EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Montmorency]

If you can't tell the difference between the ECJ imposing its decisions on the UK and an ally stating possible effects to possible courses of action then I have no idea what more to say - they are completely different.

In the final sense - is it really?

You're missing the fundamental point - the UK is supposed to be governed by consent, and that consent is supposed to be ongoing. No one in the UK consented to being governed by the European Union or to the progressive extension of the ECJ's remit. In fact nobody ever voted to join the EEC, only to endorse the status quo after the fact.

A very good point, but like many of the best criticisms of the EU it cuts the same way for the constituent states. You have two paths: disintegration or unionism (as contrasted to EU-style confederalism). I know which is most conducive to national survival.

[Pannonian]

You're missing the fundamental point - the UK is supposed to be governed by consent, and that consent is supposed to be ongoing. No one in the UK consented to being governed by the European Union or to the progressive extension of the ECJ's remit. In fact nobody ever voted to join the EEC, only to endorse the status quo after the fact.

It is the EU that has linked a hard border to the Good Friday Agreement - this is what the Americans are picking up on. The distinction is subtle, to be sure, and nobody is saying they WANT a hard border but nonetheless having one by default does not actually break they agreement.

The simple fact is that the Backstop is repugnant to the British Constitution and has been voted down three times now - despite which the EU continues to insist on its implementation. The EU is point-blank refusing to negotiate, so who's fault will it ultimately be if we crash out with No-deal?

Just the people in the UK who voted Leave?

That's rather like blaming Roman Catholics for crop failures.

Did we consent to join Five Eyes? You allow for the demands of Five Eyes membership, deeming the demands reasonable. But you don't allow for the demands of EU membership, deeming the very membership unreasonable in principle. There was a referendum in the 1970s supporting our continued membership of the EEC. When was there a referendum on our membership of Five Eyes? Applying your principled argument across the board, shouldn't we withdraw from Five Eyes, NATO, the UN and the WTO until we can endorse each of them via a referendum? EEC membership was directly endorsed by a referendum once upon a time, yet you deny the legitimacy of our membership. None of these other organisations have any such direct support.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did we consent to join Five Eyes? You allow for the demands of Five Eyes membership, deeming the demands reasonable. But you don't allow for the demands of EU membership, deeming the very membership unreasonable in principle. There was a referendum in the 1970s supporting our continued membership of the EEC. When was there a referendum on our membership of Five Eyes? Applying your principled argument across the board, shouldn't we withdraw from Five Eyes, NATO, the UN and the WTO until we can endorse each of them via a referendum? EEC membership was directly endorsed by a referendum once upon a time, yet you deny the legitimacy of our membership. None of these other organisations have any such direct support.

If our EEC membership was legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie then our leaving can also be legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie.

The very fact I can advance that argument should tell you all you need to know, but as you'll probably ignore that point let me make another.

Citizenship can only be granted by a State. The EU grants citizenship, our ultimate citizenship. It is, ergo, the State by which we are ultimately governed. Five Eyes, Nato, etc. don't do this.

So, again, if the EU is our governing State it requires our continued consent to govern us. That consent has been withdrawn.

[Montmorency]

The EU grants citizenship, our ultimate citizenship.

No it doesn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Non?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...European_Union

[Montmorency]

Non?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citize...European_Union

Citizenship in the EU is derivative of citizenship in a member state. This is the difference between a confederation and a unitary union, a difference I hope you will engage with. In a unitary union such as in the United States there is no citizenship particular to the several states, except inasmuch as a US citizen maintains residence in a given state. This is an inversion of the characteristics of EU citizenship.

Serious question: does an "EU citizen" have any obligations toward the EU government?

[Pannonian]

If our EEC membership was legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie then our leaving can also be legitimised by a vote won sold on a lie.

The very fact I can advance that argument should tell you all you need to know, but as you'll probably ignore that point let me make another.

Citizenship can only be granted by a State. The EU grants citizenship, our ultimate citizenship. It is, ergo, the State by which we are ultimately governed. Five Eyes, Nato, etc. don't do this.

So, again, if the EU is our governing State it requires our continued consent to govern us. That consent has been withdrawn.

Did we ever vote to join the Commonwealth? Yet Commonwealth citizens had the right to vote in the 2016 referendum, but EU citizens didn't. On what grounds were Commonwealth citizens granted this ultimate right? Shouldn't we withdraw from the Commonwealth until we vote to join it?

