Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Because they moved here under a specific set of circumstances, and the same will be reciprocated to UK ex-pats?

No it isn't. The 'same' being reciprocated would involve British citizens in the EU being permitted to have British courts supersede the EU ones. Can you imagine Spanish fury, if we demanded British expats have the right to have any rights granted to citizens in Britain apply equally in Spain, with attendant rights to refer disputes to British courts? There'd be an outrage.

I repeat, EU citizens do not enjoy such privileges in any other independent nation on the planet, nor does any other nation expect its citizens to have these sorts of rights available whilst abroad in foreign countries. Why on earth would we permit them in the UK? It's a direct infringement upon the sovereign law of the nation-state. The fact we're leaving the EU means that we leave the EU's jurisdiction. That's the entire point.

That's what makes me think this is a negotiating ploy. May has offered to allow anyone here for five years a 'settled' status. I expect they will row back on this in exchange for 'settled' status being granted to those who have been here for two years or somesuch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.

In that situation, the US would apply diplomatic pressure to ensure their citizens were not mistreated.

There's no some absurd situations whereby if we democratically pass an anti-terrorist law permitting the police to hold people for two weeks without being charged or somesuch, the US citizen arrested by it can claim immunity to the law, or refer it back to a US court. Which is what the EU are asking for. They are asking for European law to take precedence over British law when applicable to EU citizens on British soil.

Well, considering your PM's recent remarks on human/civil rights, I can see why.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Rather than wishing Brexit to fail in order to teach one political party and a section of the country a harsh lesson, I'd rather we made it a success. And it could be a success if the work was put into it which unfortunately I'm not seeing from May's cabal. They should have planned to go WTO rules with anything beyond that as a bonus. It's the uncertainly that's causing the problems.

The question is why the people that don't want a hard Brexit should care about doing this at all. As a generalisation it will be the young and the educated that *mostly* will be responsible for trying to pull the country out of the fire. However in the majority they do not want to leave the EU, are being completely ignored (even though over 48% of the population voted to remain) all to pander to the older generation (and for a significant minor proportion of Leavers, also bigots) who think getting out of the EU should just be regardless of the arguments for *insert random ideological nonsense*. Yet these in the majority being the older generation will sit back retire and let things happen and just yell from the sidelines as things don't go the way they want. So why should the young and the educated actually be bothered to help the country out of the mess it is creating for itself. Why not just take the older generation view of, thanks for the education and support to get us to a well earning job, now here are two fingers, we are off to sunnier, more liberal, climates?

It's like sharing a house with your family and half of them think putting dynamite round all the foundations stating lets make our house great again and doing this will save £35.0 a week on heating bills is a good idea. The other half point out that all it is going to do is bring the house down. But they blow the dynamite anyway and after the explosion settles, the first half dust themselves down, get out the deck chair and start asking those that pointed out that blowing up the house was a bad idea to get on with rebuilding a new one whilst they sit and drink tea (all the whilst stating that those complaining are saboteurs or betraying the family).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

I repeat, EU citizens do not enjoy such privileges in any other independent nation on the planet, nor does any other nation expect its citizens to have these sorts of rights available whilst abroad in foreign countries. Why on earth would we permit them in the UK? It's a direct infringement upon the sovereign law of the nation-state. The fact we're leaving the EU means that we leave the EU's jurisdiction. That's the entire point.

There is a difference here though that is being ignored. With free movement people knew what they were getting and the rights they enjoyed in Italy, France, Poland etc were similar at the EU level. The Polish person knew that the Italian person they married may continue to work in Italy for 5 years whilst they worked in the UK and when they decided to have a family they could do that anywhere in the EU. These were the rights they had when they moved. If you move to a non-EU country you move under the knowledge that the rights there *are* different and that you are making a conscious decision as to whether you accept them or not.

In this case the rights were known but are now being taken away. I know plenty of EU nationals that don't want to be considered 'settled' in the UK and think the idea and proposal is ludicrous and demeaning (and the ID idea is tantamount to requiring them to tattoo a barcode on their arm). For these people the UK is stripping them of the rights they had and I can understand from the EU perspective that it believes its citizens should deserve to maintain these rights regardless of what the individual nation chooses. Personally I wish they'd require all current EU citizens to continue to have those rights, UK citizens and all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

Well Cameron threw a strop and abandoned his post after not instructing the civil service to prepare for the possibility of an Out vote, then we had to have the Tory leadership contest, Gina Miller trying to hold it up and then that pointless election. It's been an uphill struggle all the way. I think it's only now they've actually even started to look at it seriously.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as somebody once said.

They've tried everything to stop Brexit: courtroom battles, parliamentary stalling tactics, Tim Farron, a GE, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, business propaganda, turning the Guardian into a Juncker press release, and so on...

They won't stop, and neither should we.

Erm... strictly speaking you get a lot more freedoms by being in the EU than out of it. Strictly speaking by wanting to leave you are sacrificing freedoms despite the claimed eternal vigilance....

even though over 48% of the population voted to remain

Yes, and over 51% voted to Leave.

Leave 17,410,742 51.89%
Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

Do you not understand how a democracy works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I still suspect we'll see Article 50 revoked in due time

And see Farage coming out of retirement as a result? I think most Remainers would take Brexit over that

Depends on how it is done. If the public view of Brexit becomes more hostile and ridiculed then Farage may just become a household joke (we can only hope).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

even though over 48% of the population voted to remain

Yes, and over 51% voted to Leave.

Leave 17,410,742 51.89%
Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

Do you not understand how a democracy works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

Do you not know how statistics works?

Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.

 Whirlwind wrote:

There is a difference here though that is being ignored.

No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country. You move there, being aware that your status within a country is vulnerable until you take out citizenship, and knowing that the laws of that country will apply so long as you live there. If someone believes it to be different to that, or did not consider it before they moved, then that's their problem. Their neglect does not mean that another government suddenly has the moral right to start demanding its jurisdiction should extend over independent and separate nations.

If I move to Gibraltar and Gibraltar votes for independence five years later, I don't get to suddenly demand that I get some super special rights and recourse to a UK court because I was born on the mainland. I either suck it up and take citizenship, accept that I count as a foreigner and all that entails whilst living there, or move elsewhere.

Them's the break when you move abroad. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Legal systems aren't a pick and mix, where you you get to mix and match the best one depending on which you like best.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It is ridiculous. You should have the same rights as people in the country where you live, wherever that is. And 'circumstances' change all the time regardless of whether you're a citizen or not, laws and economies change and evolve.

Mr Barnier said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizens' rights.

Absurd. We can't leave the EU, and have EU citizens living under different laws/rights to British citizens in our country. It seems that they just aren't interested in serious negotiation. No country would stand for this. As Ketara says above, the EU don't expect the US to give EU visitors different rights.

All I can imagine is that there are those in the EU who aren't interested in negotiation, they just want it to collapse to punish the UK as a show of force to other EU members - all the EU citizens caught up in this disaster are expendable.

The USA isn't part of the EU, so how do imaginary legal arrangements affect the case?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.

This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won. Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU? It was pretty much a 50:50 split and because of (still the large proportion of non-voters) there is no significance in either the Remain or Leave vote. Small issues could easily have swayed the vote. For example the vote was always stated as non-binding. If the populace had been told it was binding and that regardless of any other factors we would leave if we voted that way, that may have changed the vote. How many thought this was a good chance to stick it to the government because it wasn't binding. If we voted again tomorrow would the younger generation turn out now that they have been politically engaged and are aware of the consequences of leaving? How many people were like the lady that on day one after the referendum sent an open note to parliament asking whether she could change her vote and didn't really mean to leave. Are you so confident that another vote wouldn't go the other way? To ignore part of the populace is exactly why May is in the mess she is now in. One result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.

To quote obi-wan..."only a sith deals in absolutes..."

Given it was a 72.2% turnout, only a piss poor 36% of the populace voted to leave the EU.

And I'm pretty sure enough regret to make a difference, and even more never voted to leave the single market.

But hey, right wing is gonna talk bollocks regardless.

In addition to the above, the referendum (like all British referendums) was not binding on Parliament, so there wasn't a winning side and a losing side.

I think it is pretty likely there will be a second referendum if ever the government can get its act together to produce a set of legislation. It will be interesting to see how the vote falls out.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

There is a difference here though that is being ignored.

No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country. You move there, being aware that your status within a country is vulnerable until you take out citizenship, and knowing that the laws of that country will apply so long as you live there. If someone believes it to be different to that, or did not consider it before they moved, then that's their problem. Their neglect does not mean that another government suddenly has the moral right to start demanding its jurisdiction should extend over independent and separate nations.

