• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brexit defeat for UK government over EU citizen rights

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,385
Reaction score
38,946
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Brexit defeat for UK government over EU citizen rights - CNN.com

London (CNN)British Prime Minister Theresa May suffered her first Brexit bill defeat Wednesday, over the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
Members of the House of Lords, the upper house of the UK parliament, voted in favor of an amendment that called for EU nationals legally resident in Britain to be guaranteed the same status after the UK leaves the European Union.

Citing government sources, Britain's Press Association reported that the government will seek to overturn the House of Lords decision in the Commons.

If MPs reject the amendment, the bill could "ping pong" between both houses. Ultimately, the government can invoke British parliamentary convention to force the unamended bill into law without the Lords' approval.
Click to expand...

Thing are heating up.
 
joG said:
It would certainly make sense letting the bill ping pong for a few years. Juncker published a White Paper today as a basis for Eu restructuring. He wants this to go quickly. As long as it ping pings the U.K. can help determine the way that the restructuring goes.
Click to expand...

IIRC Parliament will have the final say on what is or is not acceptable for specific negotiations and I refer to trade and others items that arise??
Question if after art 50 is invoked, can the govt, UK then withdraw the Art and remain in the EU?? Based upon negotiations not going well for the UK. I bet this is not included, where a country can cancel the exit from the EU.
 
JANFU said:
IIRC Parliament will have the final say on what is or is not acceptable for specific negotiations and I refer to trade and others items that arise??
Question if after art 50 is invoked, can the govt, UK then withdraw the Art and remain in the EU?? Based upon negotiations not going well for the UK. I bet this is not included, where a country can cancel the exit from the EU.
Click to expand...
The attempt (revoke the invocation) would be a novum so far not provided for.

So the answer would have to be "no".

The rules of article 50 state that a max. period of 2 years is given to both sides to settle (agree) the terms of exit. When those 2 Years expire (with or without agreement), all contracts of membership are automatically void, i.e. state having invoked article 50 is out.

However!!!!!

The European Council can prolong the period (extend the date). That would change the time line but it changes nothing in exit (once declared by invoking 50) being exit.

As to the pipe dream constantly repeated here by the same poster, La La Land did NOT make best movie.:mrgreen:




P.S. of course if article 50 is not invoked by the date that May has promised (i.e. due to ping pong game as described) the clock won't start ticking. The EU can't declare it and it can't force the UK to do so.
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
~ Thing are heating up.
Click to expand...

Usually the Conservatives are the ones who defend the existence of the House of Lords but I guess after today there may be calls for abolishment. That said, the defeat is very much on the point of there not having been any statement on the rights of the legal immigrants who have come, worked hard and paid taxes. The govt position was seen as a tit for tat on there not being a reciprocal agreement on the many British citizens who are in Europe either retired or working.

Neither the EU nor the UK govt should be using hard working immigrants as bargaining chips.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Usually the Conservatives are the ones who defend the existence of the House of Lords but I guess after today there may be calls for abolishment. That said, the defeat is very much on the point of there not having been any statement on the rights of the legal immigrants who have come, worked hard and paid taxes. The govt position was seen as a tit for tat on there not being a reciprocal agreement on the many British citizens who are in Europe either retired or working.

Neither the EU nor the UK govt should be using hard working immigrants as bargaining chips.
Click to expand...

Your right, they should use the ones that never intended to work. Look at your welfare stats lately?
 
coldjoint said:
Your right, they should use the ones that never intended to work. Look at your welfare stats lately?
Click to expand...

As ever, reading the thread OP and title would help you stay on topic. As it is, this post of yours deserves lack of any further response.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
As ever, reading the thread OP and title would help you stay on topic. As it is, this post of yours deserves lack of any further response.
Click to expand...

Why did you bring in immigrants?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
~..................................Neither the EU nor the UK govt should be using hard working immigrants as bargaining chips.
Click to expand...
The problem with this particular issue and field lies in there being no room for bargains. Freedom of movement is freedom of movement.

If the UK denies that (also to those currently resident within) there's nothing to negotiate on this particular issue any more. It's not an issue of petty tit-for-tat on the side of Brussels or vengeance as some like to think, alone the Visegrád Four (Czechs, Hungarians, Slovakians and Poles) will torpedo any terms of exit that do not include said freedom of movement and residence.

Thus possibly causing the time of negotiation of terms after article 50 is invoked to expire without any further agreement.

Out with nothing.
 
Last edited:
Infinite Chaos said:
As ever, reading the thread OP and title would help you stay on topic. As it is, this post of yours deserves lack of any further response.
Click to expand...
Amen.

Best ignored altogether, what with any sensible contribution to the topic not to be expected.
 
Chagos said:
Amen.

Best ignored altogether, what with any sensible contribution to the topic not to be expected.
Click to expand...

Just maybe the truth, and you have shown just how much it bothers you. Carry on.
 
Chagos said:
The problem with this particular issue and field lies in there being no room for bargains. Freedom of movement is freedom of movement.

If the UK denies that (also to those currently resident within) there's nothing to negotiate on this particular issue any more. It's not an issue of petty tit-for-tat on the side of Brussels or vengeance as some like to think, alone the Visegrád Four (Czechs, Hungarians, Slovakians and Poles) will torpedo any terms of exit that do not include said freedom of movement and residence.

Thus possibly causing the time of negotiation of terms after article 50 is invoked to expire without any further agreement.

Out with nothing.
Click to expand...

There could at least be moves by the UK govt to try and look like it is considering the fate of EU citizens, at the diplomatic level we are aware of the nuances of the agreements but at personal levels you read and see interviews of worried Poles and others who are settling here.
I suspect that we will be issuing work permits eventually once we are out but this could be handled better.
 
joG said:
It would certainly make sense letting the bill ping pong for a few years. Juncker published a White Paper today as a basis for Eu restructuring. He wants this to go quickly. As long as it ping pings the U.K. can help determine the way that the restructuring goes.
Click to expand...

