If we vote for Brexit what happens

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

The status of UK and EU citizens was always going to be part of the exit negotiations. The government by now should've triggered article 50 and discussions should be taking place.

The UK are doing what many accuse the EU of doing and that's playing politics. The only reason the UK have done/ said more on the subject is to try and repair the political damage caused by overtly referring to people as bargaining chips. That's quite a difficult position from which the government can claim the moral high ground.

Moral high ground doesn't matter to the people who are in the balance does it?

The EU should have had the discussion.

You could argue that the language used was a faux-pas on our politicians part, blown out of all proportion because it genuinely is the situation these people are in due to the EU being unwilling to negotiate.

We could go out on a limb and unilaterally grant EU citizens their rights in the UK as some appear to want us to do, although that would be a virtue signalling exercise (like Merkel's "refugee" invitation) that is neither pragmatic nor helpful to the citizens the UK is actually responsible for who reside in the EU. We could well be leaving the UK ex-pats high and dry by unilaterally granting EU citizens their rights prior to negotiating the rights of our own citizens in EU countries. Virtue signalling for one set of people at the expense of another set of people (modus operandi of the left it appears) is not the way decisions should be taken.

The EU should have agreed to discussions on the bi-lateral agreement of rights. That's the long and short of it.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The EU should have had the discussion.

The UK should have triggered A50 to allow the discussion to begin. That's the only roadblock here.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

The UK should have triggered A50 to allow the discussion to begin. That's the only roadblock here.

The Article 50 "roadblock" as you call it only exists because the EU said so.

That's precisely what I've been saying in the past 4 or 5 posts. The EU bears the blame for the lack of clarity on the rights of ex-pats in both the UK and the EU. It is the EU who are refusing to negotiate that prior to enacting Article 50. It is the EU at fault for the predicament of these people, not as Tusk says, the fault of the UK electorate. We took a decision that was not theirs to make, the UK and EU now need to come to a consensus on the rights of these people, the EU is stopping that from happening. I honestly don't know how many more times it needs to be said, should I just copy & paste it 100 times?

Conrad

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

It also looks like Turkey is preparing for another "nudge" at the EU for negotiations on membership and on visa-free travel for Turks:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-says-eu-incomplete-without-eyes-better-us-000422099.html

If Turkey does open the floodgates as a punishment to the EU, surely even the most ardent FOM advocates would have a re-think, otherwise European people will say enough is enough and take matter into their own hands at the ballot box, not to mention further ad-hoc razor wire erecting at borders.


The only answer to mass migration is for the people of failed states to build them up, running away only makes those states worse.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Moral high ground doesn't matter to the people who are in the balance does it?

The EU should have had the discussion.

You could argue that the language used was a faux-pas on our politicians part, blown out of all proportion because it genuinely is the situation these people are in due to the EU being unwilling to negotiate.

We could go out on a limb and unilaterally grant EU citizens their rights in the UK as some appear to want us to do, although that would be a virtue signalling exercise (like Merkel's "refugee" invitation) that is neither pragmatic nor helpful to the citizens the UK is actually responsible for who reside in the EU. We could well be leaving the UK ex-pats high and dry by unilaterally granting EU citizens their rights prior to negotiating the rights of our own citizens in EU countries. Virtue signalling for one set of people at the expense of another set of people (modus operandi of the left it appears) is not the way decisions should be taken.

The EU should have agreed to discussions on the bi-lateral agreement of rights. That's the long and short of it.

We had a referendum in the knowledge that article 50 would need to be triggered for exit negotiations to begin. The status of ex-pats was always going to be part of these negotiations. No secret.

People weren't concerned enough about the worry ex-pats would doubtless face to vote to remain and spare them the anxiety. No, we decided, on balance, that we thought it would be better for the ex pats to be anxious because the gains from Brexit trump their concerns.

Like everyone else ex pats will have to wait and see what effect brexit will have on their lives. Of course, like everyone else they'll be arguing that their pet subject should be a special case and to think otherwise makes you a bad person.

Personally I think the government should've unilaterally granted EU citizens their rights in the UK. Sometimes 'the right thing to do' shouldn't need to be negotiated. The EU should encourage their members to do the same.

mrginge

So on the one hand brexit is hugely complicated and according to some will take years and years to get sorted.

But on the other hand the govt should have got on with things, enacted article 50 and set a two year clock running....

You'd have thought that all those fretting would be quite pleased that the govt was taking its time and getting it's position sorted (while of course the economy continues to perform above previous forecasts).

But no. Instead of letting the govt get on with doing the analysis and finding the resources they need before we head off to negotiate the best deal we can from a position of knowledge, these people want to micro manage the process and stand over the govt tapping their watch.
Some may suggest that they are less concerned with planning correctly and more with having something to moan about.

Can you imagine the joy of actually working for such people?

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

Can you imagine the joy of actually working for such people?

Can you imagine tasking an employee with a highly complex task and leaving them to deal with it as they saw fit to a deadline they decided?

It's not micro-management to want to be kept up to date with process and timescales.

TrickyTree83

mrginge wrote: »

So on the one hand brexit is hugely complicated and according to some will take years and years to get sorted.

But on the other hand the govt should have got on with things, enacted article 50 and set a two year clock running....

You'd have thought that all those fretting would be quite pleased that the govt was taking its time and getting it's position sorted (while of course the economy continues to perform above previous forecasts).

But no. Instead of letting the govt get on with doing the analysis and finding the resources they need before we head off to negotiate the best deal we can from a position of knowledge, these people want to micro manage the process and stand over the govt tapping their watch.
Some may suggest that they are less concerned with planning correctly and more with having something to moan about.

Can you imagine the joy of actually working for such people?

Hand wringers and pearl clutchers who appear to be consistently inconsistent.

Just the last couple of posts about the EU's unwillingness to negotiate demonstrates it.

The EU say they're not going to negotiate the rights of citizens, is that the right thing to do? No. But the UK should "do the right thing" and unilaterally grant EU citizens their rights in the UK, because to them it appears the right thing to do. Lets just hope and pray the EU do the same (!!!!!!?!). But it's the UK who is bad, and the EU who is good.

Crap, it's ideological dogma coming to the fore. The right thing to do would be to have the negotiations, just like the right thing to do with the migrant crisis was to send them back and help them where they are. No help given to those who make the illegal trip.

I'm thankful these ideologies are not in government. The politics of virtue signalling and as a result the politics of spectacular failure.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The Article 50 "roadblock" as you call it only exists because the EU said so.

That's precisely what I've been saying in the past 4 or 5 posts. The EU bears the blame for the lack of clarity on the rights of ex-pats in both the UK and the EU. It is the EU who are refusing to negotiate that prior to enacting Article 50. It is the EU at fault for the predicament of these people, not as Tusk says, the fault of the UK electorate. We took a decision that was not theirs to make, the UK and EU now need to come to a consensus on the rights of these people, the EU is stopping that from happening. I honestly don't know how many more times it needs to be said, should I just copy & paste it 100 times?

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. The EU is only stopping the UK negotiating a deal in advance of the UK trigger A50, which I think is perfectly reasonable. They want the UK to get on with it and stop wasting everyone else's time.

If the EU allowed full negotiations pre A50 it'd never get triggered.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The EU say they're not going to negotiate the rights of citizens, is that the right thing to do? No. But the UK should "do the right thing" and unilaterally grant EU citizens their rights in the UK, because to them it appears the right thing to do. Lets just hope and pray the EU do the same (!!!!!!?!). But it's the UK who is bad, and the EU who is good.

Get a grip kid.

The right thing to do (IMO of course) was for the UK and EU to guarantee the rights of citizens. Why on Earth do two parties need to negotiate with each other to do the right thing? How does that work - I'll do the right thing but only if you do?

It's regretful they didn't so ex-pats can join the long queue of other people who don't have a scooby doo how their lives are going to be affected.