Brexit View

[KidKruger]

"..by doing that she will take away the right of UK citizens to freely travel, work, study and live/retire in the EU."

Does this seriously mean that the 1000s of UK retirees out in Spain and elsewhere in the EU will lose the right to be there (and as a result will have to go somewhere else) ? Or does it mean they'll be OK, but new retirees from UK can't join them ?

[robbin]

The latter, obviously.

[diable rouge]

It effects new retirees, and takes effect from the end of the transition period. But should we crash out with 'no deal' then existing retirees instantly lose their rights. IMO their rights should've been ring-fenced in the deal to protect them from such an awful scenario.

If an existing retiree living in Portugal wanted to move to Spain after transition, say for better healthcare reasons, they wouldn't be able to do so freely. In effect they could be stuck in Spain or would have to come back to the UK.

Most of this was agreed back in March and hasn't moved on much since. Lots of uncertainties, and people are understandably concerned...https://britishineurope.org/where-does-the-march-agreement-leave-me/

[JohnL]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "..by doing that she will take away the right of

> UK citizens to freely travel, work, study and

> live/retire in the EU."

>

> Does this seriously mean that the 1000s of UK

> retirees out in Spain and elsewhere in the EU will

> lose the right to be there (and as a result will

> have to go somewhere else) ? Or does it mean

> they'll be OK, but new retirees from UK can't join

> them ?

There were questions whether they'll be able to collect UK pensions if they're in Spain - not sure if that's solved.

[JohnL]

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Extra c needed for @joannaccherry, another thread

> on the hearing here:

>

> https://twitter.com/MehreenKhn/status/106738535415

> 4639360

Thanks :)

My take on that thread is that the court will rule A50 is revocable but all or some (I think some) of the EU members need to agree.

[Alan Medic]

A May v Corbyn TV debate. What the hell is the point? They both want to leave the EU. Neither of them is capable of an original thought. What a waste of time. And can anyone vote on what they hear? No. Only MP's.

[Angelina]

What on Earth makes you think May wants to leave the EU?

[uncleglen]

May came out as a Remainer because she wanted to keep her job under Cameron when it looked like the vote would be Remain. She is trying to keep in with both sides and as Mrs T said if you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic from both sides...unfortunately Mrs May is standing in the middle of a T junction....with the EU bureaucrats making up the third onslaught!

[Angelina]

pretty much sums it up. I think she's pretending to Leave but is not driven to.

[JohnL]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pretty much sums it up. I think she's pretending

> to Leave but is not driven to.

Depends what you call leave - you may call her deal not leave - but I don's see it as remain. Remain for me is UK as a member of the Council of Ministers and having MEPs in the European Parliament.

That means her deal is Limbo

[Angelina]

I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

May's deal is a bit hokey cokey

[JohnL]

The EU in 2021 will be bringing in a waiver system rather like the US ESTA - They're calling it ETIAS.

https://www.etiasvisa.com/

The US is quite harsh (nobody with a single drugs conviction for instance is allowed in the US), I'm not sure what the requirements to enter the EU would be - except in typical EU fashion - you will need a passport and a debit or credit card (that will hit some)

We shared our databases with the EU remember too :).

[malumbu]

For a more detailed look at all of this (this thread seems to be reflecting the malaise of the general population and has lost the big debate) this if pretty good

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/politico-london-playbook-return-of-project-fear-no-10-brexit-grid-leaks-may-battling-on/

The 'leaked' roadshow schedule was the lead yesterday, and it looks at a variety of related issues from different perspective, a sort of additional layer/dimension to some of the good stuff Peston raises. Doesn't cheer me up though!

[Alan Medic]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pretty much sums it up. I think she's pretending

> to Leave but is not driven to.

You obviously haven't heard 'brexit means brexit' and 'delivering on the will of the British people' often enough.

[robbin]

My favourite was "red, white and blue Brexit"

Meaningless drivel.

[diable rouge]

Buried among the madness there are still little gems like this...:)

Fittingly the interview, carried out in Argentina where the PM is at a meeting of the G20, is accompanied by the chattering of wild animals ...

[JohnL]

Hillary Benn and a few others (Labour and Tory's) have submitted an amendment to the bill that means if Theresa May loses the vote then Parliament will direct things from here on in and a no deal is off the cards.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46398167

'The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg says it supports what "some in Number 10 suspect - that is vote falls, Parliament essentially takes over from the executive".'

Parliament is giving out little signals "Trust us - No Deal will not happen"

[robbin]

Pure fantasy. What are these so-called representatives smoking?

[JohnL]

Survation are trying to explain why Theresa May's Daft EU deal may be gaining ground (supposedly it has in the last 2 weeks)

https://www.survation.com/are-the-public-warmer-on-the-prime-ministers-brexit-deal-than-mps/

If there was a referendum tomorrow, with the following 3 options on the ballot paper, which would you support?

first Choice second Choice Total saying first or second

Remain in the EU 454 97 551

Leave no deal 296 243 539

Theresa's daft deal 222 485 707

But I say the following might get similar support

first Choice second Choice Total saying first or second

Remain in the EU 454 97 551

Leave no deal 296 243 539

hand in the fire 222(mad people) 485 707

[JohnL]

Just me and my shadow

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/theresa-may-g20-summit-erdogan-donald-trump-mohammed-bin-salman-brexit-latest-a8661041.html

[JohnL]

Sky just said it looks like the EU court advocate general agrees that Article 50 can be withdrawn unilaterally. A hint towards how the court will rule.

[Shaggy]

Not a hint. The court follows the AG in the majority of cases, and this ruling isn?t even controversial. It would be very surprising if the full court found different.

Of course, if the UK government had accepted this obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina Miller would have lost her case.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180187en.pdf

[rendelharris]

Shaggy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course, if the UK government had accepted this

> obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina Miller

> would have lost her case.

Why do you say that? Her case was to establish the principle that the UK government could not implement Article 50 without final approval from the UK parliament; this ruling states that the UK government may abandon Article 50 without approval from the EU parliament. Two entirely different cases, one related to internal UK procedures and one to international EU law.

[JohnL]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Shaggy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Of course, if the UK government had accepted

> this

> > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina

> Miller

> > would have lost her case.

>

> Why do you say that? Her case was to establish

> the principle that the UK government could not

> implement Article 50 without final approval from

> the UK parliament; this ruling states that the UK

> government may abandon Article 50 without approval

> from the EU parliament. Two entirely different

> cases, one related to internal UK procedures and

> one to international EU law.

Looks like this (retracted) comment by a Lord last November

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-minister-lord-callanan-apology-article-50-irreversible-supreme-court-ruling-david-davis-uk-a8065591.html

[rendelharris]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Shaggy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > Of course, if the UK government had accepted

> > this

> > > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina

> > Miller

> > > would have lost her case.

> >

> > Why do you say that? Her case was to establish

> > the principle that the UK government could not

> > implement Article 50 without final approval

> from

> > the UK parliament; this ruling states that the

> UK

> > government may abandon Article 50 without

> approval

> > from the EU parliament. Two entirely different

> > cases, one related to internal UK procedures

> and

> > one to international EU law.

>

> Looks like this (retracted) comment by a Lord last

> November

>

> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre

> xit-minister-lord-callanan-apology-article-50-irre

> versible-supreme-court-ruling-david-davis-uk-a8065

> 591.html

Exactly, the Supreme Court didn't pass any judgement on the current issue as it had no bearing on what Miller was asking.