Why a year? May as well say two years.
That's one way of guaranteeing a clean Brexit.
Printable View
Why a year? May as well say two years.
That's one way of guaranteeing a clean Brexit.
Because that's about how long it would take to establish a broader framework for negotiations.
https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theg...tiating-stance
Randblade is right though; this is clearly a way of telling the UK that we're either going to do it on the EU schedule or not at all. I think the EU schedule is; Brexit negotiations; laying down the rules for transition; negotiations during the transition periode about future trade relations. By the way, that would consitute a soft brexit, the kind that probably is acceptable to the vast majority of British voters and British business.
It will not satisfy Breximaniacs though, because it also means accepting that the EU calls the shots in the future relationship.
Btw, what's this I hear about Juncker encouraging May to call an election?
Wouldn't be so strange if he had. She had painted herself into a corner and elections seemed to be a way out. However, that doesn't make Juncker responsible for the elections. It's not like he is an MP and voted in favor of the elections of last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I really wonder how that cross party approach to Brexit will work. And of course if they will be able to negotiate a deal that is acceptable to the EU.
My guess is that he was hoping Lord Buckethead would win:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrpJ4N0ffgk
Twitter Link
See the next few tweets as well.
The queen, she has an opinion.
(and in the right thread this time)
Amusing but the reason the event was "dressed down" was quite widely publicised, the event was unscheduled and clashed with Trooping the Colour. Same happened after the early election in 1974.
Claims that the Queen also wanted to be able to get changed quickly in order to make it to Royal Ascot on the same day have been half-heartedly denied.
Lol, so if EHIC is taken away all Brits are getting free travel health insurance?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...isoning-claimsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Innovative consumer response to financial uncertainty :o
Pathetic. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Gots to get paid bro
Indeed :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Couldn't care less. It costs peanuts to buy travel insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Interesting breakdown: http://brexitcentral.com/uk-eu-will-...tizens-rights/
EU citizens currently have more rights in Britain than do the British? Seriously, Rand?
It's true in a few rare areas.
Two examples.
1: A French student in a Scottish university pays no tuition fees. An English student does. That is an issue for the devolved administration to deal with.
2: An Englishman wanting to bring a non-EEA spouse into the UK has to earn above an earnings threshold to do so. A Frenchman wanting to do the same does not. This is the issue being highlighted that is going to have to be negotiated as the government is proposing to end this after the cut-off date.
I think proposing that an EU citizen shall have the same rights as a UK citizen is an entirely reasonable proposal.
That's not what the article asserted.
Yes it is. The income threshold for non-EU spouses is specifically what is brought up.Quote:
The key point of dispute here is in the final line of the EU’s proposal, which calls for family members of EU citizens to be able to join them before or after the withdrawal date. This would mean preserving ‘super-rights’ for EU citizens which exceed what UK nationals themselves have in the some country. The UK proposal in fact splits the issue in two – it guarantees the right for children to join EU parents after Brexit, while maintaining the position that spouses and other family members should have to meet the same criteria as equivalent relations of UK nationals, including the income threshold for non-EU spouses. This is set to be a major crunch point between the UK and the EU.
That is actually true in some ways. It explains why being treated as if you are a citizen means that you are losing rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Being a EU citizen in combination with using Union rights activates EU directives for your situation. That often improves your rights. Living in your own country means that the directives remain by and large irrelevant.
I wonder if more liberal countries would argue more forcefully and persuasively that that income threshold constitutes a violation of the ECHR. Illustrative example, btw, of the UK's attitudes towards foreigners.
Load of bollocks if they do. Supreme Court ruled already against that for good reason.
I would extend an income threshold to all foreignors without criminal records not just those with ties here. Let anyone come here so long as they can support themselves. I see no problem with that.
We will stand our ground:
https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.ft.c...3-e2df1b0c3220
#resist
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-rights-brexit
It's no surprise that people below the age of retirement are keen to retain as many of their EU rights as possible but I feel the bit about how much they'd be willing to "pay" a little dodgy. Haven't yet looked at the study in detail.
Not to worry, this will be a huge boost to the fishing boat manufacturing sector, which will be very welcome given trends in some other sectors:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.ft.c...8-8055f264aa8b
This could seriously lead to violence with Iceland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I'd missed that the UK presidency had been canceled
Ha! Them and what army?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
How? Iceland isn't even part of this agreement and it has nothing to do with the 200-mile exclusion zone established at the end of the last disputes and later set down as the UN standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yeah this will affect mostly France and Ireland, now.
Precisely. Its just lazy thinking to go "fish dispute + UK = Iceland". If Loki'd thought about the cod wars he would have known that the issue was British fishermen fishing in waters Iceland claimed and not Icelandic fishermen fishing in waters Britain claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Unless I'm reading this wrong, Iceland had an agreement with the EU. Britain is withdrawing from the EU agreement. That means it has no agreement with Iceland.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
"Everyone Shrugged" is the name of a thrilling new book about the aftermath of the UK's announcement that it intends to withdraw from a convention that had already been superseded by EU law and agreements with EFTA.
True but that was already expected to be a possible consequence of Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Iceland might have an agreement with the EU. This is not part of whatever that agreement is. You can tell because Iceland is not a signatory of this one. There is a nice little list of those this one applies to. Iceland's not on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Didn't realize that was a separate treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
An important thing to check before you start predicting interstate violence, n'est ce pas?