You keep going on about the UK having a part in restructuring the EU. What planet are you on? There's not a chance in hell the EU are going to listen to a vacating member, on how the structure of the 27 will be after the 1 has left!
 
coldjoint said:
Your right, they should use the ones that never intended to work. Look at your welfare stats lately?
Click to expand...

Leaving aside social issues, you do know migrants provide a net benefit to the economy?
 
JANFU said:
IIRC Parliament will have the final say on what is or is not acceptable for specific negotiations and I refer to trade and others items that arise??
Question if after art 50 is invoked, can the govt, UK then withdraw the Art and remain in the EU?? Based upon negotiations not going well for the UK. I bet this is not included, where a country can cancel the exit from the EU.
Click to expand...

I had read the Article and found it somewhat fuzzy. It would land in court and as it would probably be an EU court that decided the finding would most probably be political.
But here is the text. Article 50
 
JANFU said:
IIRC Parliament will have the final say on what is or is not acceptable for specific negotiations and I refer to trade and others items that arise??
Question if after art 50 is invoked, can the govt, UK then withdraw the Art and remain in the EU?? Based upon negotiations not going well for the UK. I bet this is not included, where a country can cancel the exit from the EU.
Click to expand...

I had read the Article and found it somewhat fuzzy. It would land in court and as it would probably be an EU court that decided the finding would most probably be political.
But here is the text. Article 50

The Article uses various words that would usually indicate precise meaning in legal texts. The parting county does not notify the Eu of termination, it informs of an intention for instance. An intention to do something is other than informing of an immutable fact. It is definitely less certain and might depend on future events.
 
gunner said:
You keep going on about the UK having a part in restructuring the EU. What planet are you on? There's not a chance in hell the EU are going to listen to a vacating member, on how the structure of the 27 will be after the 1 has left!
Click to expand...

You don't seem to like that as long as the U.K. is in the Eu it influences all decisions. In matters requiring unanimity this obvious. In negotiating majorities it is more complicated. It can vote on one side or another, tell one side it would do so if this or that were changed, but in any event it alters the outcome of all majority decisions just by being a member. You do realize the implications of majority decisions and how Brexit will shift power among the members?
 
joG said:
You don't seem to like that as long as the U.K. is in the Eu it influences all decisions. In matters requiring unanimity this obvious. In negotiating majorities it is more complicated. It can vote on one side or another, tell one side it would do so if this or that were changed, but in any event it alters the outcome of all majority decisions just by being a member. You do realize the implications of majority decisions and how Brexit will shift power among the members?
Click to expand...

No, you don't seem to understand we're leaving, gone, out, no turning back or possibility of influence. We were (see past tense) never an active or encouraging member when we were a member, so how are we suddenly going to turn into a pro-active, reforming, forward looking member, with the looming separation talks imminent?
 
gunner said:
No, you don't seem to understand we're leaving, gone, out, no turning back or possibility of influence. We were (see past tense) never an active or encouraging member when we were a member, so how are we suddenly going to turn into a pro-active, reforming, forward looking member, with the looming separation talks imminent?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand that given the decision making rules of the Eu the U.K. cannot help but influence decision outcomes.

And it is very wrong to think that the country was not influential and active. It just did not act decisively every time it should have. That is a pity, as that could have prevented some of the unsavory behavior and sloppy legislation. It is possible that Brexit would not have come about, had GB been more forceful in preventing the more stupid treaties. In so far, you are right. Though, the U.K. did actively engage, it too often opted out instead of preventing bad legislation.
 
joG said:
I had read the Article and found it somewhat fuzzy. It would land in court and as it would probably be an EU court that decided the finding would most probably be political.
But here is the text. Article 50

The Article uses various words that would usually indicate precise meaning in legal texts. The parting county does not notify the Eu of termination, it informs of an intention for instance. An intention to do something is other than informing of an immutable fact. It is definitely less certain and might depend on future events.
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
Chagos said:
The problem with this particular issue and field lies in there being no room for bargains. Freedom of movement is freedom of movement.

If the UK denies that (also to those currently resident within) there's nothing to negotiate on this particular issue any more. It's not an issue of petty tit-for-tat on the side of Brussels or vengeance as some like to think, alone the Visegrád Four (Czechs, Hungarians, Slovakians and Poles) will torpedo any terms of exit that do not include said freedom of movement and residence.

Thus possibly causing the time of negotiation of terms after article 50 is invoked to expire without any further agreement.

Out with nothing.
Click to expand...

What is there to negotiate? The EU has no power over non-EU immigration into EU countries.
 
joG said:
You don't seem to understand that given the decision making rules of the Eu the U.K. cannot help but influence decision outcomes.

And it is very wrong to think that the country was not influential and active. It just did not act decisively every time it should have. That is a pity, as that could have prevented some of the unsavory behavior and sloppy legislation. It is possible that Brexit would not have come about, had GB been more forceful in preventing the more stupid treaties. In so far, you are right. Though, the U.K. did actively engage, it too often opted out instead of preventing bad legislation.
Click to expand...

Your post is full of what if, should have, could have; but the reality is, DID NOT. That is, the UK will leave via negotiations to do with leaving, nothing at all to do with how the 27 proceed. How difficult is this for you to understand?
 
gunner said:
Your post is full of what if, should have, could have; but the reality is, DID NOT. That is, the UK will leave via negotiations to do with leaving, nothing at all to do with how the 27 proceed. How difficult is this for you to understand?
Click to expand...

You obviously do not know how the majority voting works or seemingly unanimity for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom