UK courts must keep jurisdiction over EU citizens' rights in Britain - Davis

[webfact]

UK courts must keep jurisdiction over EU citizens' rights in Britain - Davis

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis leaves Downing Street, London, Britain July 11, 2017. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/File Photo

 

PRAGUE (Reuters) - British courts should protect the rights of European Union citizens living in the country after it leaves the bloc, Brexit minister David Davis said on Tuesday, defending Britain's rejection of the EU's position.

 

Protecting the rights of EU citizens living in Britain and of Britons in the remaining 27 EU countries after the British exit from the bloc is major sticking point as talks between London and Brussels on Brexit get under way.

 

Britain has opposed EU insistence on the rights of 3 million Europeans in Britain being guaranteed by recourse to the European Court of Justice.

 

Davis, when asked if Britain was willing to compromise, said: "We are intent that this should be put in an act in of parliament enforced by British courts ... and most importantly backed up by a treaty."

 

"When we, for example, sign a deal, let's say with the United States, we don't give the United States Supreme Court the right to enforce that," he said at a news conference in Prague after a regular meeting with Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek.

Davis said Britain took "seriously the requirement to give certainty to European citizens".

 

EU and British negotiators held their first full round of Brexit talks last week. Davis, leading the British side, said they got off to a "good start".

 

(Reporting by Jan Lopatka; Writing by Jason Hovet; Editing by Louise Ireland)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-26

[hansnl]

Of course the British courts must keep jurisdiction in Britain, not the EU courts.

[terryw]

There are about 2 million EU citizens or passport holders living in Canada, yet as part of the recent trade deal the EU never demanded that the ECJ should be used to protect their rights.

 

The UK government must not give any ground on this issue. Everyone living in the UK should be subject to only UK laws.

[shaurene]

All parties, UK and The EEC must respect the current rights of All EEC workers in the UK and all UK workers in the EEC. Goes without saying really. UK have really got to watch the French and Mrs Hittler.

The EEC are really pissed off with UK all boils down to the loss of UK contributians.

i was one of the voters that voted NO when the British people got the first vote to go into the EEC or NOT.

I had two fruit and veggie shops in the working area in Birkenhead Merseyside. All the women especially the older ones would ask me. Should we vote to go in Ken"

i said to them all NO. Your Butter, all food, house hold cost's will double."

And they did.

UK was buying on the world markets but were made to buy only EEC manufactured products at their prices.

The UK had to turn their backs on all the commonwealth country'. Canada, Australia, New Zealand West Indies, india etc etc. that they were buying from. Butter, Cheese, Meat, Sugar and many other products. 

It was discussting treatment to them all.

 

[Caps]

if people living in the UK from other EU countries dont like living by the UK law then they have the option of going back to where they came from.  This is not just about what the EU wants, what part of we are leaving dont they understand.  This is just another way of holding the country to ransom  

Edited July 26, 2017 by Caps

[smedly]

2 hours ago, terryw said:

There are about 2 million EU citizens or passport holders living in Canada, yet as part of the recent trade deal the EU never demanded that the ECJ should be used to protect their rights.

 

The UK government must not give any ground on this issue. Everyone living in the UK should be subject to only UK laws.

Agree 100% but I suspect the EU will not budge on this because they simply want brexit to fail and the UK to walk away, this I believe is their goal in these so called negotiations - keep putting forward demands that they know will never be agreed and try and force the UK to walk out, the ultimate goal being to create as much instability in the UK as possible in the hope that brexit can be thwarted, if the brexit team does walk away then it needs to be for a very good reason that gets the backing of the majority in the UK both from the people and other political parties - this - along with the ridiculous exit bill are two such justified reasons to walk and call their bluff - only then will serious negotiations begin when they see that the British people are in full agreement and their plan failed, it won't be long before they are calling the UK back to the table

[Jonnapat]

Sounds like a topic for all the Brexiteers and Little England isolationists.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Jonnapat said:

Sounds like a topic for all the Brexiteers and Little England isolationists.

 

Or for people wishing to make highly intellectual contributions, like you 

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, smedly said:

Agree 100% but I suspect the EU will not budge on this because they simply want brexit to fail and the UK to walk away, this I believe is their goal in these so called negotiations - keep putting forward demands that they know will never be agreed and try and force the UK to walk out, the ultimate goal being to create as much instability in the UK as possible in the hope that brexit can be thwarted, if the brexit team does walk away then it needs to be for a very good reason that gets the backing of the majority in the UK both from the people and other political parties - this - along with the ridiculous exit bill are two such justified reasons to walk and call their bluff - only then will serious negotiations begin when they see that the British people are in full agreement and their plan failed, it won't be long before they are calling the UK back to the table

And if they don't, then what, Smedly? The UK has already agreed that it must honour their existing financial commitments. If we're not going to be any better off, what's the point of leaving? Also, there has not been one government (or any business) report that indicates Britain's vision going forward or the financial pros and cons of leaving the EU. IMO, that's disasterly negligent, so in the absence of any Treasury cost analysis, neither parliament, nor the people have any idea if we should walk or stay. And that's many months after the referendum and the subsequent invoking of Article 50 by a gung-ho PM.

[smedly]

37 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

And if they don't, then what, Smedly? The UK has already agreed that it must honour their existing financial commitments. If we're not going to be any better off, what's the point of leaving? Also, there has not been one government (or any business) report that indicates Britain's vision going forward or the financial pros and cons of leaving the EU. IMO, that's disasterly negligent, so in the absence of any Treasury cost analysis, neither parliament, nor the people have any idea if we should walk or stay. And that's many months after the referendum and the subsequent invoking of Article 50 by a gung-ho PM.

it is a matter of opinion but these negotiations are all about bluff and who blinks first, like I said above the big test is what happens if the UK just walks from the talks because there is no agreement possible. Like I said already I believe that is their objective to test the waters and the UK's resolve, would J Corbyn just bend over and pay the 100b demand - would he agree to allow a European court to have jurisdiction in the UK ? the two most key issues and he has said absolutely nothing and to my knowledge no one has asked him too voice his opinion. 

 

As for financial commitments, do you really think the demand for 100b Euro will be met or even close to it ?, when the UK says it will honor future pledges I doubt very much that the figure exceeds 20b Euro absolute max

 

The EU is about to lose one of its primary funders, there were only two - the UK and Germany, you think the Germans are going to fill the gap or the French lol

 

Time for a wake up call, there is only one economy that was thriving in the EU - Germany, ask yourself why ? 

 

IMO the EU in its current form is finished whether the UK leaves or not - but since they are leaving then what next for the EU, the common market was a great idea but over the years it morphed into a centralised power grabbing monster ultimately controlled by Germany - enough is enough, it is over and finished, Germany is already making preparations for what comes next...............two speed Europe (Germany and the rest)  how is that bringing anything closer together lol

 

As for putting it on the table like many keep demanding, there are two aspects, you don't show your hand to the opposition, and how the UK will look in the future is dependent on the outcome of the negotiations - an unknown at this point.

Pretty much everyone is aware of what they would like to see - an outcome that benefits all concerned, a trade deal and a customs deal that will work for all possibly modelled on what is there now - anyone that wants or demands to know how all this will actually end up is delusional  

[JAG]

Agree 100% but I suspect the EU will not budge on this because they simply want brexit to fail and the UK to walk away, this I believe is their goal in these so called negotiations - keep putting forward demands that they know will never be agreed and try and force the UK to walk out, the ultimate goal being to create as much instability in the UK as possible in the hope that brexit can be thwarted, if the brexit team does walk away then it needs to be for a very good reason that gets the backing of the majority in the UK both from the people and other political parties - this - along with the ridiculous exit bill are two such justified reasons to walk and call their bluff - only then will serious negotiations begin when they see that the British people are in full agreement and their plan failed, it won't be long before they are calling the UK back to the table

I think you're right. The EU don't want a negotiated British withdrawal from the EU. They want to inflict as much damage as they can on the UK, as a warning to anyone else wondering about leaving.
If we walk away we will be damaged. If we agree to their demands before we leave we will be damaged, if we decide to change course and stay in, you can bet your bottom Euro that the conditions they demand will hurt as much, perhaps more.

Sod it, we might as well walk away and have done with it.

[dunroaming]

I think this is a fair point as long as the Brits living in EU countries live by EU laws.  I imagine the concern is that Britain could change the law concerning foreigners rights at any time as they can (and do) with other foreign nationals.  However that would be checked by the EU being able to change the law concerning Brits rights in Europe.

[rockingrobin]

39 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I think this is a fair point as long as the Brits living in EU countries live by EU laws.  I imagine the concern is that Britain could change the law concerning foreigners rights at any time as they can (and do) with other foreign nationals.  However that would be checked by the EU being able to change the law concerning Brits rights in Europe.

According to Davis the rights will be backed up by a treaty, the question will be who has jurisdction on future intepretation when a dispute arises , and how does an individual exercise their legal rights enshrined in a treaty

[dunroaming]

32 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

According to Davis the rights will be backed up by a treaty, the question will be who has jurisdction on future intepretation when a dispute arises , and how does an individual exercise their legal rights enshrined in a treaty

Then that depends on where the buck stops.  In other words whether the highest court is in the UK or within the EU as it is now.  Personally I like the system as it is now but many will not.

[rockingrobin]

16 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Then that depends on where the buck stops.  In other words whether the highest court is in the UK or within the EU as it is now.  Personally I like the system as it is now but many will not.

Treaties are international instruments and unless specifically brought into UK domestic law (akin 1972 EC act) are outside domestic court remit

[dunroaming]

18 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Treaties are international instruments and unless specifically brought into UK domestic law (akin 1972 EC act) are outside domestic court remit

Thank you

[Richard W]

17 hours ago, shaurene said:

All parties, UK and The EEC must respect the current rights of All EEC workers in the UK and all UK workers in the EEC. Goes without saying really.

No, it doesn't.  The UK's current intention is to expel EU criminals who are currently protected by EU law, in a weaker form of the principle by which England doesn't expel Scottish criminals (or vice versa).  The EU also seems to think that a British worker who acquired a family on the continent should be able to keep it with him if he returns to the UK.

To be fair, the UK is offering residence rights to resident EU nationals who have long lacked residence rights, something the EU27 didn't even think of asking for.  There are a fair few non-working continental wives of British citizens who seem to have assumed they were allowed to stay in the UK.

 

11 hours ago, dunroaming said:

I think this is a fair point as long as the Brits living in EU countries live by EU laws.  I imagine the concern is that Britain could change the law concerning foreigners rights at any time as they can (and do) with other foreign nationals.  However that would be checked by the EU being able to change the law concerning Brits rights in Europe.

They've also reduced Briton's rights, and in the third quarter of the 20th century were busy stripping people of full British nationality.  In this century, they've been stripping people of the right to remain British - dual nationals born British lost the inalienable right to remain British in 2006.  It seems that British-Thai dual nationals have now lost the right to become inalienably British by abandoning Thai nationality.