world

Good start, not enough: EU leaders mull May's Brexit offer

15 Comments
By BRUSSELS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

Will have to read the reported full text to be presented to Parliament, outside of a clear cut off date, the absence of ecj oversight this is probably close to a final offer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There needs to be something equivalent to direct ECJ oversight so that these individual rights can be enforced by individuals in the event that countries don't live up to their obligations. These rights should not be entirely dependent on the country of origin starting an action in some international court that deals only with disputes between states. If the ECJ is not fit for purpose, they will need to create some new enforcement mechanism. It seems like a complete waste of time and money.

I really don't understand why the ECJ became such a bogeyman for the Brexiteers. Why are there never calls for Britain to come out from under the thumb of the undemocratic Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Office? (a foreign institution Britain will still be a part of even after it leaves the EU).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is little or nothing that comes close to the independence of the Attorney General, or the Scottish Lord Advocate......The ECJ is not independent.

Common Law - Henry II and the Birth of a State....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_law_01.shtml

Law Lords.....

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-types/law-lords/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well, the attorney general is technically part of the government if my memory serves me correctly, so not exactly independent. Nor does he have any judicial authority vested in him. Even if he did, he could not rule against the government if a future Parliament explicitly passed a law contrary to the exit agreement. This is why no national court will ever be up to the task. We have to remember that UK citizens in other countries will also be part of this agreement. The UK Attorney General can't decide whether a Brit will be allowed to remain in Spain.

It seems like there must be some supranational mechanism to resolve these disputes where individuals can eventually bring their cases. There is no perfect solution but the ECJ seems like the least worst compromise. There is simply no time to create any new and better institution like an 'International Brexit Resolution Tribunal'.

The judges of the ECJ are considered entirely independent by international standards (at least as independent as any judges in the world). Whether or not they would have some sort of pro-European bias is another matter, but we generally don't assume such unprofessional behaviour once someone has taken high judicial office and swears an oath to uphold the law.

From the most practical standpoint, they just need a room to hear witnesses and a legally qualified judge. It's very unlikely that any country will completely renege on the agreement, but there could be many factual disputes where Home Office agents (or their European equivalents) refuse to recognise evidence that someone was in the country by the deadline. These factual matters could work their way through UK or Spanish courts but they will need some ultimate court where they can be adjudicated. The ECJ seems like a reasonable forum, even if it's not perfect.

Honestly, if the UK wants 100% sovereignty and independence, they can't give EU citizens any signed guarantees about their future status within the exit deal. It would be a PR disaster for the UK if they can't sign any guarantees, but I think it's a very likely possibility.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

EU citizens living in the UK, keeping in mind the cut off date, will be offered full residency status, some 3 million will have full access to health care, free education, all in work as well as out of work benefits and pensions, this will be enshrined in UK law.

The EU commission wants the European Court of Justice an overriding  status on citizenship rights in the UK and descendents of EU citizens in addition to the EU citizens who have lived in the UK and left. This is the fundamental reason why UK law has to take legal precedent. The guarantees are beholden to and within UK sovereign territory.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There are so many issues that need to be ironed out. What is the cut off date? What happens to EU citizens in the UK who are required to transfer abroad for employment purposes or to care for sick relatives during this period? What happens to non-EU spouses or EU spouses who come after the cut off date? What legal rights will the children of these 'settled' EU citizens have in Britain if they are born after Brexit? What will happen to them if they choose not to become UK citizens because it would mean losing the citizenship of their home country? What happens to Brits and children of Brits in places like Spain and Germany who would have to give up their citizenship to naturalise?

It's a horrendously complicated issue and I don't think all of the wrinkles can be ironed out in UK legislation without someone falling through the cracks. One way to do this would be to draft the law in a way that makes reference to previous rights enjoyed by EU citizens, but this is obviously unacceptable for Theresa May.

in addition to the EU citizens who have lived in the UK and left.

