Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread II

1…166167169171172…305

Comments

  • #5042
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    murphaph wrote: »
    I think the ECJ would need to be convinced that it was in good faith though. I don't see how a government can do that without the clearest of mandates through a convincing referendum result to revoke.

    Actually I think it would need a General Election with a clear majority for another party - possibly Labour but with a clear mandate to not leave the EU, not just a Labour majority with Corbyn ambivalent on the EU. A coalition of Labour with the LibDems plus he SNP might be enough to look like a genuine effort to refute Brexit.


  • #5043
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    To respond to Solo:

    1) At no stage have I suggested that all immigration controls are inherently racist. This is a “paper tiger” you have created.

    2) Nor is it in anyway racist for the EU member states to give each others’ citizens preference for immigration and/or having different criteria for such immigration. EU citizens share a common citizenship of the European Union. EU citizens giving other EU citizens preference within the EU is no more racist than US citizens giving US citizens preference in the USA.

    3) The UK is and always has been free to control non-EU immigrants as it sees fit. It has chosen to repeatedly admit the highest number of non-EU immigrants for every year of its membership. Indeed in 2014, it admitted almost as much as the combined total for Germany, France & Italy.

    4) Anyone in the U.K. with a problem with immigration was and is free to campaign to reduce that extraordinary level of non-EU immigration. Yet it was and is largely ignored in favour of bashing the minority of immigrants who arrive in the U.K. from EU countries.

    5) Any person who has a problem with a minority of immigrants to a country but simultaneously ignores the majority of them, clearly has a problem with the minority. That clearly is a discriminatory/racist attitude.

    Indeed the mere fact that Leave voters themselves cited “immigration” as a key issue in a vote related to the EU (only) shows that their problem was and is with EU immigrants, since their vote, either way, would not impact non-EU immigration. The blunt reality is that, since the referendum result, those voters have expressed no interest whatsoever in reducing non-EU immigration, so clearly their problem isn’t with “immigration” but rather with “immigration from the EU”.


  • #5044
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    First Up wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote:
    Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.


    So what sort of cooperation do you approve of?
    The same way the UK cooperates with Australia on all matter of issues from foreign policy and security to immigration. You do not need to be in the European Union to be able to cooperate with member states in the European Union.


  • #5045
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The same way the UK cooperates with Australia on all matter of issues from foreign policy and security to immigration. You do not need to be in the European Union to be able to cooperate with member states in the European Union.


    In what way does the UK cooperate with Australia on immigration, do UK citizens have free movement in Aus or the other way around?


  • #5046
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    View wrote:
    The blunt reality is that, since the referendum result, those voters have expressed no interest whatsoever in reducing non-EU immigration, so clearly their problem isn’t with “immigration†but rather with “immigration from the EUâ€.

    Either that or they are too thick to understand that Brexit has no impact on non- EU immigration.

    But no doubt some Brexiteers (including non-EU immigrants) will be happy with less competition from hard-working and skilled EU migrants who contribute a lot to the British economy.


  • Advertisement
  • #5047
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭Firblog


    First Up wrote: »
    Mistaken in what belief?

    You complained that the ECJ was intruding in domestic UK law and I pointed out that the ECJ is only involved in adjudicating on laws agreed between EU members.

    If that is all it is concerned with why do people/EU think it should have any role in the oversight of the rights afforded to EU citizens' in the UK?


  • #5048
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    A Little Pony wrote:
    The same way the UK cooperates with Australia on all matter of issues from foreign policy and security to immigration. You do not need to be in the European Union to be able to cooperate with member states in the European Union.


    What about economic cooperation like free movement of capital and goods, common standards and unrestricted access to the largest single market on the planet? Does any of that sort of thing appeal?


  • #5049
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Firblog wrote: »
    If that is all it is concerned with why do people/EU think it should have any role in the oversight of the rights afforded to EU citizens' in the UK?


    Because they moved to the UK with those rights, just like the English person who moved and retired to spain, post Brexit do you think it would be OK for Spain to take the holiday home from every British person and refuse to pay pensions to UK immigrants or to just decide to deport such people home with out recourse to the rules as they exist at the moment or the protection of the ECJ decisions?


