Britons should keep EU rights post-Brexit - Guy Verhofstadt

[Grouse]

11 minutes ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

 

Thailand is not your country and never will be.

 

 

Charming 

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 I suspect that most Brits living in Europe probably voted to Remain.

 

As for those UK residents who voted leave and will in future complain about the difficulties of arranging a continental holiday, if any, then I agree.

 

But why do you not want the rights of British citizens currently living in other EU states protected post Brexit?

Before the EU came into being, I managed to travel throughout Western Europe without any problems. Therefore when we escape the EU I don't see why this should't be the case in the future.

[rockingrobin]

58 minutes ago, Allstars said:

 

Because as I understand it it was a right they gained when they joined the EU, so why it should be protected post Brexit.

 

You can't have one rule for some and another rule for others.

 

And The Guest already posted the solution.

Respect of acquired rights.  

[jollyhangmon]

13 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Respect of acquired rights.  

Maybe, if based on  mutuality ... 

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, jollyhangmon said:

Maybe, if based on  mutuality ... 

Principle of law to provide legal certainty.

Termination of treaties only release you from future obligations not ones in the past

[Mosha]

The only major politician who committed his party to a withdrawal from the EU was Michael Foot and he siuffered once of the biggest electoral defeats since the war.  William Hague who put keeping the pound at the centre of his general election campaign also went down to a massive electoral defeat. I think any fair observer would agree that had this referendum been held during the period up until the financial crisis of 2008 then the vote would have been in favour of remaining in the EU. The reason it was held in 2016 was more about Cameron trying to castrate his own right wing malcontents.

Peter Shore warned us what was coming, he was ignored.

Sent from my iris 505 using Tapatalk

[7by7]

42 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Before the EU came into being, I managed to travel throughout Western Europe without any problems. Therefore when we escape the EU I don't see why this should't be the case in the future.

 

You are coming across as someone who wants all the advantages of EU membership with none of the responsibilities; a typical Brexiteer in fact.

 

You cannot compare visa regimes 45 years ago with today; most countries, including the UK, have changed theirs considerably in that time!

 

Any visa regime for British citizens in the EEA will be a reciprocal one; what they give us for our citizens they will want in return for theirs and vice versa.

 

I suspect that post Brexit British citizens will still be able to visit EEA countries for tourism and similar without a visa, and vice versa.

 

But not to study, work or retire.

[taipeir]

I am sure that those who now have their country back free from the unelected dictatorship of Brussels will not want to avail themselves of any such offer. 

Ah yes the queen the House of Lords and the aristocrats who own one third of your land.
Unelected you say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[taipeir]

And that is the rub!  Will the EU collapse before the Brexit divorce is finalised.  That will be determined by the European elections coming up to a great extent.  I think most of the referendum voters hope that the EU will fall and will have to be re-born as a proper trading partnership suitable for todays climate.  I know that is my hope after my disappointment of us not remaining to force change from within.
 
However if the EU does survive the next few months and the other countries rally around Brussels then we need to make sure we do not burn our bridges.  Negotiations are still crucial at this stage.

It's a total fantasy that the EU will break up.
There are 27 other countries that will prosper going forward perhaps to be joined by Scotland sooner than later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[notmyself]

To be perfectly honest and with all due respect.... much of what has been said by the pro remain camp is nothing short of the drivel associated with news outlets such as Fox, Pravda, RT and the Pyongyang herald tribune. Most all of the myriad of rules and regulations will be kept because they are fit a proper while some that are objectively insane will be discarded. The UK will be able to legally subsidise the farming industry which is something France do illegally because it is in their financial interest to just pay the small fine. The net cost of being part of this [word some people think has a magical meaning] little club passed 1 trillion GBP around the year 2000. That is net cost.... not gross.

[jollyhangmon]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Principle of law to provide legal certainty.

Termination of treaties only release you from future obligations not ones in the past

Sure, sort of 'grandfathering', certainly makes sense.

Still, can only work out mutually is what i meant ...  

[pitrevie]

7 hours ago, taipeir said:

 

Ah yes the queen the House of Lords and the aristocrats who own one third of your land.
Unelected you say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Just in case you misunderstood I was merely reposting the mantra that most Brexiters seem fond of posting while ignoring the system in the UK.

[nontabury]

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

You are coming across as someone who wants all the advantages of EU membership with none of the responsibilities; a typical Brexiteer in fact.

 

You cannot compare visa regimes 45 years ago with today; most countries, including the UK, have changed theirs considerably in that time!

 

Any visa regime for British citizens in the EEA will be a reciprocal one; what they give us for our citizens they will want in return for theirs and vice versa.

 

I suspect that post Brexit British citizens will still be able to visit EEA countries for tourism and similar without a visa, and vice versa.

 

But not to study, work or retire.

I don't know if it was previously  a requirement to hold a visa for study,work or retire. But thank you for confirming my thoughts that for tourist, everything will be the same as before.

[nontabury]

15 hours ago, taipeir said:

 

It's a total fantasy that the EU will break up.
There are 27 other countries that will prosper going forward perhaps to be joined by Scotland sooner than later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well you obviously like a good fantasy.

[Khun Han]

17 hours ago, taipeir said:

 

It's a total fantasy that the EU will break up.
There are 27 other countries that will prosper going forward perhaps to be joined by Scotland sooner than later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Ah yes, just what the EU needs going forward: another country on the take.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

I don't know if it was previously  a requirement to hold a visa for study,work or retire. But thank you for confirming my thoughts that for tourist, everything will be the same as before.

 Before the UK joined the EEC, later the EU, EEC nationals were subject to the same immigration rules and requirements as all others; except, due to the Common Travel Area, the Irish. I do not know what those were that long ago.

 

As soon as the UK joined, we came under all the freedom of movement regulations which existed at the time. What many people don't realise is that although the Freedom of Movement Directive itself came into force in 2004, it contained nothing new. What it did was draw all the provisions in other, much older directives, including the Treaty of Rome itself, into one place.

 

Unless a post Brexit UK agrees to sign up to the directive, as Switzerland has done, then EEA nationals will be subject to the UK's immigration rules and their requirements, and vice versa. Except for the RoI as I suspect both they and the UK will wish to maintain the CTA.

 

I have confirmed nothing; merely offered an opinion as the what those requirements may be. I could easily be wrong.

 

But this isn't about tourists; it about residents. I hope both sides will see sense and justice. That the UK will agree that EEA nationals currently resident in the UK can remain on the same basis as before, and that the EU will agree that British nationals currently living in other EEA states can do the same.

[Richard W]

On 11/03/2017 at 11:37 AM, 7by7 said:

 I'm sure the approx. 1.5 million Brits currently working or retired in other EU countries would like to have their futures secured and not be forced to give up their jobs and homes post Brexit.

I'm baffled by this calculation.  Surely a British citizen living in another EU country who has achieved permanent residence will retain permanent residence - retaining EU citizenship is not a requirement of the free movement directive (2004/38/EC), and the directive will remain in force in the EU after the UK leaves.  In most countries, they will also have rights as 'long term residents', a part of the EU system that the UK opted out of.

 

Permanent residents in the UK will have uncertain status because the status depends on EU law, whose consequences will suddenly be of uncertain validity.

 

Those who are definitely at risk are those who have not acquired permanent residence.

[Richard W]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

As soon as the UK joined, we came under all the freedom of movement regulations which existed at the time. What many people don't realise is that although the Freedom of Movement Directive itself came into force in 2004, it contained nothing new. What it did was draw all the provisions in other, much older directives, including the Treaty of Rome itself, into one place.

It contained one significant new right, that of automatic permanent residence after 5 years.  Before that, long term status was dependent on national rules.

[rockingrobin]

6 hours ago, Richard W said:

I'm baffled by this calculation.  Surely a British citizen living in another EU country who has achieved permanent residence will retain permanent residence - retaining EU citizenship is not a requirement of the free movement directive (2004/38/EC), and the directive will remain in force in the EU after the UK leaves.  In most countries, they will also have rights as 'long term residents', a part of the EU system that the UK opted out of.

 

Permanent residents in the UK will have uncertain status because the status depends on EU law, whose consequences will suddenly be of uncertain validity.

 

Those who are definitely at risk are those who have not acquired permanent residence.

This position  appears supported by Ven Gend Loos case

 

Independently of the legislation of Member States, Community law not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the Treaty but also by reason of obligations which the Treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the Member States and upon the institutions of the Community

[7by7]

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

I'm baffled by this calculation.  Surely a British citizen living in another EU country who has achieved permanent residence will retain permanent residence - retaining EU citizenship is not a requirement of the free movement directive (2004/38/EC), and the directive will remain in force in the EU after the UK leaves.  In most countries, they will also have rights as 'long term residents', a part of the EU system that the UK opted out of.

 

Permanent residents in the UK will have uncertain status because the status depends on EU law, whose consequences will suddenly be of uncertain validity

There is uncertainty on both sides, surely?

 

How can you say that the British citizens living in other EEA states will still definitely be covered by the directive post Brexit, but EEA citizens living in the UK wont be? 

 

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

 

Those who are definitely at risk are those who have not acquired permanent residence.

Although not a legal requirement, there has been a huge increase in applications for residence cards by EEA nationals in the UK since the referendum in the hope that you are correct.

 

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

It (2004 directive) contained one significant new right, that of automatic permanent residence after 5 years.  Before that, long term status was dependent on national rules.

I'll take your word on that; but it doesn't alter my point.

[Richard W]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

How can you say that the British citizens living in other EEA states will still definitely be covered by the directive post Brexit, but EEA citizens living in the UK wont be? 

The directive will remain part of EU law; it is not certain that it will remain part of British law.  When a family member of a 'qualified person', to use the British term, becomes a permanent residence, the acquisition of the right is in no way dependent on their having any citizenship at all.  Moreover, a Finnish-Australian dual national who acquired permanent residence in the UK in his own right retains permanent residence even if he renounces  Finnish nationality.  (On the other hand, it is claimed that the rights of permanent residence are generally lost if the permanent resident acquires British nationality.) The harshest possible view on the continent ought to be that British citizens are in the process of collectively renouncing EU citizenship held only by virtue of British citizenship.

 

Of course, it ought to be possible for just England and Wales to leave the EU.  If that happened, 'local connection' rules could apply for employment, as on the Isle of Man.

[7by7]

Richard, of course the directive will remain part of EU law; Brexit wont change that. The question is whether or not British citizens currently exercising their rights under the directive to live in the UK and EEA nationals doing the same in the UK, will retain those rights post Brexit.

 

I believe that as things stand, neither will. A view shared by many; including Guy Verhofstadt. Otherwise, why would he and others be saying that they should be allowed to retain them? Not 'will be allowed to' but 'should be allowed to.'

 

You obviously believe otherwise; and I can see I will not change that belief; just as you will not change mine.

 

We will have to await the outcome of negotiations to see what will actually happen.

 

9 hours ago, Richard W said:

Of course, it ought to be possible for just England and Wales to leave the EU.  If that happened, 'local connection' rules could apply for employment, as on the Isle of Man.

Why? The UK is one country. It is the UK which is a member, not the constituent parts. How would having part of a country be a member while other parts are not work?

 

London voted overwhelmingly for Remain. Should London be allowed to retain EU membership in some way?

[Richard W]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Why? The UK is one country. It is the UK which is a member, not the constituent parts. How would having part of a country be a member while other parts are not work?

It works for the Danish Realm  - neither Greenland nor the Faeroes are part of the EU.  In general, the Danish residents of Greenland are EU citizens while the Danish residents of the Faeroes are not.

[the guest]

Hopefully the human rights act will be binned. This will pave the wave for hate preachers to be immediately deported along with their families that support them. This has been long overdue.

[7by7]

11 hours ago, Richard W said:

It works for the Danish Realm  - neither Greenland nor the Faeroes are part of the EU.  In general, the Danish residents of Greenland are EU citizens while the Danish residents of the Faeroes are not.

You could also have mentioned the Canaries.

 

However, I would say that their status is more akin to British overseas territories or Crown dependencies than to the four constituent countries of the UK.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, the guest said:

Hopefully the human rights act will be binned. This will pave the wave for hate preachers to be immediately deported along with their families that support them. This has been long overdue.

 

The Human Rights Act, the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights all have absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

 

The ECHR and it's court are part of the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founder member in 1949.

 

The UK played a major role in drafting the ECHR and was a founding signatory in 1950.

 

There are currently 47 member states of the CoE, all of whom have signed the ECHR. 28 of those, including the UK, are also EU members.

 

Hate preachers, of all religions and politics, are usually very careful to stay just the right side of the law. Those who have broken the law who are not British citizens have been deported, those who are British citizens have been jailed.

 

It is ignorance such as that displayed in your post which caused many people to vote leave last June; ignorance fed by certain elements of the Leave campaign.