There are many Europeans who have lived in the UK, gone to university in the UK, obtained professional qualifications in the UK, started their careers and families in the UK but have now transfered to places like Japan, Dubai or America thanks to their high-flying careers and entreprenurial businesses. What would you do with these EU citizens if their intention always was to someday return to Britain? What about the Brit who lived in Spain but has now come back to the UK only to save up some money to go back to Spain and buy a house or open a business? It seems extremely reasonable to me to offer some special immigration pathway to everyone who has previously excercised their rights as EU citizens in another state, both for Europeans and Brits. There will be so many stories of unfairness that come to light once the Brexit ship sets sail.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

M3, so let take my case I have family in the UK, I was born in Bromley to English and Japanese parents. I chose to become a Japanese citizen, but have indefinite leave to remain in the UK, however no recourse to public funds, and I must not reside outside the UK for prolonged periods. Because I have business interests in the UK there has been some negotiation in this respect.

So in comparison...  UK residence for EU citizens...present .....

https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/permanent-residence    

And ..... Brexit: Juncker says UK rights offer 'not sufficient'....So the cut off date is crucial....A cut off date, before the date of UK exiting EU around March - June 2019 will have significant affect on who is entitled to stay in the UK or not. Either way they will have more rights that I do.  

However, no cut-off date for the package has been specified by Downing Street and further details of the plans - which are reported to also involve a two-year "grace period" for people moving to the UK after Brexit to regularise their status - will not be released until Monday.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40378913

2 ( +2 / -0 )

zichi, I don't have dual nationally, only one passport, I had to present myself to the embassy in London and prove it, which I have no problem with. However yes technically I can travel back and forth the Indefinite leave to remain comes with a number of conditions restrictions and requirements to residency and tax. I don't have any regrets it a swings and roundabouts arrangement.

If only David Cameron had been able to impress upon the EU commission the need to reflect upon the possibility of a leave scenario.

Also had Tony Blair not been so foolish in negotiating away the premise underpinning the rebate, yes granted, all with the benefit of hindsight.

Paramount is transparency with this so call divorce bill. This is a serious economic Pandora box. Since EMU at least 12 member states have allowed the commission to spend and defer many billions they never had or were mandated to allocate.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

zichi, I could not afford to bend any rules. Professional integrity, trust and confidence, specifically when financial institutions provide my business with revenue, quite large sums. If there is any skeletons rattling, or you could be accused of giving or providing false or misleading accounts investors will just walk away and call in the authorities and the lawyers. No matter how successful you are or perceive your importance to count for. I would could lose my accountancy accreditation's. I have seen so many clever people fall on stony ground through the mistaken belief laws or rules don't apply to them.

You have a very diverse family. Allot of life experiences.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But UK will deport Roma from Romania immediately?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@itsonlyrocknroll

> I chose to become a Japanese citizen, but have indefinite leave to remain in the UK, however no recourse to public funds, and I must not reside outside the UK for prolonged periods. Because I have business interests in the UK there has been some negotiation in this respect.

It seems like you are also in a bit of a precarious position just like EU citizens. I think the injustice for EU immigrants is that they are having the rules of the game suddenly and involuntarily changed on them, especially the Brits in Europe who had no vote in the referendum. In your case, at least you had some say in the matter and there might be a passport waiting for you if you ever move back to the UK for a few years (perhaps even a blue one by that time) but I can imagine how uncertain it must be for you to know that the law surrounding your indefinite leave to remain could be changed at any time, especially now with the anti-immigrant sentiment out there.

@zichi

I can return to the UK but not my Japanese wife automatically because we have lived here for decades and she or we would need to pass the financial test which we would fail because we are old and retired.

Even if you are planning to stay in Japan, it's so tragic to have your options curtailed like this. I understand why it was introduced, but the arbitrary financial test is an outrage when you see how many thousands of honest and law abiding UK citizens have been affected by this. It really makes my blood boil.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hi M3, i am more concerned about the companies employees, i won't hide the fact the business depends on skilled staff. At the moment EU staff are able to transfer money to there families, and in some cases child benefit.

Will this be the case in future? I do have empathy with cultural issues.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites