Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Liep]

And also this tweet for those who've seen The Thick of It

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/858946766691082241

[celedhring]

I love The Thick of It 

Is there any good British political satire on air right now? 

[Maladict]

I love The Thick of It 

Is there any good British political satire on air right now? 

Not much, unless you count panel shows like Have I Got News For You.
Just rewatch Yes Minister and The New Statesman, good political satire tends to age well.

[Josquius]

The leaked information from the May - Juncker meeting is either amusing, worrying, both or false.

https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe/status/858810953353367552

I increasingly suspect that they aren't just playing to the deluded crowd but are actually deluded themselves. They seriously believe this "They need us more than we need them" nonsense.

[Zanza]

The leaked information from the May - Juncker meeting is either amusing, worrying, both or false.

https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe/status/858810953353367552

I increasingly suspect that they aren't just playing to the deluded crowd but are actually deluded themselves. They seriously believe this "They need us more than we need them" nonsense.

I think their main misconception is that while they are basically only motivated by politics, they expect European politicians to be motivated by economics.

Anyway, I saw a good video that explains why the whole "free trade agreement" stuff is a red herring, especially when Theresa May somehow pretends that a post-Brexit Britain could have anywhere close to the same strength of links to Europe that it has now. And he has a fun British accent. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6F0inyJPDc

[Zanza]

https://www.ft.com/content/7c008997-e2a9-360d-89a3-1646dcbdae0f

Brexit and the rights of UK and EU expats

One of the most important yet most difficult aspects of Brexit will be sorting out what happens to EU citizens from other member states in the UK and to UK citizens in other EU states.

The issue was one of those raised at the now-infamous dinner between the UK prime minister Theresa May and the EU commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. According to one report:

"[the] EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care".

This was not the first time pro-Brexit politicians in the UK had contended that the issue was easy and would be quick to resolve. On 25 November 2016, the European Research Group of MPs wrote to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, in emphatic terms.

The ERG letter is worth reading. The group's members are, according to political journalists, used to getting their way with the prime minister. They are the Brexit vanguard. For them, the expat issue is straightforward and can be solved quickly. The language of their letter is emotive.

But maybe they did not expect the response they got. Mr Tusk replied on 29 November:

"I read your letter with great interest. Your concern for the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens living and working in Europe bodes well for the future negotiations, especially since we have assumed that one of the main reasons for the vote for Brexit was the rejection of the free movement of people and all the rights it entails, as defined by the European treaties.

"In your letter you state that the European Commission, and in particular Mr Barnier, are attempting to prevent negotiations, thereby creating 'anxiety and uncertainty for the UK and EU citizens living in one another's territories.' It is a very interesting argument, the only problem being that it has nothing to do with reality. Would you not agree that the only source of anxiety and uncertainty is rather the decision on Brexit? And that the only way to dispel the fears and doubts of all the citizens concerned is the quickest possible start of the negotiations based on Art. 50 of the Treaty?

"Immediately after the referendum I declared, on behalf of the 27 EU Member States and the European institutions, that we were ready to launch the negotiation process as early as the following day. I still stand by that declaration.

"In your letter you called on me 'to resolve this matter once and for all' at the European Council in December. This would in effect mean the start of the negotiations already in December. The EU stands ready to do so, but that can only happen on the condition that Art. 50 has been triggered. Let me reiterate, however, that the decision about triggering Art. 50 belongs only to the UK, which we fully respect.

"Just like you, I would like to avoid a situation where citizens become 'bargaining chips' in the negotiation process. In order for this not to happen, we will need precise and comprehensive solutions, which, other than nice-sounding expressions, will provide citizens with genuine guarantees of security.

"Finally, I want to reassure you that today, and for as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, the Treaties guarantee the rights of all EU citizens, including UK citizens, as regards their residence, work, social security and health. People are not only protected by the substantive EU law against discrimination, but also by the European Court of Justice if their rights are not respected. This obviously concerns not only those citizens who currently live in other Member States, but also those who decide to do so in the future."

