Do We Ever Really Care Who Lived In Our...
Home & Garden0 min ago
Should Prime Minster May Pledge That Eu Citizens Can Stay In Uk After Brexit?
37 Answers
http://
Why aren't they also demanding the same protection for our Ex-Pats in Europe?
Don't they care about them?
Why aren't they also demanding the same protection for our Ex-Pats in Europe?
Don't they care about them?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I do not believe the government should sign away a bargaining chip before we have even triggered a50. The rights of U.K. Citizens abroad are as important as others living here. Reciprocal rights.
However it does seem patently obvious to me that (((IF))) there is to be any 'agreement' before hand it should safeguard only those that do not put a drain on the coffers so to speak.
If they are in employment, own a business or property or are married to a U.K. Citizen then perhaps it is right they get some sort of assurance they would be safe.
IF however they are unemployed, receive work related or disability benefits then those are the ones we should be looking to not protect in the first instance. That doesn't mean they all get kicked out next week or anything. It just means they are not as safe and their status depends on the negotiation.
However it does seem patently obvious to me that (((IF))) there is to be any 'agreement' before hand it should safeguard only those that do not put a drain on the coffers so to speak.
If they are in employment, own a business or property or are married to a U.K. Citizen then perhaps it is right they get some sort of assurance they would be safe.
IF however they are unemployed, receive work related or disability benefits then those are the ones we should be looking to not protect in the first instance. That doesn't mean they all get kicked out next week or anything. It just means they are not as safe and their status depends on the negotiation.
There’s a couple of points worth making.
The Lords (and now it seems “some Ministers”) cannot concern themselves with the plight of UK citizens abroad even if they wanted to. It is not within their gift to bestow such rights as that is a matter for the national governments of the nations concerned (or more likely, the EU, who will tell them what they must do). However, as I mentioned in a post last week, the way to ensure those rights are more likely to be protected is to leave the matter until a bilateral agreement can be reached. It cannot be discussed before A50 is triggered. Mrs May tried to do so but Frau Merkel vetoed it.
However, it’s all unnecessary. Firstly, there is not a cat in hell’s chance of 3m EU citizens being booted out of the UK, with or without any agreements or amendments. There not even a chance of 300 being forcibly repatriated. In fact I’d go so far as to say not even one will be so effected. But secondly, and not mentioned at all in this debate, there is something called the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The UK and (as far as I can see) all the other 27 EU nations are signatories. What it says, very roughly as I interpret it, is that rights acquired by individuals under an existing treaty are not lost when the underlying treaty that bestowed them is rescinded or terminated. This means that the rights of EU citizens to live in the UK and the rights of UK citizens to live elsewhere in the EU, which were gained and continued under the various EU treaties cannot be withdrawn when the UK revokes the Lisbon Treaty upon our departure.
I don’t know why no politicians have looked up this bit of legislation. I know why no members of the Lords have. They see their “amendment” which they voted through last week as an ideal way to stamp their mark on the Brexit process which they seek to delay, hamper or even blow out of the water entirely. But I don’t understand why “some Ministers” have not got one of their Learned Friends to thumb through it to see if my interpretation is correct.
The people "playing politics" with this are principally the Euromaniacs and in particular Frau Merkel. Mrs May was perfectly willing to conclude a bilateral agreement with the EU in advance of A50 being triggered. Frau Merkel put the block on it which indicates to me that she wants to use the issue as some sort of bargaining tool.
The Lords (and now it seems “some Ministers”) cannot concern themselves with the plight of UK citizens abroad even if they wanted to. It is not within their gift to bestow such rights as that is a matter for the national governments of the nations concerned (or more likely, the EU, who will tell them what they must do). However, as I mentioned in a post last week, the way to ensure those rights are more likely to be protected is to leave the matter until a bilateral agreement can be reached. It cannot be discussed before A50 is triggered. Mrs May tried to do so but Frau Merkel vetoed it.
