British Diplomat Says Brits Oppose Backstop For Fear Of UK Breakup.


jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
41,941
On free movement, we cannot do anything about EU citizens already in the UK, so if they're unemployed and on benefits, we're not allowed to kick them out.
And that's one of the UK's most powerful bargaining positions. It would seriously damage the economies of Eastern EU countries and put far more economic stress on Germany and France. It would lead to the collapse of the governments in various EU countries too. Isn't there a three month rule that can be activated for job seekers/unemployed from EU countries?
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,567
On free movement, we cannot do anything about EU citizens already in the UK, so if they're unemployed and on benefits, we're not allowed to kick them out.
This is quite simply not true.

The fundamental right of freedom of movement is neither full nor absolute. While workers still enjoy full freedom of movement, it remains limited for those EU citizens who are economically inactive. ....

Legally, the freedom of movement of persons may be restricted in cases of fraud, abuse of rights, threats to public policy, public security or public health, and unreasonable burden on the social security system of the host Member State. The latter legal ground mainly targets economically inactive mobile EU citizens. Their right to stay in the host Member State for more than three months but less than five years is subject to their possessing sufficient resources and health insurance.

Host Member States are not obliged to provide social security benefits to economically inactive mobile EU citizens who do not fulfil the conditions of Article 14-1 of Directive 2004/38/EC on the retention of the right of residence. They are even allowed to terminate the stay of such citizens if all the material and procedural safeguards are fulfilled.
So do you know this, and are just lying, or did you vote in the referendum on the basis of mistaken information?

And what else have you got wrong?
 

Titan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,165
Website
www.forumbox.co.uk
This is quite simply not true.?
From article 10 of the withdrawal agreement:

& /en 19ARTICLE10Personal scope1.Without prejudice to Title III, this Part shall apply to the following persons:(a)Union citizens who exercised their right to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with Union law before the end of the transition period and continue to residethere thereafter
 

man-in-street

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
582
Twitter
n/a
The best way to avoid a hard border, and to appease the unionist community, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, is to support a permanent UK wide Customs Union. It's the obvious solution, but it's Labour's solution and it may mean not really leaving the EU at all.

So the DUP won't support it, because, well, because something about Corbyn and the hardline Tories won't support it because they want to go off on some bizarre imperial journey to the past. Stupidity will probably cause the break up of the UK.



Ignorance can be cured by education.

Stupidity is forever.
 

Titan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,165
Website
www.forumbox.co.uk
This is quite simply not true.



So do you know this, and are just lying, or did you vote in the referendum on the basis of mistaken information?

And what else have you got wrong?
How many countries have deported EU citizens and their families due to "inactivity"? What's the definition of inactivity? What if these "inactive" citizens move around?

Once they are in a country, any country, it is very hard to remove them.

By the way, you're quoting EU law to me and this law along with the 1972 law onwards have been repealed in the UK's EU Withdrawal Act 2018.

We're meant to be having Brexit, although you wouldn't know it.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,567
From article 10 of the withdrawal agreement:

& /en 19ARTICLE10Personal scope1.Without prejudice to Title III, this Part shall apply to the following persons:(a)Union citizens who exercised their right to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with Union law before the end of the transition period and continue to residethere thereafter
What's your point here?

More evidence that your claim is untrue (thanks [MENTION=55715]TweetyBird[/MENTION])

How many countries have deported EU citizens and their families due to "inactivity"? What's the definition of inactivity? What if these "inactive" citizens move around?

Once they are in a country, any country, it is very hard to remove them.
And rightly so : people are entitled to some degree of protection from overzealous jobsworths. But it being difficult is very different from your assertion here :
On free movement, we cannot do anything about EU citizens already in the UK, so if they're unemployed and on benefits, we're not allowed to kick them out.
That is just not true.

(That you seem to think the definition of inactive is a problem just shows your level of ignorance - definitions such as economically "active" or "inactive" are not difficult to find, they are used in all sorts of legal and other ways, from opinion polls to the official census.)

By the way, you're quoting EU law to me and this law along with the 1972 law onwards have been repealed in the UK's EU Withdrawal Act 2018.

We're meant to be having Brexit, although you wouldn't know it.
So? You said that it wouldn't be possible to kick EU citizens out, even though it's possible to do so now.
Are you suggesting that post-Brexit, new limits on the rights of the U.K. to remove EU citizens may be enacted?
 

Titan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,165
Website
www.forumbox.co.uk
What's your point here?
The point is that stated in the quoted text, in that EU citizens whether in work or not, will have a right to stay in the UK.


And rightly so : people are entitled to some degree of protection from overzealous jobsworths. But it being difficult is very different from your assertion here :


That is just not true.

(That you seem to think the definition of inactive is a problem just shows your level of ignorance - definitions such as economically "active" or "inactive" are not difficult to find, they are used in all sorts of legal and other ways, from opinion polls to the official census.)
I'm sure you know who Shami Chakrabarti is (or was) and other civil rights lawyers like her. It is very difficult to deport someone once they are in a host country, especially with such a liberal judiciary. However, I'd agree with you that the UK has been too weak in upholding its own interests, in this regards.

Lawyers love words like inactive, they can argue about such things for years and have done so. Add in dependent children, sick mothers etc and no UK court would deport such "inactive" "citizens."

So? You said that it wouldn't be possible to kick EU citizens out, even though it's possible to do so now.Are you suggesting that post-Brexit, new limits on the rights of the U.K. to remove EU citizens may be enacted?
Yes, that's in the draft withdrawal agreement, as currently written which is perverse considering the UK loses certain rights, the ones you've already stated.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,567
The point is that stated in the quoted text, in that EU citizens whether in work or not, will have a right to stay in the UK.
LOL. You're actually saying that British MPs who can't bring themselves to sign off on the backstop haven't noticed/have no problem with the fact that leaving the EU would actually make it harder for them to deport EU citizens on benefits etc than it currently is? I mean, given that removing FOM was one of their main aims in leaving the EU in the first place.

Well, I'm not sure how it's the EU's fault if the British Parliament is composed of idiots, TBH.

I'm sure you know who Shami Chakrabarti is (or was) and other civil rights lawyers like her. It is very difficult to deport someone once they are in a host country, especially with such a liberal judiciary. However, I'd agree with you that the UK has been too weak in upholding its own interests, in this regards.

Lawyers love words like inactive, they can argue about such things for years and have done so. Add in dependent children, sick mothers etc and no UK court would deport such "inactive" "citizens."
More delusion and blaming rings round you based on your own prejudices - earlier you said it couldn't be done because of the EU, now you're blaming British institutions. It can be done, the British just don't want to. It's going to be tough for them when they lose their go-to scapegoat for everything, though isn't it?

Yes, that's in the draft withdrawal agreement, as currently written which is perverse considering the UK loses certain rights, the ones you've already stated.
Lol. More fool them then. If it's true. As I say, there's no cure for stupidity among your own people.

(Does this mean that the Backstop is not the only major problem then?)
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,109
It's not a joint decision, because the ECJ has sole authority over any disagreement on the matter, in effect giving the EU a veto on the whole backstop and the whole agreement.
Wrong again.

The ECJ does not have sole authority over any disagreement. The direct jurisdiction of the ECJ only applies in respect of certain Protocol articles. Article 20 - the review mechanism - is not one of them.

Any dispute about the application of Article 20 would be resolved by an independent arbitration panel, not the ECJ.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,109
On free movement, we cannot do anything about EU citizens already in the UK, so if they're unemployed and on benefits, we're not allowed to kick them out.
1. Legacy rights of the current cohort of EU citizens is not the same as free movement.

2. It is absolutely right that the rights of people who, in some cases, have lived in the UK for decades with certain legal protections, should be safeguarded. Anything less would be abhorrent. The same is true of the rights of UK nationals in the EU.

3. The protection of citizens rights was one of the UK's and the EU's earliest pledges. It was one supported by all parties (including UKIP). So much so that the UK has now said that even if there is no deal, it will still afford existing EU citizens in the UK the same rights they have now.

4. As others have pointed out, preserving EU citizenship rights does not remove the ability to remove people under certain circumstances which are already allowed for under EU law.

Assuming the UK does come out of the backstop, (or the backstop gets dropped from the agreement) the UK will still have to have "due regard" for EU law.
The due regard is to judgments of the ECJ when UK courts are interpreting legacy EU law which will apply to ongoing cases and procedures that continue after withdrawal. For example, if there is a custody case in the UK concerning a custody arrangement ordered by an EU MS court while the UK was still a member, it is right for the purposes of certainty that the EU law being applied in that case should be interpreted correctly.

Leaving the EU does not remove basic principles, like that the law which applied at the time facts of a case arose should be the law that governs that case.

But if the UK stays in the backstop, then its full ECJ control.
No it's not. In the backstop, the ECJ only has direct jurisdiction in respect of a small body of EU law that will apply in Northern Ireland. It has no jurisdiction over any law applying in the rest of the UK, or over any non-EU law applying in Northern Ireland.

On the money issue and this is why the backstop is a triple lock, if the backstop doesn't end beyond 2020, the UK will have to pay into the EU's next budget cycle which ends in 2028.
That's also wrong. The only circumstances in which the UK would be paying more than is already agreed as part of the WA financial settlement is if (a) it agrees to contribute to the EU budget as part of future partnership discussions; or (b) if the transition period gets extended.

If the backstop is triggered, the UK will not be paying any more money.

You've gotten so much wrong on what's in the agreement, it really is stunning.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,109
On free movement, we cannot do anything about EU citizens already in the UK, so if they're unemployed and on benefits, we're not allowed to kick them out.
1. Legacy rights of the current cohort of EU citizens is not the same as free movement.

2. It is absolutely right that the rights of people who, in some cases, have lived in the UK for decades with certain legal protections, should be safeguarded. Anything less would be abhorrent. The same is true of the rights of UK nationals in the EU.

3. The protection of citizens rights was one of the UK's and the EU's earliest pledges. It was one supported by all parties (including UKIP). So much so that the UK has now said that even if there is no deal, it will still afford existing EU citizens in the UK the same rights they have now.

4. As others have pointed out, preserving EU citizenship rights does not remove the ability to remove people under certain circumstances which are already allowed for under EU law.

Assuming the UK does come out of the backstop, (or the backstop gets dropped from the agreement) the UK will still have to have "due regard" for EU law.
The due regard is to judgments of the ECJ when UK courts are interpreting legacy EU law which will apply to ongoing cases and procedures that continue after withdrawal. For example, if there is a custody case in the UK concerning a custody arrangement ordered by an EU MS court while the UK was still a member, it is right for the purposes of certainty that the EU law being applied in that case should be interpreted correctly.

Leaving the EU does not remove basic principles, like that the law which applied at the time facts of a case arose should be the law that governs that case.

But if the UK stays in the backstop, then its full ECJ control.
No it's not. In the backstop, the ECJ only has direct jurisdiction in respect of a small body of EU law that will apply in Northern Ireland. It has no jurisdiction over any law applying in the rest of the UK, or over any non-EU law applying in Northern Ireland.

On the money issue and this is why the backstop is a triple lock, if the backstop doesn't end beyond 2020, the UK will have to pay into the EU's next budget cycle which ends in 2028.
That's also wrong. The only circumstances in which the UK would be paying more than is already agreed as part of the WA financial settlement is if (a) it agrees to contribute to the EU budget as part of future partnership discussions; or (b) if the transition period gets extended.

If the backstop is triggered, the UK will not be paying any more money.

You've gotten so much wrong on what's in the agreement, it really is stunning.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,109
LOL. You're actually saying that British MPs who can't bring themselves to sign off on the backstop haven't noticed/have no problem with the fact that leaving the EU would actually make it harder for them to deport EU citizens on benefits etc than it currently is? I mean, given that removing FOM was one of their main aims in leaving the EU in the first place.

Well, I'm not sure how it's the EU's fault if the British Parliament is composed of idiots, TBH.



More delusion and blaming rings round you based on your own prejudices - earlier you said it couldn't be done because of the EU, now you're blaming British institutions. It can be done, the British just don't want to. It's going to be tough for them when they lose their go-to scapegoat for everything, though isn't it?



Lol. More fool them then. If it's true. As I say, there's no cure for stupidity among your own people.

(Does this mean that the Backstop is not the only major problem then?)
He is totally wrong.

The law that will apply to the current cohort of EU nationals in the UK is EU law as it current stands (more accurately, as it stands at the end of the transition period). So where EU law allows for removals now, that will apply in the UK after withdrawal for the current cohort of citizens.

The only difference is that it will apply by virtue of the Withdrawal Agreement - to be given domestic effect in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill which would follow any vote by the Commons to approve a deal, rather than by virtue of the EU Treaties and the European Communities Act 1972. But the law will be identical.
 
Top