Mr Tusk had some good points. There was no way there could be any move on reciprocal rights before Article 50 was triggered. And, after that, the matter of reciprocal rights was one for the exit agreement. It was a crucial issue and it required "precise and comprehensive solutions"; it was complicated and needed to be dealt with properly.

A close look at Mr Tusk's letter, in particular the last paragraph, indicates why the issue is complicated. The rights at stake are not merely those of simple residency but also "work, social security and health". There is EU law against discrimination and that includes enforcement. There are current residents, and those who migrate in the future. And the issue, of course, goes both ways; the agreement has to be reciprocal. A simple declaration — a political quick win — would not be enough. There has to be a thorough and wide-ranging agreement.

The UK can make a unilateral commitment about EU residents — as can any other EU member state about their UK residents — but that would only go so far in respect of the work, social security and health and anti-discrimination aspects. Some would say (in my view correctly) that both Britain and Europe should make general commitments about residency as soon as possible, but there would still need to be an agreement, if the matter is to be dealt with on a reciprocal and detailed basis.

The respective negotiating positions of the UK and EU are now available to the public. The UK's position is primarily set out in the February white paper and the Article 50 notification letter, sent in March. The white paper states:

"We want to secure the status of EU citizens who are already living in the UK, and that of UK nationals in other Member States, as early as we can.

"Around 2.8 million EU nationals were estimated to be resident in the UK, many of whom originate from Poland.

"It is estimated that around 1 million UK nationals are long-term residents of other EU countries, including around 300,000 in Spain. France and Germany also host large numbers of British citizens.

"While we are a member of the EU, the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU remain unchanged.

"As provided for in both the EU Free Movement Directive (Article 16 of 2004/38/EC) and in UK law, those who have lived continuously and lawfully in a country for at least five years automatically have a permanent right to reside.

"We recognise the contribution EU nationals have made to our economy and communities.

"Securing the status of, and providing certainty to, EU nationals already in the UK and to UK nationals in the EU is one of this Government's early priorities for the forthcoming negotiations. To this end, we have engaged a range of stakeholders, including expatriate groups, to ensure we understand the priorities of UK nationals living in EU countries.

"This is part of our preparations for a smooth and orderly withdrawal and we will continue to work closely with a range of organisations and individuals to achieve this.

"For example, we recognise the priority placed on easy access to healthcare by UK nationals living in the EU. We are also engaging closely with EU Member States, businesses and other organisations to ensure that we have a thorough understanding of issues concerning the status of EU nationals in the UK.

"The Government would have liked to resolve this issue ahead of the formal negotiations. And although many EU Member States favour such an agreement, this has not proven possible.

"The UK remains ready to give people the certainty they want and reach a reciprocal deal with our European partners at the earliest opportunity.

"It is the right and fair thing to do."

The Article 50 notification letter states:

"There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights."

And in response to a parliamentary report, the government also said earlier in March:

"In terms of the position of EU nationals in the UK, the Prime Minister has been clear that she is determined to secure the status of EU nationals already living here, and the only circumstances in which that would not be possible is if British citizens' rights in EU member states were not secured in return."

The EU general position is set out in the European Council guidelines formally adopted last week:

"The right for every EU citizen, and of his or her family members, to live, to work or to study in any EU Member State is a fundamental aspect of the European Union.
Along with other rights provided under EU law, it has shaped the lives and choices of millions of people.

"Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be the first priority for the negotiations.

"Such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence.

"Citizens should be able to exercise their rights through smooth and simple administrative procedures."

These guidelines are, in effect, a mandate for the EU commission negotiating team, TF50. It is not open to TF50 to agree anything outside these guidelines, so the content should be given close attention.

The first thing to note is the express reference to families of the citizens.
The second is that to "status and rights" (in the plural).
The third is the mention of guarantees (again, in the plural) which in a legal(istic) context means something more than mere entitlement.
The fourth is the insistence that these guarantees are to "effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive".
And the fifth is the mention of administration, which is a visible nod to the the bureaucratic problems the UK suffers in this area.
Unless the exit agreement covers these points, TF50 cannot agree to it. And the scope of the guarantees and their effective enforcement, especially on a reciprocal basis, is plainly something that must be done with an agreement.

The Commission's position is further developed in an informal negotiating paper published by the FT. This does not have the binding power of the formal guidelines but it shows how TF50 will seek to convert the guidelines into an agreement. And these steers are detailed. The introduction of the paper says:

"[T]he draft negotiating directives will firstly address the issue of the citizens' rights.

"Safeguarding the status and rights of the EU27 citizens and their families in the United Kingdom and of the citizens of the United Kingdom and their families in the EU27 Member States is the first priority for the negotiations because of the number of people directly affected and of the gravity of the consequences of the withdrawal for them.

"The withdrawal agreement should provide the necessary comprehensive, effective, enforceable and non-discriminatory guarantees for those citizens' rights."

Again the mention of families, and of "comprehensive, effective, enforceable and non-discriminatory guarantees" in the plural. The main body of the paper continues (with emphasis and links added):

"The Agreement should safeguard the status and rights derived from Union law at the withdrawal date, including those the enjoyment of which will intervene at a later date (e.g. rights related to old age pensions) both for EU27 citizens residing (or having resided) and/or working (or having worked) in the United Kingdom and for United Kingdom citizens residing (or having resided) and/or working (or having worked) in one of the Member States of the EU27.

"Guarantees to that effect in the Agreement should be reciprocal, and should be based on the principle of equal treatment amongst EU27 citizens and equal treatment of EU27 citizens as compared to United Kingdom citizens, as set out in the relevant Union acquis.
Those rights should be protected as directly enforceable vested rights  for the life time of those concerned.

"The Agreement should cover at least the following elements:
Definition of the persons to be covered: the personal scope should be the same as that of Directive 2004/38 (both economically active, i.e. workers and self-employed, and inactive persons, who have resided in the UK or EU27 before the withdrawal date, and their family members who accompany or join them at any point in time before/after the withdrawal date).
In addition, the personal scope should include persons covered by Regulation 883/2004.
Definition of the rights to be protected: this definition should include at least the following rights:
(i) the residence rights derived from Articles 21, 45 and 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and set out in Directive 2004/38 (same material scope, covering inter alia the right of permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence) and the rules relating to those rights; any document to be issued in relation to the residence rights (for example, registration certificates, residence cards or certifying documents) should have a declaratory nature and be issued under a simple and swift procedure either free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents.
(ii) the rights and obligations set out in Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and in Regulation 987/2009 implementing Regulation 883/2004 (including future amendments of both Regulations) covering inter alia, rights to aggregation, export of benefits, and principle of single applicable law;
(iii) the rights set out in Regulation 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (e.g. access to the labour market, to pursue an activity, social and tax advantages, training, housing, collective rights);
(iv) the right to take up and pursue self-employment derived from Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

"For reasons of legal certainty, the Agreement should ensure, in the United Kingdom and in the EU27, the continued recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualification obtained in any of the Union Member States before the withdrawal date, in accordance with Union law rules applicable before that date. It should also provide for arrangements relating to procedures for recognition which are ongoing on the withdrawal date.

This document demonstrates how wide-ranging and complicated the relevant part of the agreement needs to be. (Indeed, click on to any of the links to the legislation.) The intention of the commission is to ensure that the rights are vested for life and cover entitlements of those who have resided or worked in other member states, not just those residing there as of the date of Brexit. In effect, TF50 is to seek the entrenchment of employment and movement rights.

One can see now what lay behind the reported dismay of Mr Juncker at Mrs May's insistence last week that this all this could be dealt with at one meeting.

That the EU is seeking these (reciprocal) guarantees does not mean that the demands are valid, still less that they will be in the final exit agreement. But the starting positions show the complications that will need to be addressed and discussed, and the issues that will need to be resolved, even if the the UK prevails over the EU on the specifics. (That said, we do not know the UK's position on the specifics, if there is yet any position at all.)

Then there is the matter of sequencing. There is an attractive argument that the issue of reciprocal rights of citizens should be settled as a discrete and early agreement. That may still happen. But the EU's position is that it is as important as a range of other early issues that need to be dealt with as part of the first phase of negotiations on the exit agreement.

These other exit issues are contained in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the guidelines, and one can see why each of them also needs to be dealt with at an early stage. If that is correct, one can also see force in having them all dealt with in one exit agreement — especially, given the rights at stake, the points about jurisdiction and enforcement in paragraphs 16 and 17.

There is a lot to negotiate on respective rights of UK and EU citizens on Brexit, and it is important that there is an agreement as soon as possible. There is also the looming awkward issue of enforcement of rights by citizens (both in the UK and EU) contained in the exit agreement if the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is ousted.

On publicly available information, only the EU has so far addressed what this agreement has to cover in detail. The UK still seems to be considering the issue in high-level terms, and the prime minister remains reportedly unaware of why a single minsterial meeting would not be enough. Of course, the UK can make a unilateral general commitment (and should do so) but for it to be properly implemented as part of a reciprocal and enforceable agreement will take time.

However, the UK and the EU do not seem far apart in principle, and both agree that the matter is urgent. There can be no serious doubt that an agreement can be made within two years, if Britain accepts the EU's demands. But it cannot be done at speed or without the detail being worked out, and the UK does not seem to realise this yet.

Good article on the rights and status of current EU/UK citizens after Brexit, e.g. Tamas. It shows that while the UK and the EU may have the same general policy goals (although the UK has not stated theirs as openly), the perception on how easy or hard the actual negotiations and agreements have to be differs substantially between Britain and the EU. The British government seems to underestimate the task ahead of them.

[Jacob]

Yet another article on how May and team may not have a good read on how the negotiations will go: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jean-claude-juncker-theresa-may-brexit-negotiations-downing-street-dinner-a7711526.html

Also illuminating is the ignorance displayed in the comment section as I normally don't read comments, much less the ones in British media.

It's on track to be a complete clusterfuck.

[Tamas]

I am desperately hoping this is just trying to apply Bullying Negotiating Tactics 101, the guidebook that got all politicians to where they are now, from both sides. Otherwise the UK will just fall out from the EU like a burning bag of bricks

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't think we will get any sense out of them till after the General Election.

[Tamas]

I don't think we will get any sense out of them till after the General Election.

Good point. But I also meant Junker and the EU officials.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I don't think we will get any sense out of them till after the General Election.

Good point. But I also meant Junker and the EU officials.

This is not an age of reason. Exit fee for UK has been upped to 100billion apparently.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Well the UK pays 13 or 14 £bn each year to the EU. So the big scary number is roughly our contributions for the next few years that we have signed up for. It is easy to see that given the slowness of brexit this might not be a big deal at all.

But for some reason it is being presented in an inflammatory way 

[Josquius]

8 billion.
And yeah. This money  is being presented really horrible.

[Richard Hakluyt]

8 billion.
And yeah. This money  is being presented really horrible.

£14bn and the net payment is lower because we benefit from many EU programs.

But that doesn't matter, I'm interested in why the number is being presented in a way that is bound to annoy many people.

[Jacob]

£14bn and the net payment is lower because we benefit from many EU programs.

But that doesn't matter, I'm interested in why the number is being presented in a way that is bound to annoy many people.

Because it's a good method to paint the EU as unreasonable and thus the enemy, and thus rally support behind May and the Brexiteers?