The EU is not a nation though. It is a group of countries working in principle for the rights of all their citizens. If Gibraltar left the UK and joined the EU (lets hope) then the UK can reasonably expect that it's citizens retain the same rights and aren't barcoded as third class citizens. Indeed the UK tried to do this with Hong Kong although much less successfully. The EU have every right to protect their citizens (and wish they would require it for UK citizens as well, especially those too young to vote for example). It's only May's desire to spy on everyone and get rid of the ECJ that is the problem. However I fully expect that once May is deposed that this will not become an issue. There is more and more recognition that leaving Euratom is likely to be a complete disaster as we neither have the resources and expertise to replace it and is going to effect everything from nuclear power to accessing isotopes for cancer treatment. The problem is that ECJ has rights over Euratom and May is so obsessed with getting out that it is becoming a large can of worms. However to withdraw the request to leave Euratom means withdrawing the Article 50 letter...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The Grand Plan, the bold vision, that is sorely absent - that's what will make Brexit a success.

Have our cake and eat it, empire 2.0, taking back control.

The bold vision part is there, it's the plan bits that seem to be missing.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The EU is not a nation though. It is a group of countries working in principle for the rights of all their citizens.

Precisely. We're not even part of the same nation. We're just signed up to a treaty. If I wouldn't expect to have those sorts of considerations when in an area abroad that was officially part of my own country, why on earth would I expect to have them just because my country had signed an agreement with them previously?

Put it this way. If you believe that it is right for the EU to look after its citizens by demanding these concessions, it would be entirely reasonable to seek for British courts and law to have jurisidiction over British expats in the EU, yes? Surely in the name of equality, we should be asking for the exact same thing back, right? Since it's a reasonable request and all....

The EU have every right to protect their citizens

Sure. Within Europe. We're not exactly talking about marching EU citizens into death camps after leaving here. Certainly, there's nothing going to happen that would morally justify demanding that British law remain subservient to that of a foreign power.

And the more I consider it, the more I'm convinced they know it. It's a playing piece in a much larger game here. They're asking for something ludicrous to roll back on it later, to make the concession seem larger. It's why they're making such a big song and dance about it in press conferences.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Given it was a 72.2% turnout, only a piss poor 36% of the populace voted to leave the EU.

And even fewer were actively enthusiastic enough about the EU to bother voting in favour. You can't assume anything about the political leaning of people who don't vote, second guessing what they 'really wanted' had they actually voted. Both sides want to claim the 28% of non-voters as their own quiet majority, which is dishonest.

By choosing not to vote they choose to put the decision in the hands of others.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Remain LOST. Of course their "wishes are being ignored". Thats what happens in every election or Referendum, the winning side WINS and the losing side LOSES.

This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won. Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?

I don't care how the rest of the country views the EU. They should have voted if they want to Remain. It was said numerous times in this thread during the General Election that you don't have the right to complain if you don't bother to vote. Well that applies to Brexit as well.

This is the problem though, statistically the only thing you can actually say is no side won.

Except, you know, the side with the most votes?

Are you sure that is the way the country views the EU?

Are YOU sure the country favours your side? We don't know either way, because so many people couldn't be arsed to vote. And thats tough gak, they should have voted but chose not to so their wishes were not counted at the appropriate time. Cry me a river.

It was pretty much a 50:50 split and because of (still the large proportion of non-voters) there is no significance in either the Remain or Leave vote.

No it was not a "50:50" split, it was a 52:48 split. A very close vote, but there was a one million vote majority in favour of Leave. And in our democratic system, thats all you need. Complaining after the fact that its a weak margin is moving the goal posts.

Small issues could easily have swayed the vote. For example the vote was always stated as non-binding. If the populace had been told it was binding and that regardless of any other factors we would leave if we voted that way, that may have changed the vote. How many thought this was a good chance to stick it to the government because it wasn't binding. If we voted again tomorrow would the younger generation turn out now that they have been politically engaged and are aware of the consequences of leaving?

You don't know that. You don't know ANY of that. I don't care for this sort of hypothetical What If speculation. None of this is verifiable, none of this can be tested and challenged.

How many people were like the lady that on day one after the referendum sent an open note to parliament asking whether she could change her vote and didn't really mean to leave.

lol, what a fething idiot. She probably shouldn't be voting. I have no sympathy for people like her. Should we apply this logic to General Elections and Governments too? "Oh no, there was a scandal in the first week of the new Government, I want to take back my vote".

