Government v Parliament: Britain’s Brexit battle goes to court

[elliss]

1 hour ago, SgtRock said:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/17/article-50-legal-case-is-attempt-to-reverse-brexit-court-told

 

Yet everyone was expecting Camoron to trigger A50 the day after the Referendum.

 

 NO way ,  he has more common sense , than to fall for that  one.

             Professional  Politicians , dont  want too be up to their necks in  shi...

         DC ,  has  created himself a nice  little, index linked earner , enjoy .

[rockingrobin]

13 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

The notion that the government will hang all it's EU expats out to dry on a technicality is just preposterous. All it proves is that some remainers will say (or get their legal representatives to say) absolutely anything if they think it will generate a bit of scaremongering.

I dont think scaremongering is correct, the British government will remove some rights that  cannot be reinstated by parliament. Expats in EU and the right of non eu spouses derives from eu citizenship

 

[Grouse]

13 hours ago, SgtRock said:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/17/article-50-legal-case-is-attempt-to-reverse-brexit-court-told

 

Yet everyone was expecting Camoron to trigger A50 the day after the Referendum.

 

Kindly spell David Cameron's name correctly. He was misguided in calling a referendum but has behaved honourably throughout IMHO.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

Kindly spell David Cameron's name correctly. He was misguided in calling a referendum but has behaved honourably throughout IMHO.

David Cameron was not misguided at all. He promised the people a referendum, although he also did in 2009 and didn't stick to his promise. David Cameron simply did not understand the majority of the people. That is why he lost. 

 

If you can remember before the Conservatives came to power David Cameron was the laughing stock of Westminster and was luckily groomed into his position. As with most politicians he did what was best for him or his puppet masters that tell him what to do.

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

I dont think scaremongering is correct, the British government will remove some rights that  cannot be reinstated by parliament. Expats in EU and the right of non eu spouses derives from eu citizenship

 

 

I do wish you'd explain your position properly Robin. So now you're referring to Brit expats with non-Brit partners, yes?

 

Can you be more specific? In view of the Schengen rules, this particular grouping must be miniscule, and needs bringing to the attention of the government if it hasn't already.

 

[rockingrobin]

44 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I do wish you'd explain your position properly Robin. So now you're referring to Brit expats with non-Brit partners, yes?

 

Can you be more specific? In view of the Schengen rules, this particular grouping must be miniscule, and needs bringing to the attention of the government if it hasn't already.

 

The position is straightforward and as no bearing on the Shenghen rules.

Consider a British national married to non EU citizen who has exercised their right under the freedom of movement to establish themselves in another member state, such as France. The non EU spouse right to reside is gained from the British national EU citizenship.

This right will be removed and the government cannot reinstate unilaterally.

 

[Khun Han]

20 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The position is straightforward and as no bearing on the Shenghen rules.

Consider a British national married to non EU citizen who has exercised their right under the freedom of movement to establish themselves in another member state, such as France. The non EU spouse right to reside is gained from the British national EU citizenship.

This right will be removed and the government cannot reinstate unilaterally.

 

 

No, it's not straightforward, Robin. A British national trying to take a non-EU citizen to another EU state without a Schengen or other valid visa would be refused entry (or, rather the non-EU citizen would be) because the UK isn't a part of the Schengen area. There are a miniscule number of Brits who can get around this such as those the ancestry from another EU country who can claim citizenship of that country, but they won't be affected by brexit. Though I'm not sure how people using the Ireland route for this will be affected.

[rockingrobin]

41 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, it's not straightforward, Robin. A British national trying to take a non-EU citizen to another EU state without a Schengen or other valid visa would be refused entry (or, rather the non-EU citizen would be) because the UK isn't a part of the Schengen area. There are a miniscule number of Brits who can get around this such as those the ancestry from another EU country who can claim citizenship of that country, but they won't be affected by brexit. Though I'm not sure how people using the Ireland route for this will be affected.

We are talking about British national already present in another member state

 

 

The right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality. For the purposes of this Directive, the definition of "family member" should also include the registered partner if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnership as equivalent to marriage

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004L0038

Edited October 18, 2016 by rockingrobin

[Khun Han]

No, Robin, the British national has to get their spouse to the other member state in the first place. Which is no mean feat because the Schengen Zone doesn't allow free movement of British citizens' non EU family members. The requirement for a visa has been almost universally enforced. This has been the subject of much argument and challenge, but no Schengen Zone country has budged an inch. Try taking a non-EU family member on a quick booze cruise across the Channel if you're in, or will be in the UK. Your trip will be very short: So short, in fact, that you won't even make it to the ferry.

 

The point being, of course, that the number of Brits living in other EU countries with non EU family members is miniscule. And most of them are living there through the arrangments that I explained in an earlier post.

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

No, Robin, the British national has to get their spouse to the other member state in the first place. Which is no mean feat because the Schengen Zone doesn't allow free movement of British citizens' non EU family members. The requirement for a visa has been almost universally enforced. This has been the subject of much argument and challenge, but no Schengen Zone country has budged an inch. Try taking a non-EU family member on a quick booze cruise across the Channel if you're in, or will be in the UK. Your trip will be very short: So short, in fact, that you won't even make it to the ferry.

 

The point being, of course, that the number of Brits living in other EU countries with non EU family members is miniscule. And most of them are living there through the arrangments that I explained in an earlier post.

Khun Han , lets put our differences aside , the court has been in session again this morning and the gov. response was that freedom of movement wasnt an EU law.

 

 

[Khun Han]

And it has to be noted that the legal representatives of the plaintiff tried to make a big issue out of a non-issue.

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

And it has to be noted that the legal representatives of the plaintiff tried to make a big issue out of a non-issue.

The claimant was a British national living in France with a Canadian spouse, ( therefore all the procedures for actually getting there have been fulfilled), the claim is that the non EU spouse residency is dependent upon the British nationals EU citizenship, which parliament cannot guarantee without a third party.

[Khun Han]

But it's a non-issue because, as I explained to you, all Schengen Zone countries put the same interpretation on the European directive, which is that they don't allow non-EU family members of British citizens into their countries without a valid visa. Nothing will change post-brexit except possibly the name of the required visa. I hope the court was made aware of this on-the-ground fact.

[elliss]

9 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

David Cameron was not misguided at all. He promised the people a referendum, although he also did in 2009 and didn't stick to his promise. David Cameron simply did not understand the majority of the people. That is why he lost. 

 

If you can remember before the Conservatives came to power David Cameron was the laughing stock of Westminster and was luckily groomed into his position. As with most politicians he did what was best for him or his puppet masters that tell him what to do.

  

     DC ,  is  still the laughing  stock  , that  is why he removed himself from the political scene , no credibility .

  He  completely  failed to  comprehend the  opinions of the UK , electorate  on  uncontrolled immigration . RIP DC .

   

Edited October 18, 2016 by elliss
spilling 555

[vaultdweller0013]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

But it's a non-issue because, as I explained to you, all Schengen Zone countries put the same interpretation on the European directive, which is that they don't allow non-EU family members of British citizens into their countries without a valid visa. Nothing will change post-brexit except possibly the name of the required visa. I hope the court was made aware of this on-the-ground fact.

 

Except, they do allow travel without a visa for the family (including spouses) of EU nationals when traveling with or going to meet their EU national family member. Below is the relevant sections from the Border Guard Handbook of the EU. The important note is that even without a visa, if they can prove they are a family member, so have the right of free movement, they should be granted entry.

 

Quote

3.1 Persons enjoying the Community right of free movement

3.1.1 Persons enjoying the Community right of free movement are authorised to cross the border of a Member State on the basis of the following documents, as a general rule:

• EU, EEA, CH citizens: identity card or passport;
• members of the family of EU and EEA citizens who are nationals of a third country: passport. They may also be required to have an entry visa, if they are nationals of a third country subject to the visa obligation, unless they are in possession of a valid residence permit or card, issued by a Member State (or by EEA countries);
• members of the family of CH citizen who are nationals of a third country: passport. They may also be required to have an entry visa, if they are nationals of a third country subject to the visa obligation.

3.1.2 However, if a person enjoying the Community right of free movement does not have the necessary travel documents or, if required, the necessary visas, the Member State concerned must, before turning him/her back, give such person every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to him/her within a reasonable period of time or corroborate or prove by other means that he/she is covered by the right of free movement.

 

3.1.3 As a consequence, checks on persons enjoying the Community right of free movement should be limited, as a general rule, to the verification of their identity and nationality/family ties (so-called “minimum check”, see above point 1.4). No questions concerning the purpose of travel, travel plans, employment certificate, pay slips, bank statements, accommodation, means of subsistence or other personal data should therefore be asked to them.

 

[Khun Han]

5 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

 

Except, they do allow travel without a visa for the family (including spouses) of EU nationals when traveling with or going to meet their EU national family member. Below is the relevant sections from the Border Guard Handbook of the EU. The important note is that even without a visa, if they can prove they are a family member, so have the right of free movement, they should be granted entry.

 

 

 

You're missing the point. They aren't granted free entry. Every single Schengen zone country enforces a visa requirement for non-EU family members of British nationals. If you don't believe me, phone a Schengen Zone country embassy or consulate and ask them. Or (assuming you're British) try to enter a Schengen Zone country with a non-EU family member.

[Khun Han]

Government confirms probable ratification vote on brexit deal:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37691270

[dick dasterdly]

I posted this on the wrong thread (sorry), and so repeat it on the correct thread.

 

Interesting times ahead as, assuming MPs are only allowed to vote on the final terms agreed, they will need to be very aware of the attitude of their constituent voters.

 

Many MPs clearly had no idea at the time of the referendum (and got it v wrong...), but having made that bad mistake once, are likely to be more aware in 2+ years time when it comes to the 'crunch' vote for MPs on final brexit terms as there will have to be a General Election within a reasonably short space of time.

[rockingrobin]

22 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I posted this on the wrong thread (sorry), and so repeat it on the correct thread.

 

Interesting times ahead as, assuming MPs are only allowed to vote on the final terms agreed, they will need to be very aware of the attitude of their constituent voters.

 

Many MPs clearly had no idea at the time of the referendum (and got it v wrong...), but having made that bad mistake once, are likely to be more aware in 2+ years time when it comes to the 'crunch' vote for MPs on final brexit terms as there will have to be a General Election within a reasonably short space of time.

Parliament hands are tied, they are offered a take it or leave it option , and if  no agreement is reached then they dont have a say.

Edited October 19, 2016 by rockingrobin

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Parliament hands are tied, they are offered a take it or leave it option , and if by design, either UK or EU , no agreement is reached then they dont have a say.

I need to be reminded as to what will happen if no agreement is reached between the UK and EU two years after article 50 has been invoked.

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I need to be reminded as to what will happen if no agreement is reached between the UK and EU two years after article 50 has been invoked.

Unless all 27 member states and UK agree to extend period, UK leaves and all treaties cease

Edited October 19, 2016 by rockingrobin

[dick dasterdly]

Its a shame as I'd (overly optimistically) hoped that the brexit vote might result in major changes within the EU - namely they'd realise that the population of EU paying countries (as opposed to financially benefiting countries) aren't happy.

 

Therefore time to 'show willling' and cutback on EMPs ridiculous renumeration/open borders policy/ever increasing bureacracy/moving the entire bureacracy from one country to another and back etc. etc.

 

It hasn't happened as the EU elite and bureaucracy prefer to protect their renumeration and empire, which is very sad IMO .

 

[dick dasterdly]

32 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I posted this on the wrong thread (sorry), and so repeat it on the correct thread.

 

Interesting times ahead as, assuming MPs are only allowed to vote on the final terms agreed, they will need to be very aware of the attitude of their constituent voters.

 

Many MPs clearly had no idea at the time of the referendum (and got it v wrong...), but having made that bad mistake once, are likely to be more aware in 2+ years time when it comes to the 'crunch' vote for MPs on final brexit terms as there will have to be a General Election within a reasonably short space of time.

 

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I need to be reminded as to what will happen if no agreement is reached between the UK and EU two years after article 50 has been invoked.

 

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Unless all 27 member states and UK agree to extend period, UK leaves and all treaties cease

If that happens then you're quite right, MPs will have no say.

 

Probably better for them when it comes to the following General Election!

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its a shame as I'd (overly optimistically) hoped that the brexit vote might result in major changes within the EU - namely they'd realise that the population of EU paying countries (as opposed to financially benefiting countries) aren't happy.

 

Therefore time to 'show willling' and cutback on EMPs ridiculous renumeration/open borders policy/ever increasing bureacracy/moving the entire bureacracy from one country to another and back etc. etc.

 

It hasn't happened as the EU elite and bureaucracy prefer to protect their renumeration and empire, which is very sad IMO .

 

While accepting your need for EU change I question if threat to leave is the right approach.Lets hypothetically assume the EU accepted the issues raised by the UK and enacted  changes to the UK satisfaction.This would  encourage other members to follow in the same path , eventually leading to an impasse of members wanting something different.