizens. Remember also, EU citizens chose to come here. Just as UK citizens chose to live abroad. Therefore, when you make a choice you have to abide by the will of the Government of that host country. If I chose to live in Australia and they changed the rules about my status whilst I was there, I'd have to abide with them.
What is different here is that until A50 is triggered, NO CHANGES TO RULES regarding EU citizens have been made. Therefore, currently, all EU citizens have the same rights as they had before last June.
“The Commission wants the UK to pay in instalments from the day of departure in 2019 up until 2023, which is when the financial demands of the EU’s seven-year budget cycle are at their highest,” said an EU diplomatic source with knowledge of the meeting"
I understand that a 'divorce' payment will be needed and to pay this in instalments would probably be beneficial to both sides, I think the actual amount is going to be a huge issue especially as France and Germany apparently don't see the need for the UK to have our share of the EU's assets to be offset,
however the commission does seem to have conceded David Davis's point that trade deals and 'divorce' settlement should be negotiated together - maybe our negotiators do know what they are doing after all!
http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/20/europe-wants-britain-pay-billions-eu-schemes-2023/
Of people care about them.
The point I've been trying to get across, and pro-Brexit people seemingly keep missing, is that both sides should confirm the rights of each others' citizens before the negotiations start. But regardless of what the EU do, the UK should guarantee the rights of UK citizens - and vice versa. And the fact the UK has the opportunity to do that now, via the Article 50 legislation, is why it's pertinent.
These people's lives should not be a bargaining chip.
The EU citizens living in this country didn't have a choice when it came to the referendum (except the Maltese, as members of the Commonwealth). Yet UK citizens living in the EU for <15 years did.
Why should the lives of those EU citizens be left in limbo because of a decision they could take no part in? Similarly, why doesn't the "Scotland rule" apply to the UK citizens - a collective decision where the majority outcome should be respected? And if that means needing to leave the country you're currently in, or go through a complicated visa process, then so be it.
Because they are not UK citizens and it was a UK referendum do you think if a similar referendum had taken place in France or Germany our ex pats would have been allowed a vote?
I am not sure what you mean by your second point, the majority outcome is being respected - we are leaving the EU
Why should people who have chosen not to live here have a vote over those who have?
I have absolutely no idea what France or Germany would have done. But that's another "but what about them?" response, with no regard for what's actually right. Same as with the guaranteeing of rights.
People in Scotland are being told that, despite a majority of Scots who voted voting to remain, we are leaving and the consequences of that should be accepted.
Why, then, shouldn't expats be told the same? And if a consequence of leaving is no longer having the right to remain in their adopted country, tough? It was a collective decision that should be respected.
The same doesn't apply to EU nationals living here because they never had a say.
because they are not entitled to have a say and nor should they, decisions about the UK should be put to UK citizens I don't understand why you would think that people who are citizens of other countries should have an equal say, they are able to participate in elections in their homeland
Do you have a personal interest in EU citizens living in the UK? I am genuinely curious and I hope this does not come across as being rude
Because those "citizens of other countries" have chosen to make the UK their home. Whereas expats have chosen to make another country their home. Why should the latter have had a say but not the former?
Yes. I have friends who have started families here but are now left in an uncertain position because the Government wants to use them as pawns.