[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Mayhem]

The EU securing the rights of UK residents doesn't mean EU citizens lose anything.
EU citizens might lose something the day the UK leaves. But the EU is not to blame for it.

That is what i was saying all along and the crux of the problem. The EU however would be to blame if it didn't do everything to secure equal rights.

That would simply mean the EU is not in service to their citizens.

THEY ARE NOT ITS CITIZENS ANYMORE ONCE THE UK LEFT! The EU isn't a sovereign country/nation, therefore EU-citizenship is an agreement between its members, once you leave without agreement, EU-citizenship ceases to exist. Everything else would undermine the EUs position and the EU not trying to grant its citizens equal opportunities and rights.

I mean, if the EU wants to stupidly repel their assets and expose itself as an unreliable entity, they could. They're better than that.

wtf?!

We're talking hypotheticals. How it'll play out is in the air. And the are sufficient mechanisms to prevent abuse of the systems in place.
As it is today, the EU has absolutely nothing to gain by reducing the rights of UK residents.

I agree that he EU has nothing to gain, but it has to stand by its principals like equality.

[Demolitia]

I don't think it can come to this as the ECJ would practically rule over citizens outside its jurisdiction.

It would clarify an article of the Lisbon treaty, so who knows. The first step is for the ECJ to say whether it accepts the case.

[Mayhem]

They don't have much to gain by leaving the EU either.
But they've put themselves in a position where they need to give political meaning to national unrest.
I suspect they'll try to segregate EU residents and make a country by country case. They want Spanish nurses and German engineers there. They may try to keep Polish strawberry pickers in the dirt. Dunno, the UK is a bit unpredictable today.

And the EU has the duty to do, its citizens well being in mind, everything to oppose this cherry picking.

- - - Updated - - -

It would clarify an article of the Lisbon treaty, so who knows. The first step is for the ECJ to say whether it accepts the case.

Well yeah, i just can't get my head around how it would be legally possible, but we will see.

[Deleted]

THEY ARE NOT ITS CITIZENS ANYMORE ONCE THE UK LEFT!

Caps don't' help your case.
Already addressed this:
They are citizens today. And the EU should do its best to protect them today. And that implies ensuring them, today, that they will be covered in freedoms, independently of what the UK does tomorrow.

I agree that he EU has nothing to gain, but it has to stand by its principals like equality.

The EU cannot force the UK to respect EU citizens once its gone.
It can treat every EU citizen equally. Today. And secure the freedoms of UK residents.

- - - Updated - - -

And the EU has the duty to do, its citizens well being in mind, everything to oppose this cherry picking.

Right.
Which is why we're saying the EU should fight tooth and claw to secure the freedoms of Eu citizens everywhere.
This aim is not in contradiction to securing the rights of UK residents.

- - - Updated - - -

Well yeah, i just can't get my head around how it would be legally possible, but we will see.

The ECJ won't be arguing what rights any citizen has.
It will decide if member states have a duty to uphold towards those residents.

[Mayhem]

Caps don't' help your case.
Already addressed this:
They are citizens today. And the EU should do its best to protect them today. And that implies ensuring them, today, that they will be covered in freedoms, independently of what the UK does tomorrow.

No, because under what premise should EU member-countries be forced to treat non-EU citizens like EU-citizens?

The EU cannot force the UK to respect EU citizens once its gone.
It can treat every EU citizen equally. Today. And secure the freedoms of UK residents.

Yes, today.

Right.
Which is why we're saying the EU should fight tooth and claw to secure the freedoms of Eu citizens everywhere.
This aim is not in contradiction to securing the rights of UK residents.

The EU however would force its members to secure freedoms of non-eu citizens while not securing that same treatment be granted to citizens of those members. Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

The ECJ won't be arguing what rights any citizen has.
It will decide if member states have a duty to uphold towards those residents.

ok

[Mayhem]

The EU can secure freedoms within its borders. It cannot secure freedoms outside its borders. It can and will fight for EU citizens abroad. But it can secure rights of valued community members now.

I'm talking about securing the same freedoms EU-citizen have.

People from the UK who have chosen to move to the EU and live here should not be disdained. Heck those who have been with us for 15 years or more did not even get to vote on this.

Well what about people from other countries who have chosen to move to the EU, why should they not recieve the same freedoms?

[Deleted]

No, because under what premise should EU member-countries be forced to treat non-EU citizens like EU-citizens?

That's for the ECJ to decide. Which it cannot take on a whim. The question is if that premise already exists: whether member states committed to this protection when they signed and ratified Lisbon. We really don't know.

Note that we're running two distinct arguments:
Whether the current treaties imply this protection. This is a question on the legislation.
What the EU should do in our opinion. Or rather, what member states should accord to do, because this decisions will necessarily pass through the legislature of every member state.
Now, to me, it's a question of interest, and a humanitarian cause: as we're all invested in UK residents feeling safe here. Safe to do all the things that Nymrohd mentions. It could be through citizenship or any other measure. These peoples residing here should be made aware that the EU will back them.