Tough gak, thats not how democracy works. You don't get to just change your mind on a whim after the fact. You cast your vote, and you accept the consequences. We aren't playing Life Is Strange.

Are you so confident that another vote wouldn't go the other way? To ignore part of the populace is exactly why May is in the mess she is now in.

I don't care how the vote would go. We had a vote, we had a result. We don't get to keep on changing our minds on a him ad nauseam, that defeats the entire purpose of holding a vote in the first place. Do we get to change our mind after a General Election and recall the Government? No, so why should a Referendum be any different?

One result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.

I'll remember this excuse the next time a party that I dislike wins an election and forms a Government. After all, one General Election result should not be used as an excuse without full consideration of the populace as a whole as whether they voted or not, that is what parliament are there to represent.

To quote obi-wan..."only a sith deals in absolutes..."

Excuse me? A democratic vote in our political system, and especially a Yes/No Referendum, is a binary decision. You either get the Candidate or Referendum result you wanted, or you do not. It is by its very nature, an absolute.


Even though Obi Wan is my favourite Jedi, I wouldn't put too much stock in what Obi Wan says. After all, the Jedi have been thoroughly discredited as of Star Wars Episode 8 The Last Jedi.

Its time for the Jedi to end.
-Luke Skywalker.

I know I'm pissing in the wind here, but is there any chance we don't rerun the referendum arguments again?

I'm fairly sure, we've all heard it all before.
If we're not careful, remoaner and Brexshit are just around the corner.

There is loads going on politically to discuss, and tbh, I'm sick to death of Brexit.

If you couldn't be arsed to vote then why should anyone be arsed to hear your opinion? The ones who didn't vote quite frankly don't count.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If you couldn't be arsed to vote then why should anyone be arsed to hear your opinion? The ones who didn't vote quite frankly don't count.

The myth that cements our absurd electoral system in place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm completely with Howard and Ketera on this. It's frankly insulting that they think that their courts and laws can continue to have jurisdiction over us after we leave. You'll receive the same rights as everyone else. That's the way it has to be. Imagine for example U.S citizens living within the U.K retaining their rights to own and use firearms and the U.S Supreme Court being able to force the UK to uphold this. That's essentially what they're demanding off us for EU citizens and it's not going to work.

It's a bit more like the US insisting that US citizens living the UK have their human rights protected irrespective of how the UK might modify their perception of human rights and the US Supreme Court forcing the UK to respect this. Which is actually something the US does. It's something the UK does, too. And quite right.

Eh? Since when did the Supreme Court of the USA influence UK law?

It doesn't, but it impacts the UK's treatment of their citizens whilst they're in the UK. The UK does it pretty relentlessly in Africa and West Asia, too. You've a lot more rights if you're a Brit in Qatar than if you're an Indonesian in Qatar, for instance, because the UK demands that Qataris respect their citizen's rights (to a level, it's still your fault when a 16 year old Qatari in a Lambourghini crashes into your stationary car, obviously).

Hong Kong is probably a better example. Where the UK handed it back but forced a whole raft of rights for its residents to be retained for fifty years and then be renegotiated (which China is ignoring and about which our diplomats are going absolutely bananas).

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If you couldn't be arsed to vote then why should anyone be arsed to hear your opinion? The ones who didn't vote quite frankly don't count.

Voted in both. Regardless which way I did I have every right to post, moan, cheer or say whatever I feel like pn the subject inside of rule one

nfe wrote:

Hong Kong is probably a better example. Where the UK handed it back but forced a whole raft of rights for its residents to be retained for fifty years and then be renegotiated (which China is ignoring and about which our diplomats are going absolutely bananas).

Hong Kong is a wonderful example of how when one sovereign state cedes a piece of territory to another sovereign state, they get to make a bargain over the circumstances under which they will do it. In some cases they require money, in others the cessation of hostilities. In Hong Kong's case, we required a guarantee that certain legal mechanisms in place there would be preserved for a certain period of time before we agreed to cede the territory back.

The flaw in comparing that to the current scenario is that no territory is changing hands, Britain never 'belonged' to the EU, and the EU is not a sovereign power.

We are simply annulling our participation in a trade agreement, and disposing of our participation in the various diplomatic mechanisms that have gradually built up alongside it. There is absolutely no basis or legitimacy for the administrators of that trade agreement to suddenly declare that they should still retain any form of legal power over this country. They doubtless would like to do so, but there is no genuine basis for it.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

Hong Kong is probably a better example. Where the UK handed it back but forced a whole raft of rights for its residents to be retained for fifty years and then be renegotiated (which China is ignoring and about which our diplomats are going absolutely bananas).

Hong Kong is a wonderful example of how when one sovereign state cedes a piece of territory to another sovereign state, they get to make a bargain over the circumstances under which they will do it. In some cases they require money, in others the cessation of hostilities. In Hong Kong's case, we required a guarantee that certain legal mechanisms in place there would be preserved for a certain period of time before we agreed to cede the territory back.

The flaw in comparing that to the current scenario is that no territory is changing hands, Britain never 'belonged' to the EU, and the EU is not a sovereign power.

We are simply annulling our participation in a trade agreement, and disposing of our participation in the various diplomatic mechanisms that have gradually built up alongside it. There is absolutely no basis or legitimacy for the administrators of that trade agreement to suddenly declare that they should still retain any form of legal power over this country. They doubtless would like to do so, but there is no genuine basis for it.

Hong Kong was a timed deal.
We had a set lease and such.

And yes. Later deals signed and agreements made. However shows that least civilised deals van be made, and not do our talking smart bombs.

 jhe90 wrote:

Hong Kong was a timed deal.
We had a set lease and such.

We did indeed. Signed with the sadly defunct Imperial Government of China, who the current administration of China are in no way descended from. Different legal system, different territory controlled, etcetc. Frankly, the Government of Taiwan has as legitimate a claim as the lot sitting in Beijing. We would have been entirely justified in hanging onto it or giving it to the Kuomintang's descendants.

I'm of the opinion giving it to the current Chinese Government was one of the greatest crimes Blair committed, right up there with Iraq. He's effectively doomed millions of people to communist totalitarianism, all in his desire to make a quick political buck out of him shaking hands with a Chinese bloke.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

There is a difference here though that is being ignored.

No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country.

But we're not just any foreign country - we're part of a union that has freedom of movement within it. You could move to the UK without having to become a citizen, because you didn't need to, you were already an EU citizen.

Now for people who moved to EU-UK, they are risking losing that EU movement in order to stay in the UK, which is what the EU is asking the UK to honour.

For people who move to a separate UK, they'd have the same deal as any other foreign country.

I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.

Herzlos wrote:
I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.

Sure. Once the EU agrees to reciprocate for all UK expats.

As I understand it, the EU, and Remainers, are demanding that Britain make all sort of unilateral concessions up-front, without any guarantees from the EU in return.

Beside, EU already began to make moves to settle new deals with other partners. Some seem to be quite made so that the grass is cut under UK's feet.

Meanwhile, your government still has no plan and Great May desperatly tries to save her skin by involving her opponents in the mess. And I'm still pretty sure they're not in a hurry to give her and her party excuses for the building failure in negotiations. ("but it's not because of us that it failed, look, we weren't alone, we were all together for the sake of the country! They are guilty as well!")

Sure, you can try to write hypotheses about how to pull UK's needle out of this situation or how you can make new deals and ignore everything else, but it's quite striking that's you're still about that: writing hypotheses. Time doesn't stop, and the clock is ticking. You really need a plan, and the truth is...your elites have no idea what to do right now.

So much for trusting the Tories. If I was in the opposition, I would just do nothing and watch as they just kill themselves. Then rebuild the country with a new power, while the old one just showed its utmost failure once too much.

And if I was a foreign power, seeing as one party can feth it up to this colossal point without any sign of getting out of their own feth alone...isn't really the ideal partner. Trade asks for trust first. The Tories do a great work at smashing this completely, and for no good reason other than them being unable to stop this chaos. Which is why, one after the other, the countries that would make new partners slowly walk away and would rather wait. They know they can always find another, more interesting.

Oh wait, it's the EU. Gosh, I really wonder why so many recent declarations are made about trade deals with EU or US not really rushing to go to the help of UK, really...

Herzlos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

There is a difference here though that is being ignored.

No. It's exactly the same as it is in any foreign country.

But we're not just any foreign country - we're part of a union that has freedom of movement within it.

And as already stated, these sorts of considerations would not be given if it was part of the actual country (Gibraltar) seceding. When we decolonised Africa, we didn't issue 'Authority of British courts' cards to all mainland citizens living out there. And all of those were actually within one jurisdiction? So why on earth are EU citizens so super duper special that the EU courts, which don't even belong to a sovereign power, should continue to have authority in Britain? I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

I don't entirely understand why it's such a contentious issue - just issuing dual UK/EU citizenship to anyone from the EU who's already here still gives them their movement and the use of EU embassys to press on the UK to not violate their rights.

I don't think you understand. It's not that they want citizenship, that's easily enough negotiated. It's not that they want the EU to continue to advocate for them, every country does that for its citizens, and if the EU countries want their trade bloc to be the frontman for their embassies, that's entirely their call.

What is being demanded is that in a situation whereby British law may change so it is no longer in accord with European law (which it will), European citizens living in Britain should be able to have recourse to European courts, and that those courts show have the final legal binding judgement. This also presents the bizare reverse zombie scenario whereby the EU later passes additional legislation affecting EU citizens, and Britain is suddenly legally bound to enforce those new rights. Or indeed, to flip it on its head once again, the EU gets to take rights away from its citizens, and then expect its laws to apply ahead of British ones.

It's a mess, frankly. It is asking for European citizens to have an entirely different set of laws and rights applicable to them whilst residing in Britain, and for the British courts to be subservient to European ones regarding events happening on British soil. Which is fine if we're in the EU, but we won't be.

To take up something that's been said before, we're in the club or out of it, and we have to accept that. The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.

 Ketara wrote:
. The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.

Ah, but the reality of this world is that we're never really alone, and that if we pull out of something because of our own interest, the others will do the same as well.

And the thing is, UK seems to be more and more lonely as time flies with the same uncertainty showing. You're not the colonial power you were before, that time is done. When someone alone says "well I don't agree to anything you say", the others can just answer "all right. Stay in your corner, we won't deal with you anymore". That's why people don't just pull out on a whim. Trump has done that as well, consequences will be showing more and more with time. Same will happen for UK.

 Sarouan wrote:

Meanwhile, your government still has no plan

I'm actually not entirely convinced of that.

Put simply, we've seen the strategy of the EU now. Demand everything, and leak everything with a negative spin to try and create public pressure, on the basis that domestic Remainers in the UK will automatically agree with whatever they say and hassle the Tories on it.

The flip side is that for the most part, we haven't heard a peep out of Davis. That's the man ostensibly in charge of negotiations. It could be because he's clueless, senile, and sleeping in every morning before asking what he's minister of again. Alternatively, his strategy is very clearly a 'cards close to chest' one. One of those two things is the reason we've heard nothing. And I'm not quite convinced he's gone bonkers just yet.

Trump has demonstrated quite well that being the loudest does not equate to being the best organised. As I said at the start of this whole thing, wait until it's over before judging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
. The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.

Ah, but the reality of this world is that we're never really alone, and that if we pull out of something because of our own interest, the others will do the same as well.

And the thing is, UK seems to be more and more lonely as time flies with the same uncertainty showing. You're not the colonial power you were before, that time is done. When someone alone says "well I don't agree to anything you say", the others can just answer "all right. Stay in your corner, we won't deal with you anymore". That's why people don't just pull out on a whim. Trump has done that as well, consequences will be showing more and more with time.

.....Sorry, but did absolutely any of that have anything to do with anything I said?

I mean, it seems to boil down to 'Other countries exist, I think the UK is small and pathetic' tinged with a mild hint of self-congratulating glee.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
. The flip side of that statement though, is that if we're out of it, you don't get to demand that we should have to act like we're in it and submit to European courts/law, whether in relation to your citizens or anything else that happens on this island.

Ah, but the reality of this world is that we're never really alone, and that if we pull out of something because of our own interest, the others will do the same as well.

And the thing is, UK seems to be more and more lonely as time flies with the same uncertainty showing. You're not the colonial power you were before, that time is done. When someone alone says "well I don't agree to anything you say", the others can just answer "all right. Stay in your corner, we won't deal with you anymore". That's why people don't just pull out on a whim. Trump has done that as well, consequences will be showing more and more with time. Same will happen for UK.

Your post oozes contempt and hypocrisy. Colonial power? You're one to talk, your own country has a far darker colonial past than we do.