  • #5050
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Yes:

    You quoted the posting by mountaintop below.

    Originally Posted by mountaintop
    I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored

    And you responded to it with
    First Up wrote: »
    I have no expectations of enlightening the posters who have an obvious agenda to pursue. However no harm in correcting their more obvious fallacies, in case others mistake them for facts.

    I think anyone reading that would take from it that you believe I have some agenda


  • #5051
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Firblog wrote:
    If that is all it is concerned with why do people/EU think it should have any role in the oversight of the rights afforded to EU citizens' in the UK?

    Those rights were in force under ECJ jurisdiction when those citizens came to the UK. The EU is correctly looking to ensure their interests are looked after as part of the Brexit arrangements.

    But what does that have to do with the ECJ intruding into British domestic law?


  • Advertisement
  • #5052
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good afternoon!
    View wrote: »
    To respond to Solo:

    1) At no stage have I suggested that all immigration controls are inherently racist. This is a “paper tiger” you have created.

    2) Nor is it in anyway racist for the EU member states to give each others’ citizens preference for immigration and/or having different criteria for such immigration. EU citizens share a common citizenship of the European Union. EU citizens giving other EU citizens preference within the EU is no more racist than US citizens giving US citizens preference in the USA.

    3) The UK is and always has been free to control non-EU immigrants as it sees fit. It has chosen to repeatedly admit the highest number of non-EU immigrants for every year of its membership. Indeed in 2014, it admitted almost as much as the combined total for Germany, France & Italy.

    4) Anyone in the U.K. with a problem with immigration was and is free to campaign to reduce that extraordinary level of non-EU immigration. Yet it was and is largely ignored in favour of bashing the minority of immigrants who arrive in the U.K. from EU countries.

    5) Any person who has a problem with a minority of immigrants to a country but simultaneously ignores the majority of them, clearly has a problem with the minority. That clearly is a discriminatory/racist attitude.

    Indeed the mere fact that Leave voters themselves cited “immigration” as a key issue in a vote related to the EU (only) shows that their problem was and is with EU immigrants, since their vote, either way, would not impact non-EU immigration. The blunt reality is that, since the referendum result, those voters have expressed no interest whatsoever in reducing non-EU immigration, so clearly their problem isn’t with “immigration” but rather with “immigration from the EU”.

    I'm not trying to be rude, but you haven't really replied to my post. I gave several reasons as to why EU migration is inherently different to non-EU migration that you've not engaged with.

    You're repeating the idea that because leave voters support controls on EU migration that that means that they are somehow "discriminatory" towards immigrants. Perhaps some are, but there's no generalised reason to say this is true of all leave voters. This is an interesting assertion, but it is ultimately baseless.

    Brexit is an opportunity to address what many people felt was wrong with the immigration system in a fair way. After the UK leaves the European Union immigration policy will be a matter for continued discussion in the House of Commons. In my post, I quoted a previous post where I discuss light touch immigration control on low wage labour. I think that's probably all that would be required.

    Howling about racism isn't helpful or useful.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • #5053
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Firblog wrote: »
    Yes:

    You quoted the posting by mountaintop below.

    Originally Posted by mountaintop
    I think you're wasting your breath. I've noticed Messrs Firblog and Little Pony don't reply when things are explained to them. There are many erudite pundits on here who know what they are talking about, it's certainly an education to me. If I may say so myself, I find it insightful. But it's clear others don't. Even when the facts are explained, they're ignored

    And you responded to it with



    I think anyone reading that would take from it that you believe I have some agenda

    Did you notice the sentence I've highlighted?

    Don't flatter yourself. I don't know if you have an agenda or not. All I've seen from you so far is confusion about the role of the European Court of Justice.


  • #5054
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,437 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon!



    I'm not trying to be rude, but you haven't really replied to my post. I gave several reasons as to why EU migration is inherently different to non-EU migration that you've not engaged with.

    You're repeating the idea that because leave voters support controls on EU migration that that means that they are somehow "discriminatory" towards immigrants. Perhaps some are, but there's no generalised reason to say this is true of all leave voters. This is an interesting assertion, but it is ultimately baseless.

    Brexit is an opportunity to address what many people felt was wrong with the immigration system in a fair way. After the UK leaves the European Union immigration policy will be a matter for continued discussion in the House of Commons. In my post, I quoted a previous post where I discuss light touch immigration control on low wage labour. I think that's probably all that would be required.

    Howling about racism isn't helpful or useful.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria

    What specifically under the current rules prevented the UK from dealing with those 'concerns' right now. Whilst still a member?

    Im intrigued for a response on this because its come up several times as a bug bear of yours. Immigration.

    What specifically under current allowed rules that the UK can deploy at anytime is preventing them from handling immigration 'better'.


  • #5055
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Really Interested wrote: »
    Because they moved to the UK with those rights, just like the English person who moved and retired to spain, post Brexit do you think it would be OK for Spain to take the holiday home from every British person and refuse to pay pensions to UK immigrants or to just decide to deport such people home with out recourse to the rules as they exist at the moment or the protection of the ECJ decisions?

    Will you be ok if the UK courts have a reciprocal role in protecting the rights of UK citizens resident in the EU? Just to make sure that the their citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they had when they moved to the EU?


  • #5056
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Firblog wrote: »
    Will you be ok if the UK courts have a reciprocal role in protecting the rights of UK citizens resident in the EU? Just to make sure that the their citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they had when they moved to the EU?

    That is also an agenda item for the Brexit negotiations. One assumes whatever is agreed will be reciprocal.


  • #5057
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    The government will be forced to delay bringing the EU withdrawal bill back to the House of Commons for a second time, as it struggles to respond to hundreds of hostile amendments, Labour sources expect.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/18/brexit-strategy-in-paralysis-as-eu-withdrawal-bill-delayed

    Brexit has often been called a slow motion car crash. Well given the continuous dire political and economic news emerging from the UK this week. I think we can't officially say the bumper of the brexit car has made contact with the concrete wall and the air bag has failed to deploy. All the while no one is steering but several feet are on the accelerator.


  • #5058
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭Firblog


    First Up wrote: »
    Those rights were in force under ECJ jurisdiction when those citizens came to the UK. The EU is correctly looking to ensure their interests are looked after as part of the Brexit arrangements.

    But what does that have to do with the ECJ intruding into British domestic law?

    I think that British domestic law defines the rights that non British residents have when residing in the UK? i.e. Anyone who is not a UK citizen who is legally resident in the UK has certain rights, and those rights can be upheld by the UK court system - and they pertain to everyone regardless of their nationality.
    The EU does not want its citizens to be subject to the same laws as them, and wants the ECJ to be the protector of their rights, therefore it would be intruding into British domestic law as it relates to persons of non British nationality resident in the UK


  • #5059
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Firblog wrote:
    I think that British domestic law defines the rights that non British residents have when residing in the UK? i.e. Anyone who is not a UK citizen who is legally resident in the UK has certain rights, and those rights can be upheld by the UK court system - and they pertain to everyone regardless of their nationality. The EU does not want its citizens to be subject to the same laws as them, and wants the ECJ to be the protector of their rights, therefore it would be intruding into British domestic law as it relates to persons of non British nationality resident in the UK

    More nonsense.

    Everyone is subject to the law of the land and nobody is looking to be exempt from any of it.

    The only "laws" relevant to this are to do with rights of residency, employment and entitlement to social services that will apply to EU citizens in the UK and vice versa after the circumstances in which they took up such residence (in good faith) are changed.


  • #5060
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Firblog wrote: »
    Will you be ok if the UK courts have a reciprocal role in protecting the rights of UK citizens resident in the EU? Just to make sure that the their citizens continue to enjoy the rights that they had when they moved to the EU?

    But the U.K. want the ECJ to protect U.K. citizens rights in the EU. The UK citizens will be resident in the EU, so ECJ will make sure their rights are protected. By asking the question as you have show little understanding of both the EU and the law.


  • #5061
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Firblog wrote: »
    I think that British domestic law defines the rights that non British residents have when residing in the UK? i.e. Anyone who is not a UK citizen who is legally resident in the UK has certain rights, and those rights can be upheld by the UK court system - and they pertain to everyone regardless of their nationality.
    The EU does not want its citizens to be subject to the same laws as them, and wants the ECJ to be the protector of their rights, therefore it would be intruding into British domestic law as it relates to persons of non British nationality resident in the UK

    When it comes to criminal law or family law or contract law then the U.K. laws apply. It is only when it comes to free movement will EU law continue to apply.