[Deleted]

Well what about people from other countries who have chosen to move to the EU, why should they not recieve the same freedoms?

They're different in that whatever brought them here didn't include automatic citizenship. They may pursue that path if they so desire through whatever means each member state provides.
The argument is about retaining existing current freedoms.
The current UK residents came here knowing what freedoms and rights they could enjoy. For these peoples, Brexit could turn their lives upside down. Their expectations and things that they took for granted when they moved gone in a puff of smoke. Mind you, it's the same uncertainty that EU citizens residing in the UK are facing.
It *will* seek reciprocity, but if the UK doesn't reciprocate, the EU is still in the position to assuage the uncertainty of UK residents (and I think it should)

[Mayhem]

That's for the ECJ to decide. Which it cannot take on a whim. The question is if that premise already exists: whether member states committed to this protection when they signed and ratified Lisbon. We really don't know.

Note that we're running two distinct arguments:
Whether the current treaties imply this protection. This is a question on the legislation.
What the EU should do in our opinion. Or rather, what member states should accord to do, because this decisions will necessarily pass through the legislature of every member state.
Now, to me, it's a question of interest, and a humanitarian cause: as we're all invested in UK residents feeling safe here. Safe to do all the things that Nymrohd mentions. It could be through citizenship or any other measure. These peoples residing here should be made aware that the EU will back them.

No i am with you on that one, i do want UK citizens feel safe here and keep everything they have but i see no legal reason for them to retain anything more than residents from other non-EU countries get. Maybe make it easier for them to attain citizenship of the country they reside in within the EU.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Mind you, it's the same uncertainty that EU citizens residing in the UK are facing. It *will* seek reciprocity, but if the UK doesn't reciprocate, the EU is still in the position to assuage the uncertainty of UK residents (and I think it should)

one of the first things the EU tried to arrange was no loss of rights for UK citizens living in the EU and reciprocity for EU citizens living in the UK - the UK government refused to mirror that because "Brexit means Brexit means Brexit"

If UK citizens living in the EU end up with diminished rights after Brexit eventually happens (and I also hope they can remain as they are), it won't be the fault of the EU

[ranzino]

perhaps those UK citizens should apply for citizenship in their new country. if half of UK's population is dragged out of EU against their wishes, why should those abroad get fluffy specials ? your government = your rules and by definition of democracy the wishes of the majority are the best thing to happen since the invention of sliced bread.

[dribbles]

perhaps those UK citizens should apply for citizenship in their new country. if half of UK's population is dragged out of EU against their wishes, why should those abroad get fluffy specials ?

Because British citizens want their cake and to eat it, looks like they will get it too.

your government = your rules and by definition of democracy the wishes of the majority are the best thing to happen since the invention of sliced bread.

Ah yes that superior form of FPTP British democracy again where the majority get the government they voted for. As opposed to the Euro form of governance that ensures nobody gets the government they voted for - and for a long time many euros are without any working government at all! Probably suits the EU that everywhere in Europe has such weak or no governance - it allows them to bully EU people into submission. Doesn't work though in the strong and stable UK, as the EU are finding out :P

[Deleted]

No i am with you on that one, i do want UK citizens feel safe here and keep everything they have but i see no legal reason for them to retain anything more than residents from other non-EU countries get. Maybe make it easier for them to attain citizenship of the country they reside in within the EU.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about which argument I was pursuing in each answer.
The higher thinking, capital of the free world, etc. is very opinionated and personal. And in line with the exchange you were having with Nymrohd.
But the citizenship case that the ECJ will hear is a whole lot different.

[Deleted]

B

Ah yes that superior form of FPTP British democracy again where the majority get the government they voted for. As opposed to the Euro form of governance that ensures nobody gets the government they voted for - and for a long time many euros are without any working government at all! Probably suits the EU that everywhere in Europe has such weak or no governance - it allows them to bully EU people into submission. Doesn't work though in the strong and stable UK, as the EU are finding out :P

You do know that no party has ever gotten a majority right?
- Strong and stable? who has caved every time?

[Dhrizzle]

Because British citizens want their cake and to eat it, looks like they will get it too.



Ah yes that superior form of FPTP British democracy again where the majority get the government they voted for. As opposed to the Euro form of governance that ensures nobody gets the government they voted for - and for a long time many euros are without any working government at all! Probably suits the EU that everywhere in Europe has such weak or no governance - it allows them to bully EU people into submission. Doesn't work though in the strong and stable UK, as the EU are finding out :P

Most of the UK voted for left leaning parties (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Green) yet we ended up with a right-wing Conservative-DUP government. Mostly due to how broken FPTP is (especially with unequal constituencies) but also in part thanks to the role of monarchy in the "democratic" process.

Also due to the vagaries of FPTP the current government is very weak and wobbly. Whereas European parliaments tend to negotiate coalitions so their governments can get on with business for the term, the way May essentially stole power by bribing the DUP with public money (and still not getting the majority of votes) means she is beholden to a tiny minority and rebels in her own party.

Charitably speaking, your posts usually give the impression of someone blinded by their ideology and unable to be even slightly objective. But when you praise our increasingly unsuitable democratic process and the disfunctional, non-mandated government it has produced it shows you're either being wilfully ignorant or trolling.

[Kallisto]

Ah yes that superior form of FPTP British democracy again where the majority get the government they voted for.

So that's why we have a rightist conservative government that only got 42% of the vote. While the left of centre parties combined got 58% of the vote. Seems like the Majority got shafted.

Labour gets 2% less votes than Tories gets 8% less MPs. Totally democratic.

Just admit you love FPTP because it gives the far right a bigger say in the UK through extreme tories than they would in PR where they'd always be in opposition and ignored. Like people like you should be if other's in this country weren't so dumb they'd listen to you.

Plus "strong and stable" tories have to make deals with terrorists (DUP links to loyalist terrorist groups is as strong as Sinn Fein with IRA) to remain in charge.

How parliament would look if we had a proper democratic voting system.

https://www.indy100.com/article/uk-e...labour-7784956

[dribbles]

You do know that no party has ever gotten a majority right?
- Strong and stable? who has caved every time?

Most of the UK voted for left leaning parties (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Green) yet we ended up with a right-wing Conservative-DUP government. Mostly due to how broken FPTP is (especially with unequal constituencies) but also in part thanks to the role of monarchy in the "democratic" process.

Also due to the vagaries of FPTP the current government is very weak and wobbly. Whereas European parliaments tend to negotiate coalitions so their governments can get on with business for the term, the way May essentially stole power by bribing the DUP with public money (and still not getting the majority of votes) means she is beholden to a tiny minority and rebels in her own party.

Charitably speaking, your posts usually give the impression of someone blinded by their ideology and unable to be even slightly objective. But when you praise our increasingly unsuitable democratic process and the disfunctional, non-mandated government it has produced it shows you're either being wilfully ignorant or trolling.

Who has the strongest EU leadership by share of the peoples vote at the last elections and thus most democratic legitimacy?

UK Conservatives 42% = Strongest, most stable, most representative
Denmark 30%
Netherlands Centre right coalition 27%
Germany CDU 26%
Spain PP 26%
Italy PD Centre left 23%
EU Drunken bum Juncker 0% = Weakest, wobbliest (mostly due to cognac), least representative.

Seriously you two are defending European democracy?

[Kallisto]

Who has the strongest EU leadership by share of the peoples vote at the last elections and thus most democratic legitimacy?

UK Conservatives 42% = Strongest, most stable, most representative
Denmark 30%
Netherlands Centre right coalition 27%
Germany CDU 26%
Spain PP 26%
Italy PD Centre left 23%
EU Drunken bum Juncker 0% = Weakest, wobbliest (mostly due to cognac), least representative.

Seriously you two are defending European democracy?

Anyone with more than 2 braincells would defend European democracy.

Coalitions are better than Forced one party control because it takes into account more people. Not one party rule but compromise.

Oh right you likely don't have that last word in your internal dictionary and a child who stomps his feet when he doesn't get everything his way.

[dribbles]

Anyone with more than 2 braincells would defend European democracy.

Coalitions are better than Forced one party control because it takes into account more people. Not one party rule but compromise.

Oh right you likely don't have that last word in your internal dictionary and a child who stomps his feet when he doesn't get everything his way.

So that's why we have a rightist conservative government that only got 42% of the vote. While the left of centre parties combined got 58% of the vote. Seems like the Majority got shafted.

Labour gets 2% less votes than Tories gets 8% less MPs. Totally democratic.

Just admit you love FPTP because it gives the far right a bigger say in the UK through extreme tories than they would in PR where they'd always be in opposition and ignored. Like people like you should be if other's in this country weren't so dumb they'd listen to you.

Plus "strong and stable" tories have to make deals with terrorists (DUP links to loyalist terrorist groups is as strong as Sinn Fein with IRA) to remain in charge.

How parliament would look if we had a proper democratic voting system.

https://www.indy100.com/article/uk-e...labour-7784956

Ah my lonesome lib dem friend, make that 3 defending EU democracy, you can name a European leader more representative of its peoples by vote share? Thought not, glad we agree that the UK FPTP system is the most democratic.

[zorkuus]

Ah my lonesome lib dem friend, make that 3 defending EU democracy, you can name a European leader more representative of its peoples by vote share? Thought not, glad we agree that the UK FPTP system is the most democratic.

The president of Finland, 62% of the vote. Why was that so easy? try a harder conundrum next time.