The Brexit aftermath thread

[Demolitia]

Frivolous cases don't tend to make it all the way to the ECJ without a good chance of success and the Dutch court could just have dismissed it as nonsense if that were the case.

If the claimants are successful then EU citizenship is separate and in addition to nationhood citizenship as the article 20 you quoted clearly alludes and cannot once granted be easily removed, if only for human rights reasons, except at the request of the citizen.

You could also highlight the previous sentence:
Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union
That could be an easy ground for removal.

edit:
The part you quoted merely indicates that citizenship of the union is an additional set of rights for citizens from Members States. Being a citizen from a member state is the pre-condition here.
I think the Dutch court just decided that it was far out of its jurisdiction to rule on this, but thought it would be a good thing to clarify once and for all at the EU level.
The CJEU does preliminary rulings where it is requested to interpret the law. This case might end there.

[Deleted]

Sorry I guess I missed your point in your first message. Thanks for clarifying. Do you think there is any merit to this case?

Well, the actual case only pertains to the Brits that currently live in the EU. The idea of every Brit retaining citizenship is only a possible future implication.
The ECJ will hear two questions:
-clarification of the implications of article 20: whether British nationals would automatically lose their EU citizenship or not.
-if the answer to the first confirms EU citizenship is gone, what conditions apply to retaining the EU rights that they currently enjoy.
Neither of the two go into retaining the EU citizenship for UK nationals in the UK. They're asking the opposite question: whether it's gone automatically. But if it isn't gone automatically, there could be other mechanisms for them to not retain it; they're just not asking that question.
Depending on how they answer, it could lead to further inquiry regarding the rest of UK nationals, which would be the actual landmark ruling.
And then, maybe, the ECJ could seek reciprocity from the UK (let EU citizens enjoy the freedoms in the UK), and remind the appellants that the principle of proportionality might come into play if the UK doesn't reciprocate.

I think it has its merits. Particularly because the EU is genuinely interested in protecting the rights of their UK residents.
But this cannot be read as a win for team Brexit. The lobbyists pursuing these cases are ardent proponents of remain. It's their way to undermine Brexit, and leave it toothless.

[Deleted]

I mean, what's wrong with letting them stay. Let them stay. Let them buy assets here, offer their labour and skills, be part of our communities. It makes the EU wealthier to have those UK citizens. And if need be, offer them an easier path to citizenship in our countries.
The EU should not hold the lives of people who are members of our communities hostage for pitiful gains. We are better than this.

EU position: Lifetime guarantee of rights for EU-27 citizens who reside in the UK when the withdrawal agreement enters into force, and for UK citizens who reside in one of the EU-27 countries. This also applies to their current and future family members, who have already joined them, or will join them, regardless of their nationality.

UK position: EU nationals who have been living in the UK for five years should receive a new "settled status" in a streamlined process. People who have been legally resident in the UK for less than five years at the time of Brexit will have to apply for a temporary status in order to stay.

Its the UK not recipricating and holding Citizens hostage. The EU have been pushing for a ring fenced deal. They both agree that any deal on citizens' future legal status and rights must be reciprocal.

So whos option would you prefer and whos toying with peoples lives here? Looks like the UK to me.

[Deleted]

I am advocating that the EU actually should not care about reciprocity. If the UK decides to be assholes with our citizens there, we can welcome them back. We should not even discuss the rights of UK citizens, we should simply guarantee them.

People really have reading comprehension issues here or are just too tuned to attacking.

The EU should also seek reciprocity, in pursue of the rights of EU citizens residing anywhere on Earth.
But there's nothing to suggest that they would use it as a bargain chip, so yes: we will probably grantee their rights regardless.
The specific path to do just that is still in the air though. And some aspects need be fleshed out.

Not sure if people are tuned to attack. But this thread survives on bait.

[Demolitia]

Well, the actual case only pertains to the Brits that currently live in the EU. The idea of every Brit retaining citizenship is only a possible future implication.
The ECJ will hear two questions:
-clarification of the implications of article 20: whether British nationals would automatically lose their EU citizenship or not.
-if the answer to the first confirms EU citizenship is gone, what conditions apply to retaining the EU rights that they currently enjoy.
Neither of the two go into retaining the EU citizenship for UK nationals in the UK. They're asking the opposite question: whether it's gone automatically. But if it isn't gone automatically, there could be other mechanisms for them to not retain it; they're just not asking that question.
Depending on how they answer, it could lead to further inquiry regarding the rest of UK nationals, which would be the actual landmark ruling.
And then, maybe, the ECJ could seek reciprocity from the UK (let EU citizens enjoy the freedoms in the UK), and remind the appellants that the principle of proportionality might come into play if the UK doesn't reciprocate.

I think it has its merits. Particularly because the EU is genuinely interested in protecting the rights of their UK residents.
But this cannot be read as a win for team Brexit. The lobbyists pursuing these cases are ardent proponents of remain. It's their way to undermine Brexit, and leave it toothless.

Thank you for your insight on this. If they win the case it will be a bit awkward politically but it will be interesting to follow.

[dribbles]

I get what you are saying, I just would want the EU to be morally superior and invest in human capital not caring it if is given reciprocity. They should come to the table and say to people, we will guarantee the rights of UK citizens regardless of what the UK does with EU citizens. We will do our best to gain rights for EU citizens in the UK but our guarantee is a negotiating chip. That's what I'd like. Not because it gives us a moral high ground but because it IS wise to invest in human capital.

The UK wants the same thing but in addition immigrants should be intelligently or wealthily superior too, probably points based assessed vis a vis the Australian system. Agreed again it is wise to invest in human capital but no more supermarket car washers required thank you very much.

If the EU unilaterally wants to take all our scumbags, even if that court case doesn't force them to, fine by us. We just want the right to refuse an unlimited supply of your ne'er-do-wells.

[Mayhem]

Frivolous cases don't tend to make it all the way to the ECJ without a good chance of success and the Dutch court could just have dismissed it as nonsense if that were the case.

If the claimants are successful then EU citizenship is separate and in addition to nationhood citizenship as the article 20 you quoted clearly alludes and cannot once granted be easily removed, if only for human rights reasons, except at the request of the citizen.

What you just don't seem to get is if this will go through the way you think it will then it will mean that every EU citizen will also retain those rights for the UK, despite it being an ex-member because if not then UK citizens would have more rights than the rest of the EU citizens and that would not work.

- - - Updated - - -

I am advocating that the EU actually should not care about reciprocity. If the UK decides to be assholes with our citizens there, we can welcome them back. We should not even discuss the rights of UK citizens, we should simply guarantee them.

People really have reading comprehension issues here or are just too tuned to attacking.

So you're saying the EU should not fight for the rights of it's citizens, but give citizens from ex-member countries more rights?

[Demolitia]

The UK wants the same thing but in addition immigrants should be intelligently or wealthily superior too, probably points based assessed vis a vis the Australian system. Agreed again it is wise to invest in human capital but no more supermarket car washers required thank you very much.

If the EU unilaterally wants to take all our scumbags, even if that court case doesn't force them to, fine by us. We just want the right to refuse an unlimited supply of your ne'er-do-wells.

What you describe is the immigration needs of a developing country. Virtually all of your population is highly educated. The people who move to the EU are not scumbags, they are highly educated, wealthy people who find better jobs abroad than they would in the UK.
What you need are nurses, doctor and other healthcare personnel, waiters and people in the hospitality business and seasonal workers in the food processing business and agriculture. Not intellectually (whatever the hell that means) and wealthily superior people. You got plenty of wealthy people and all they do is drive housing prices up.
You need them because native Brits don't want those jobs.

Another aspect you ignore is that your demography is a ticking time bomb. The amount of people over 65 will double, and those over 85 is set to triple by 2050 (that's from your OBR). They also forecast that without immigration, the share of the national debt cause by the cost of your health and social care system will go from 75 to 175% of your GDP.

Now I understand accepting and integrating immigrants can be tough. It affects the fabric of local communities and makes locals nervous. But solving problems starts with recognizing them. Finding ways to integrate fresh blood and have more open minded communities is a better way to start, than blaming immigrants you desperately need.

You can chose to stick to your guns, and have your social system collapse under the weight of your short-sightedness and the cost of the old farts who are starting to outnumber your active population.

[Mayhem]

I'd want them to treat UK citizens living in the EU as their own.

Yeah, but they shouldn't ignore their citizens living abroad in the process. So no i don't agree with you that they shouldn't care about how the UK is treating EU citizens. Also i simply don't think it would work from a rights perspective that Non-EU citizens would have more rights than EU citizens.

[Mayhem]

But I did not say that at all. I said that they should treat negotiations on how the UK treats EU citizens separately from how they plan to treat UK citizens. We should not be bound by reciprocity. Even if the UK decides not to care, we should and we should make it clear for UK citizens that live in the EU that they have nothing to fear.

Yeah and that is a stupid approach, if we treat their citizens different than they treat ours, someone will get treated worse and i don't see how someone trying to argue for rights can be in favour of this. Also i don't quite get how you think "we can welcome them back" makes it better for the EU citizens living in the UK?

"Yeah, so i've only lived in the UK for 3 years and i might lose my residency status and then my job, have to leave everything behind in the process, but hey at least the EU welcomes me back, thanks!"

Of course the EU should do the best it can for maintaining the rights of EU citizens in the UK. I just don't think that should have anything to do with how the reverse will work out.

Why not? Why should the rights of citizens not be equal?

[Deleted]

Yeah and that is a stupid approach, if we treat their citizens different than they treat ours, someone will get treated worse and i don't see how someone trying to argue for rights can be in favour of this.
Why not? Why should the rights of citizens not be equal?

Across different jurisdictions, someone will always get the shorter end of a stick.
Take homosexuals.
We treat them alright when they come from anywhere. Independently or EU homosexuals being treated like trash when visiting, working, or acquiring citizenship in homosexual-unfriendly jurisdictions.
It's an edge case, of course. But I think it exemplifies why access to freedoms are generally not equal across borders. Someone will treat people better, and it may as well be us.

The EU should fight tooth and claw for the rights of EU citizens anywhere. Yes. But we'll probably extend non reciprocated rights when it's in our interest. UK nationals residing in the EU are assets in whom we're very interested. They're also our citizens, and we should also fight for their freedoms; independently of what their national government does to ours.
As the ultimate success of democracy and the capital of the free world, I'm ok with the EU extending more rights than what we receive.

[Mayhem]

Across different jurisdictions, someone will always get the shorter end of a stick.
Take homosexuals.
We treat them alright when they come from anywhere. Independently or EU homosexuals being treated like trash when visiting, working, or acquiring citizenship in homosexual-unfriendly jurisdictions.
It's an edge case, of course. But I think it exemplifies why access to freedoms are generally not equal across borders. Someone will treat people better, and it may as well be us.

UK citizens would be granted more rights than EU citizens. So your example doesn't quite work.

The EU should fight tooth and claw for the rights of EU citizens anywhere. Yes. But we'll probably extend non reciprocated rights when it's in our interest. UK nationals residing in the EU are assets in whom we're very interested. They're also our citizens, and we should also fight for their freedoms; independently of what their national government does to ours.
As the ultimate success of democracy and the capital of the free world, I'm ok with the EU extending more rights than what we receive.

No, as soon as the UK leaves the UK nationals residing in the EU aren't EU citizens anymore than americans residing in the EU are EU citizens, therefore if they want special rights those must be equal within the UK. If UK nationals want to keep the freedom of movement then the UK has to grant those rights to Nationals from EU member states residing within the UK, simple as that.

[Deleted]

No, as soon as the UK leaves the UK nationals residing in the EU aren't EU citizens anymore than americans residing in the EU are EU citizens

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.

[Demolitia]

UK citizens would be granted more rights than EU citizens. So your example doesn't quite work.

Yes, the argument here is that's fine because they are not a burden.

No, as soon as the UK leaves the UK nationals residing in the EU aren't EU citizens anymore than americans residing in the EU are EU citizens, therefore if they want special rights those must be equal within the UK. If UK nationals want to keep the freedom of movement then the UK has to grant those rights to Nationals from EU member states residing within the UK, simple as that.

Again what we are discussing here is that while we should strive for equal rights, it's ok to leave UK citizens be, if it means the EU is the good guy showing good will. If the UK is hell bound on fighting immigration at all costs just to please the public opinion, that's too bad for them. We will take our people back and take care of them, while the UK will have to buy strawberries from Poland because they don't have polish people to pick them.

[Mayhem]

Yes, the argument here is that's fine because they are not a burden.

No, that's not the argument at all. Everyone knows the UK citizens aren't a burden to the EU it's about granting equal rights, if that is not possible because the UK is against equal rights then the UK citizens have to thank their government.

Again what we are discussing here is that while we should strive for equal rights, it's ok to leave UK citizens be, if it means the EU is the good guy showing good will. If the UK is hell bound on fighting immigration at all costs just to please the public opinion, that's too bad for them. We will take our people back and take care of them, while the UK will have to buy strawberries from Poland because they don't have polish people to pick them.

Fuck showing that the EU is the good guy when it means that actual EU citizens will lose their rights and have their lifes worsened in the process.

Mind you, i still think this is a pointless discussion anyway because the UK would need to accept EUs jurisdiction.

- - - Updated - - -

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, why? They are citizens today because the UK is a member today. If they want to retain EU citizenship they have to retain EU-memberstate citizenship or something equal.

[Demolitia]

Fuck showing that the EU is the good guy when it means that actual EU citizens will lose their rights and have their lifes worsened in the process.

Mind you, i still think this is a pointless discussion anyway because the UK would need to accept EUs jurisdiction.

This whole discussion started as a speculation on the ECJ taking on the case and ruling in favor of UK citizens keeping their EU "citizenship". I'm not in favor of it but what if it came to this ?
One aspect was reciprocity which could be enforced somehow.
Another is whether it will be imbalanced in the first place and how big the imbalance will realistically be. If the EU gives a bit of ground on this, it might not be that big of a deal.

[Deleted]

Fuck showing that the EU is the good guy when it means that actual EU citizens will lose their rights and have their lifes worsened in the process.

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.

No, why? They are citizens today because the UK is a member today. If they want to retain EU citizenship they have to retain EU-memberstate citizenship or something equal.

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

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.

[Mayhem]

This whole discussion started as a speculation on the ECJ taking on the case and ruling in favor of UK citizens keeping their EU "citizenship". I'm not in favor of it but what if it came to this ?
One aspect was reciprocity which could be enforced somehow.
Another is whether it will be imbalanced in the first place and how big the imbalance will realistically be. If the EU gives a bit of ground on this, it might not be that big of a deal.

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

[Dizzeeyooo]

As it is today, the EU has absolutely nothing to gain by reducing the rights of UK residents.

in the same way that the UK has absolutely nothing to gain by reducing the rights of EU residents?

[Deleted]

in the same way that the UK has absolutely nothing to gain by reducing the rights of EU residents?

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.