  • Advertisement
  • #5062
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Really Interested wrote: »
    When it comes to criminal law or family law or contract law then the U.K. laws apply. It is only when it comes to free movement will EU law continue to apply.

    I may be showing more ignorance here, but surely one of the main reasons people in the UK voted to leave the EU was to put a stop the free movement of people.


  • #5063
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,997 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Firblog wrote: »
    I may be showing more ignorance here, but surely one of the main reasons people in the UK voted to leave the EU was to put a stop the free movement of people.
    You can stop free movement and still ensure the rights of those EU citizens who moved to the UK before Brexit to be protected by the ECJ. That's what this is all about. Anyone moving to the UK after Brexit would not be protected by the ECJ.


  • #5064
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Firblog wrote: »
    I may be showing more ignorance here, but surely one of the main reasons people in the UK voted to leave the EU was to put a stop the free movement of people.


    Yes and once they have left the EU free movement will stop. But what do you do with the millions of UK citizens living in EU and the millions of EU citizens living in UK, how do you protect the rights they currently have, their right to have pension paid in the new country the right to medical care in host country the right to only be excluded in limited circumstances. You do so by saying any people in the EU or the UK on a certain date retain the rights they had untill that date, and any dispute the final court is the ECJ, there is noting stoping the UK courts dealing with any free movement issue, once the final court is the ECJ.

    For any EU citizens who enter the UK after that agreed date then UK law fully applies and the UK can limit the ability to own property, work study and stay, the UK can limit the situations that family members can join each other and require if they wish that people pass a English history and language test if they wish. Also if they want to deport any person the final court can be if the UK wishes the Supreme Court. This is how do the UK and Eu deal with people who have in many cases years ago gone to live in the other country knowing that the decision to do so carried certain protections.

    In fact in many cases many of the millions of EU citizens living in the UK are entitled to UK citizenship or long term leave to remain, there is no real problem with the UK saying we will for all persons who in UK before Article 50 invoked or finalised agree that EU rules apply same for all UK Citizens in EU. I cant see why this is difficult to agree.


  • #5065
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Really Interested wrote: »
    But the U.K. want the ECJ to protect U.K. citizens rights in the EU. The UK citizens will be resident in the EU, so ECJ will make sure their rights are protected. By asking the question as you have show little understanding of both the EU and the law.

    Apologies for asking a question, but hey I'll risk your ire again by asking another one to demonstrate my little understanding a little more..

    Of course the UK wants the ECJ to protect its citizens that are resident in the EU, it is supposed to be the ECJ's job to ensure that the rights of everyone resident in the EU are protected by the applicable EU laws

    Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would


  • #5066
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,997 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Firblog wrote: »
    Apologies for asking a question, but hey I'll risk your ire again by asking another one to demonstrate my little understanding a little more..

    Of course the UK wants the ECJ to protect its citizens that are resident in the EU, it is supposed to be the ECJ's job to ensure that the rights of everyone resident in the EU are protected by the applicable EU laws

    Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would
    Both sets of citizens moved abroad under European law. The ECJ should continue to enforce this in case of dispute until all those people have either left for home or died. It would not apply to citizens moving abroad post Brexit.


  • #5067
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Firblog wrote: »
    Apologies for asking a question, but hey I'll risk your ire again by asking another one to demonstrate my little understanding a little more..

    Of course the UK wants the ECJ to protect its citizens that are resident in the EU, it is supposed to be the ECJ's job to ensure that the rights of everyone resident in the EU are protected by the applicable EU laws

    Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would


    OK lets take that to the next step would you be happy with Spanish courts protecting the rights of UK citizens living in Spain post brexit. Just think about that for a minute. Say Spain in 5 years to deflect from a movement for independence, starts up a issue with UK over Gibraltar, lets say it introduces a new property tax of €100,000 a year for UK citizens in Spain, and anyone who failes to pay it can be deported as non payment is a criminal offence, would you like the Spanish courts as the final say on that?

    Now say the UK introduce a law that all non UK citizens must pass a test (legal under domestic law not EU law) anyone who fails the test can be deported and can not take more than £1,000 out of the country, would you be happy with those issues being decided by as the final court the UK courts.

    There is a reason that the trump and Brexit supporters attack the courts, and dont think these situations are outlandish, history is full and recent events are full of such situations.


  • #5068
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,282 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/18/brexit-strategy-in-paralysis-as-eu-withdrawal-bill-delayed

    Brexit has often been called a slow motion car crash. Well given the continuous dire political and economic news emerging from the UK this week. I think we can't officially say the bumper of the brexit car has made contact with the concrete wall and the air bag has failed to deploy. All the while no one is steering but several feet are on the accelerator.
    It's car crash for the bottom half of the population too.


    Unemployment drops by 52,000 but pay squeeze continues

    Charity Relate said rising levels of household debt and stagnating wages could be putting a strain on marriages.

    For NI
    Northern Ireland's unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest level in almost 10 years. ... However, the employment rate also fell and the economic inactivity rate rose.


    Interest rates are predicted to rise in the UK soon.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41665590
    Half of us are "vulnerable" when it comes to our monthly finances.

    An extra bill, a period of illness meaning we are unable to work, an increase in interest rates on our mortgages, higher rents - all could lead to financial problems.

    If debt or rent bills went up by £100 a month, nearly half said they would "struggle" with payments.
    ...
    And "among those paying mortgage or rent, one in six state they would struggle if monthly payments increased by less than £50," the FCA survey revealed.
    ...
    Falling real incomes, low productivity and lack of wealth creation in the economy has left people with few options.

    Using up their savings and taking on more debt is the one many have plumped for.


  • #5069
    Firblog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭Firblog


    Really Interested wrote: »
    Yes and once they have left the EU free movement will stop. But what do you do with the millions of UK citizens living in EU and the millions of EU citizens living in UK, how do you protect the rights they currently have, their right to have pension paid in the new country the right to medical care in host country the right to only be excluded in limited circumstances. You do so by saying any people in the EU or the UK on a certain date retain the rights they had untill that date, and any dispute the final court is the ECJ, there is noting stoping the UK courts dealing with any free movement issue, once the final court is the ECJ.

    I cant see why this is difficult to agree.

    I think I can see why it's difficult to agree, would the EU be willing to agree to the courts in the UK having the final decision? I don't think so, then why are people surprised that the UK has a problem with the ECJ being the final court?

    Surely the compromise should be an independent court? Perhaps one UK judge, a judge from the EU, and a third judge from a panel of high ranking judges from US/Canada/Oz etc ?

    Although I wouldn't be surprised if that would be a step too far for some of the more ardent Brexit supporters.


  • #5070
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,875 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    Firblog wrote: »
    Isn't the reciprocal of this that UK courts would protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK? not that the ECJ would

    It comes down to a matter of trust and we don't trust the U.K.:
    - we don't trust them not to change the laws later
    - we don't trust them to abide by U.K. court rulings
    - the proposed rights are not exactly the same as a U.K. citizen
    - there will be a new category for those people making it easier to target them with legislation etc..

    I would suggest the only acceptable alternative to ECJ supervision would be for the U.K. to grant these people irrevocable citizenship.


  • Advertisement
  • #5071
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Firblog wrote: »
    I think I can see why it's difficult to agree, would the EU be willing to agree to the courts in the UK having the final decision? I don't think so, then why are people surprised that the UK has a problem with the ECJ being the final court?

    Surely the compromise should be an independent court? Perhaps one UK judge, a judge from the EU, and a third judge from a panel of high ranking judges from US/Canada/Oz etc ?

    Although I wouldn't be surprised if that would be a step too far for some of the more ardent Brexit supporters.


    So in the quest to no longer answer to other courts its proposed to create a new court just to deal with this issue, a court that would have to implement EU law and the case law of the ECJ to protect the citizens who have taken advantage of EU law.

    Just think through your proposal and the only logical way is ECJ, to implement EU law, it may have to be EU law frozen in time where any advances are not taken in to account.

    But we have such a situation Turkish citizens who are lawfully in the EU under the Ankara Agreementhave their right protected by the ECJ and it works very well but is limited to the agreement.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement