Moaning about "Remoaners" seems to be a new "thing". Maybe they are "Remoaner Moaners".

Verhofstadt has said it will be included with the Brexit negotiations and not taken forward as a treay amendment as envisaged by the MEP who proposed it.

It would appear instead of granting those UK citizens already living in the EU the right to remain he is looking at an ongoing right for them and any other UK citizens. If this was reciprocated by the UK it means FoM would remain in place even if the UK left the single market. It is a 'cunning plan' that needs to be refused.

I thought the proposal would be for UK citizens who wanted it to be able to maintain EU citizenship while people like you can gladly lose theirs. If it's voluntary then I can't see how it can be made reciprocal.

But if the negotiations do lead to free movement being retained as part of an overall agreement then so be it. We just need to trust the government to get the best deal possible, don't we?

"Needs to be refused"?

You've given up all influence over the negotiations as Brexit supporters don't want any say in the deal. Apparently, handing over full control after the referendum was what you wanted when you asked to "take back control from the political metropolitan elite".

As you don't want a second referendum, you'll get the deal you're given.

That rather depends on how the EU put this proposal forward and it is possible that it could be reciprocal.


Since when did Brexiters say they wanted no say in the deal?

So the EU's basically offering people to 'have cake and eat it'. I thought they wanted to put countries off leaving?

Now they're basically saying "you can leave but for a few quid a year, you can keep all the good stuff". Isn't that the ideal solution?

You don't want another referendum and don't think that the courts or Parliament should be involved. So how are you going to have your say? The government could just ignore you.

Besides, if you want your say then I want mine too - and I say this would be a good deal. You may not want freedom of movement for yourself but that's no reason to take it away from others.

This seems like a good compromise to me. It will protect British ex-pats in the EU and be a fair trade for protecting the rights of EU citizens who live and work in the U.K. too.

I would probably go for this as I stand to inherit a small property in Spain eventually.

How will it protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK, it would have to be a reciprocal agreement to do that, and I've not heard anything from the government to that effect.

The fact that so many brexiters seem to be against the idea of this even though they'd be under no obligation to take it themselves says everything that needs to be said about them.

By having a say I mean voicing one's opinion which Bremainers haven't been shy in doing.

If the EU wish to make this offer to UK citizens then that's fine by me, I'm just opposed to the UK reciprocating as it in effect continues FoM.

I don't think I have ever heard any (at least decent and considerate) brexiteers say they do not want Parliament or the courts involved. They voted to return sovereignty to Parliament.

I think the issue is can those in Parliament and the courts be trusted to use their power to negotiate a sensible and structured exit from the EU (ie: follow the will of the majority result as they have been instructed) rather than use every little loophole, argument or backdoor to try to circumvent the will of that majority to get out of leaving - especially where in some cases their own constituents have majority voted to leave but the MP themselves are Europhiles.

THAT is what the brexiteers have concerns about, and if Parliament did end up doing that it makes a complete joke out of British democracy - why would anybody bother to vote ever again?

Personally I would have no issue with the UK paying for single market access or guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens (if a reciprocal arrangement is agreed) - I think it is pretty clear though that completely unrestricted Freedom of Movement and not being under the jurisdiction of EU courts should really be red lines. An emergency brake just isn't going to cut it.

I can't imagine something like this going through without some sort of reciprical agreement from the UK, nor should it.

Hasn't May already suggested that she will seek to protect the rights of EU residents in the U.K. Provided British citizens in the EU are afforded the same protections?

IMO this would fit that requirement and go a long way towards addressing some of the concerns of the 48%.

May's proposal is for citizens already resident in the UK and the EU, it isn't an ongoing commitment in the future which amounts to FoM.

Ah, so that's why there is a court case where the government is appealing to prevent Parliament having a say in triggering Article 50.


You may be new around here (welcome!) but you should be aware that the result was an instruction to leave the EU and said nothing about the single market, customs union, freedom of movement or any of the dozens of other relationships which need renegotiating.

Protecting the rights of British citizens already living in EU countries is one thing, but reciprocating on this would mean FoM continues unabated, might as well not have Brexit. If Verhofstadt wants to offer this then fine, just don't expect the same in return.

Nor should it be. As I understand this, Brits that wish to take advantage of this would be required to make some sort of contribution towards the EU.

It would be fair to expect the same in return from EU citizens who wish to live and work in the U.K.

Perhaps restricted access to benefits, social housing and the NHS (emergency treatment only? A requirement to hold private health insurance?) until they have a proven record of contributing to the country through taxation.

If all parties involved stopped hurling insults and calmed the fk down, I'm reasonably sure a fair compromise could be established that works for everyone.

British sovereignty is being returned to the fine upstanding residents of Westminster, fair enough, I see no reason why we need to torch the lives of ordinary people in the process.


I don't see that as being inevitable if all sides put aside the bitterness and negotiate in good faith. Controlled immigration is a positive to the country, I see this as a way of achieving this goal with our nearest neighbours.

If having left the EU the UK offered EU citizens such a right it could be argued it is, as a non-EU member, discriminating against non-EU citziens if they weren't offered the same.

This proposal is an EU attempt to maintain FoM if the exit agreement means the UK leaves the single market as if it doesn't leave the single market the proposal has no purpose.

Would it? When two countries agree a treaty does this mean that they are discriminating against non-signatories?


It may well be, or it could be a starting point for our negotiators which leads to a deal that works for all sides, benefits our own people as well as providing access to EU workers that can be a positive asset to business and the country as a whole.

It may also go some way towards placating the nearly 50% of the country that is uncomfortable with Brexit and staving off potential civil unrest in the U.K.

Brexit is happening, we would be foolish however to disregard the concerns of nearly half the population.

The healing has to start somewhere.

We have been repeatedly and firmly told that no discussion or negotiation will take place before A50 is invoked, so why has Verhofstadt jumped the gun, what game is he playing?

The political one, Show the stick and show the carrot in equal measure until the time comes to sit down and start negotiations in earnest. Our lot are playing the same game.

I would advise taking everything with a truckload of salt until the withdrawal process actually gets under way.

He's not negotiating. He's giving not asking for anything in return.

I didn't say it would, I said it could.


There is no reason post Brexit why EU citizens can't come to work here or UK citizens can't go to work in the EU, ending FoM simply means they have no automatic right to.

We would be foolish to disregard one of the main reaons over half the electorate voted for Brexit and doing so is unlikely to do much for the healing you talk of.

How do you know?

I think the government had to appeal to clarify their rights regarding RP - as many are saying in this forum the court case has much wider underlying significance than Brexit. But I think government also understands that others may try to circumvent the will of the majority, and they IMO are trying to protect the result - which they NEED to do, because it would be quite an upset to democracy if we didn't leave the EU in some form.


Absolutely and thank you so much for the welcome. I actually think it is so important to recognise the 48% and show proper respect for their views but also we as a country need to follow the majority decision which was to leave. Yes, the instruction to leave did not say anything officially about what a negotiated deal would look like but again this fear from the people I don't believe is against Parliament having that say - it's more a fear of certain elements of it who will undoubtedly try to water an exit down to a "stay in all but name" which whatever it says or doesn't say on the ballot paper isn't what was being implied would happen during the campaign by either side.

Must from now on every 5 years we have not just "Conservative" or "Labour" on the election ballot but also exactly what they are meant to do, and how, by when? Should there be a clause which states "Tories will not raise VAT above 20% or else there will be a re-vote". We have to be able to trust Parliament to follow the will of a majority vote and it just feels to me like this whole situation has come out of distrust for politicians as a whole and whilst remainers have a right to their views there's quite a fine line between defining how it should be done, and trying to destroy/reverse the vote by any which way they can.