However, it’s all unnecessary. Firstly, there is not a cat in hell’s chance of 3m EU citizens being booted out of the UK, with or without any agreements or amendments. There not even a chance of 300 being forcibly repatriated. In fact I’d go so far as to say not even one will be so effected. But secondly, and not mentioned at all in this debate, there is something called the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The UK and (as far as I can see) all the other 27 EU nations are signatories. What it says, very roughly as I interpret it, is that rights acquired by individuals under an existing treaty are not lost when the underlying treaty that bestowed them is rescinded or terminated. This means that the rights of EU citizens to live in the UK and the rights of UK citizens to live elsewhere in the EU, which were gained and continued under the various EU treaties cannot be withdrawn when the UK revokes the Lisbon Treaty upon our departure.
I don’t know why no politicians have looked up this bit of legislation. I know why no members of the Lords have. They see their “amendment” which they voted through last week as an ideal way to stamp their mark on the Brexit process which they seek to delay, hamper or even blow out of the water entirely. But I don’t understand why “some Ministers” have not got one of their Learned Friends to thumb through it to see if my interpretation is correct.
The people "playing politics" with this are principally the Euromaniacs and in particular Frau Merkel. Mrs May was perfectly willing to conclude a bilateral agreement with the EU in advance of A50 being triggered. Frau Merkel put the block on it which indicates to me that she wants to use the issue as some sort of bargaining tool.
mikey4444
/// Am I understanding this OK ?
The Tory Brexiteers are now saying that they want the European immigrants too stay ? ///
Don't be so politically selective mikey, there are also many, many Labour Bexiteers, or can't you bring yourself to admit that fact?
But to put you right once again the Brexiteers of any political persuasion have never said they want to kick out European or any other immigrants out.
That was only 'fake news' created by the 'Bremoaners'.
/// Am I understanding this OK ?
The Tory Brexiteers are now saying that they want the European immigrants too stay ? ///
Don't be so politically selective mikey, there are also many, many Labour Bexiteers, or can't you bring yourself to admit that fact?
But to put you right once again the Brexiteers of any political persuasion have never said they want to kick out European or any other immigrants out.
That was only 'fake news' created by the 'Bremoaners'.
Not without reciprocal agreements for British ex-pats. Something could be drafted to the extent that 'EU migrants can stay after Brexit unless their country refuses to guarantee the rights of UK citizens'. Puts the ball back in the other countries' courts.
However, I'm fairly sure that after 5 years residency rights are guaranteed both here and throughout Europe. This minimises the number of people affected - if you can trust other governments - I don't. I have friends in ill-health, aged over 80 who have lived in France for over 20 years, paid their taxes, run art-classes, integrated well (just 1 example of many) who really could do without all this rhetoric and know perfectly well how vicious France can be.
May must not give way on this.
However, I'm fairly sure that after 5 years residency rights are guaranteed both here and throughout Europe. This minimises the number of people affected - if you can trust other governments - I don't. I have friends in ill-health, aged over 80 who have lived in France for over 20 years, paid their taxes, run art-classes, integrated well (just 1 example of many) who really could do without all this rhetoric and know perfectly well how vicious France can be.
May must not give way on this.
As I said last year,
"Article 70
Consequences of the termination of a treaty
1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty; (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
2. If a State denounces or withdraws from a multilateral treaty, paragraph 1 applies in the relations between that State and each of the other parties to the treaty from the date when such denunciation or withdrawal takes effect."
With respect to New Judge there are comments from many experts in such matters that it is not cut and dry that there will be no effect on EU citizens in this country or British in the EU. One view is that the Convention refers to states and parties making the treaty not to individuals. It also says " or the parties otherwise agree" meaning the UK and the EU could agree to remove the rights previously enjoyed by the other party's citizens.
"Article 70
Consequences of the termination of a treaty
1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty; (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
2. If a State denounces or withdraws from a multilateral treaty, paragraph 1 applies in the relations between that State and each of the other parties to the treaty from the date when such denunciation or withdrawal takes effect."
With respect to New Judge there are comments from many experts in such matters that it is not cut and dry that there will be no effect on EU citizens in this country or British in the EU. One view is that the Convention refers to states and parties making the treaty not to individuals. It also says " or the parties otherwise agree" meaning the UK and the EU could agree to remove the rights previously enjoyed by the other party's citizens.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Body & Soul8 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.