[Pannonian]

Citizenship in the EU is derivative of citizenship in a member state. This is the difference between a confederation and a unitary union, a difference I hope you will engage with. In a unitary union such as in the United States there is no citizenship particular to the several states, except inasmuch as a US citizen maintains residence in a given state. This is an inversion of the characteristics of EU citizenship.

Serious question: does an "EU citizen" have any obligations toward the EU government?

EU citizens are citizens who belong to an EU state. The individual EU member states are states that have signed up to wide ranging agreements that span the entity we call the EU. And every time those agreements change, the individual member states have to re-ratify them. When they ratify them, they signal their willingness to follow these agreements.

[InsaneApache]

Did we ever vote to join the Commonwealth? Yet Commonwealth citizens had the right to vote in the 2016 referendum, but EU citizens didn't. On what grounds were Commonwealth citizens granted this ultimate right? Shouldn't we withdraw from the Commonwealth until we vote to join it?

Are you serious?

The Commonwealth is the residue of the Empire*. Even I'm too young to remember the Empire(I'm 60) but afaik British subjects were considered to be, well British.

British subject status was codified in statute law for the first time by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which formalised the status as a common nationality among the United Kingdom and its Dominions. Dominions that adopted this Act as part of their own nationality laws (Australia, Canada, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa) were authorised to grant subject status to aliens by imperial naturalisation.

Your ignorance is astounding.

*The only time in history that an empire collapsed and then voted to remain together with strong political and cultural ties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did we ever vote to join the Commonwealth? Yet Commonwealth citizens had the right to vote in the 2016 referendum, but EU citizens didn't. On what grounds were Commonwealth citizens granted this ultimate right? Shouldn't we withdraw from the Commonwealth until we vote to join it?

Stripping Commonwealth Citizens of their right to vote in our elections is one of the few legal acts of violence we have NOT committed. Nonetheless the sad state of relations between us and our close kin in Australia is reflected by the decision of the Australian High Court that British, Canadian, etc. citizenship is "alien" to Australia and automatically disbars someone from sitting in Parliament there.

I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss our sad, pathetic, and racist, behaviour in this regard. All in the name of closer ties with Europe - because people in Europe are white, whereas people in the West Indies aren't.

It's worth noting that EU citizenship was (probably) originally intended to replace national citizenship but then Denmark refused to sign off in a referendum until they got an opt out.

[Montmorency]

Stripping Commonwealth Citizens of their right to vote in our elections is one of the few legal acts of violence we have NOT committed. Nonetheless the sad state of relations between us and our close kin in Australia is reflected by the decision of the Australian High Court that British, Canadian, etc. citizenship is "alien" to Australia and automatically disbars someone from sitting in Parliament there.

I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss our sad, pathetic, and racist, behaviour in this regard. All in the name of closer ties with Europe - because people in Europe are white, whereas people in the West Indies aren't.

It's worth noting that EU citizenship was (probably) originally intended to replace national citizenship but then Denmark refused to sign off in a referendum until they got an opt out.

1. Why is Commonwealth citizenship any more legitimate a construct than EU citizenship. Especially considering its literal imperial genealogy?
2. Why can't Britain be close both to the Commonwealth and to the EU?
3. The existence of Europe is not what made British people racist against brown people of the East or West Indies.
4. Citation needed. Here is the substance of EU citizenship, as codified in the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Definition of EU citizenship

Under Article 9 of the TEU and Article 20 of the TFEU, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. Nationality is defined according to the national laws of that State. Citizenship of the Union is complementary to, but does not replace, national citizenship. EU citizenship comprises a number of rights and duties in addition to those stemming from citizenship of a Member State. In case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern, Advocate General Poiares Maduro at the CJEU explained the difference (paragraph 23):

‘Those are two concepts which are both inextricably linked and independent. Union citizenship assumes nationality of a Member State but it is also a legal and political concept independent of that of nationality. Nationality of a Member State not only provides access to enjoyment of the rights conferred by Community law; it also makes us citizens of the Union. European citizenship is more than a body of rights which, in themselves, could be granted even to those who do not possess it. It presupposes the existence of a political relationship between European citizens, although it is not a relationship of belonging to a people. (…) It is based on their mutual commitment to open their respective bodies politic to other European citizens and to construct a new form of civic and political allegiance on a European scale.

It does not require the existence of a people, but is founded on the existence of a European political area from which rights and duties emerge. In so far as it does not imply the existence of a European people, citizenship is conceptually the product of a decoupling from nationality. As one author has observed, the radically innovative character of the concept of European citizenship lies in the fact that ‘the Union belongs to, is composed of, citizens who by definition do not share the same nationality’. On the contrary, by making nationality of a Member State a condition for being a European citizen, the Member States intended to show that this new form of citizenship does not put in question our first allegiance to our national bodies politic. In that way, that relationship with the nationality of the individual Member States constitutes recognition of the fact that there can exist (in fact, does exist) a citizenship which is not determined by nationality.

That is the miracle of Union citizenship: it strengthens the ties between us and our States (in so far as we are European citizens precisely because we are nationals of our States) and, at the same time, it emancipates us from them (in so far as we are now citizens beyond our States). Access to European citizenship is gained through nationality of a Member State, which is regulated by national law, but, like any form of citizenship, it forms the basis of a new political area from which rights and duties emerge, which are laid down by Community law and do not depend on the State. (…) That is why, although it is true that nationality of a Member State is a precondition for access to Union citizenship, it is equally true that the body of rights and obligations associated with the latter cannot be limited in an unjustified manner by the former.’

Once the UK has left the EU (‘Brexit’), a decision on the acquired rights of British nationals resident in Member States, and of EU citizens living in the UK, has to be made. Over the years, each Member State has vested its nationals with a legal heritage of rights, and EU law also creates a number of individual rights directly enforceable in the courts, according to the jurisprudence of the CJEU (Van Gend & Loos). Limits of that legal heritage could be seen as resting with the national law that gives them effect. Should the UK repeal bill rescind the effects of the Treaties, they could in principle no longer be invoked in UK courts.

Substance of citizenship

For all EU citizens, citizenship implies:

• The right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Article 21 of the TFEU) (4.1.3);
• The right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections (Article 22(1) of the TFEU) in the Member State in which they reside, under the same conditions as nationals of that State (for the rules on participation in municipal elections see Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, and for the rules governing election to the European Parliament, see Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993) (1.3.4);
• The right to diplomatic protection in the territory of a third country (non-EU state) by the diplomatic or consular authorities of another Member State, if their own country does not have diplomatic representation there, to the same extent as that provided for nationals of that Member State;
• The right to petition the European Parliament (Article 24(2) of the TFEU) and the right to apply to the Ombudsman (Article 24(3) of the TFEU) appointed by the European Parliament concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the EU institutions or bodies. These procedures are governed respectively by Articles 227 and 228 of the TFEU (1.3.16 and4.1.4);
• The right to write to any EU institution or body in one of the languages of the Member States and to receive a response in the same language (Article 24(4) of the TFEU);
• The right to access European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to certain conditions (Article 15(3) of the TFEU).

By contrast with the constitutional understanding in European states since the French Declaration of Human and Civil Rights of 1789, no specific guarantees of fundamental rights are associated with citizenship of the Union. Article 6 of the TEU states that the Union recognises the rights set out in the EUCFR and that it will accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but it does not make any reference to the legal status of Union citizenship.

Union citizenship does not as yet entail any duties for citizens of the Union, despite the wording to that effect in Article 20(2) of the TFEU. This constitutes a major difference between EU citizenship and citizenship of a Member State.

There is again this kind of circular reasoning where the EU is to be condemned for usurping the constituent states while not fulfilling the obligations of a state, yet it simply cannot fulfil the obligations of a state because it is not a state because it has never usurped the constituent states. When Americans experienced a similar thing after the Revolution, they generally understood that these problems stemmed from the weakness of the absence of proper union, and that throwing in with a strong union would be preferable to dissolving ties.

Of course, the pervasive flaw of this act of union (as transferred to the provisions of the Constitution) was that it was developed by a post-colonial oligarchy that then proceeded to crack down on democratic movements to expand suffrage in the individual states (e.g. Shays' Rebellion, women in some states/colonies had the right to vote and lost it following the Revolution or the ratification of the Constitution). Knowing better today, we understand the value of participatory democracy in establishing new political arrangements. Right?

It's salient to me that concomitant with the union growing from a true federation to a unitary union was the expansion of the franchise, legally and substantively, from where like <5% of the adult population was voting at first, to where an overwhelming majority of the adult population can vote (aspirationally).

[Pannonian]

Are you serious?

The Commonwealth is the residue of the Empire*. Even I'm too young to remember the Empire(I'm 60) but afaik British subjects were considered to be, well British.

Your ignorance is astounding.

*The only time in history that an empire collapsed and then voted to remain together with strong political and cultural ties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

I'm not the one arguing that our EU membership was invalid because we never specifically endorsed the current iteration in a referendum. I'm happy to be a citizen of the UK, Commonwealth, the EU, and any other group that my government signs me into. The argument about the EU was supposed to be an argument of principle, not of cost benefits. In that case, why is that argument not applied across the board, to the Commonwealth as well as the EU? If Maastricht and Lisbon were invalid because they were never endorsed in a referendum, how is Commonwealth membership supported in the same way?

And BTW, if you reckon that British subjects were British and universally so, talk to the people of Hong Kong.

[Pannonian]

Stripping Commonwealth Citizens of their right to vote in our elections is one of the few legal acts of violence we have NOT committed. Nonetheless the sad state of relations between us and our close kin in Australia is reflected by the decision of the Australian High Court that British, Canadian, etc. citizenship is "alien" to Australia and automatically disbars someone from sitting in Parliament there.

I suggest you start another thread if you want to discuss our sad, pathetic, and racist, behaviour in this regard. All in the name of closer ties with Europe - because people in Europe are white, whereas people in the West Indies aren't.

It's worth noting that EU citizenship was (probably) originally intended to replace national citizenship but then Denmark refused to sign off in a referendum until they got an opt out.

Did I support stripping Commonwealth citizens of their rights in the UK? No. I support extending those rights to EU citizens. I support our EU membership. I support our Commonwealth membership. I support our Five Eyes membership. I support other memberships too. I don't think that membership of one takes away from membership of another. It's Brexiteers who support taking us away from those memberships.

[Husar]

*The only time in history that an empire collapsed and then voted to remain together with strong political and cultural ties.

Not surprising since the Aborigines they threw off the cliffs, the blacks they apartheited from in South Africa and the natives they murdered in the US and Canada weren't exactly given a vote on the matter, but the British invaders who replaced them were.

Most of the other empires probably didn't genocide the natives in the places they conquered before voting on the matter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did I support stripping Commonwealth citizens of their rights in the UK? No. I support extending those rights to EU citizens. I support our EU membership. I support our Commonwealth membership. I support our Five Eyes membership. I support other memberships too. I don't think that membership of one takes away from membership of another. It's Brexiteers who support taking us away from those memberships.

Only one of those organisations is trying to create a super-state.

Even the Commonwealth is more drifting apart than pulling together, which is a shame.

Having said that, I would not endorse re-grant of rights to Commonwealth Citizens today without reciprocal referendums in all participating nations, even if I'd be perfectly happy living in a Commonwealth Super-Sate with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and all the other smaller West Indian Realms.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...(I'm 60) ….

Damn, making me feel young you are.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Only one of those organisations is trying to create a super-state.

Even the Commonwealth is more drifting apart than pulling together, which is a shame.

Having said that, I would not endorse re-grant of rights to Commonwealth Citizens today without reciprocal referendums in all participating nations, even if I'd be perfectly happy living in a Commonwealth Super-Sate with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and all the other smaller West Indian Realms.

Wrong tense. They HAVE created a superstate, a "united states" of sorts. It is just in its early phases. When our United States of America was formed, there was quite a deal of particularism among the states, it took a while for federal power to surpass and mostly supplant the states.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong tense. They HAVE created a superstate, a "united states" of sorts. It is just in its early phases. When our United States of America was formed, there was quite a deal of particularism among the states, it took a while for federal power to surpass and mostly supplant the states.

I would say the State is in the process of formation - the US came into being through the necessity of war - the EU has yet to be so tested. The worst test so far was the financial crash, the EU failed that test and mostly nothing has happened since.

[Pannonian]

Only one of those organisations is trying to create a super-state.

Even the Commonwealth is more drifting apart than pulling together, which is a shame.

Having said that, I would not endorse re-grant of rights to Commonwealth Citizens today without reciprocal referendums in all participating nations, even if I'd be perfectly happy living in a Commonwealth Super-Sate with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and all the other smaller West Indian Realms.

At what point does it cross the line from being a sensible collection of treaties fostering desirable cooperation, to being a superstate that must be opposed at every level? The ability to vote for representatives? Yet Brexiteers criticise the EU for being undemocratic. If our relationship with the EU remained the same, but there were no European Parliament for representatives to sit in, and there were no EU passport, and it were called the EEC, would you be happy with it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At what point does it cross the line from being a sensible collection of treaties fostering desirable cooperation, to being a superstate that must be opposed at every level? The ability to vote for representatives? Yet Brexiteers criticise the EU for being undemocratic. If our relationship with the EU remained the same, but there were no European Parliament for representatives to sit in, and there were no EU passport, and it were called the EEC, would you be happy with it?

At the point at which it subverts member-states constitutions in order to foster "Ever Closer Union".

So, 1992?

[Pannonian]

At the point at which it subverts member-states constitutions in order to foster "Ever Closer Union".

So, 1992?

How? And do you apply this logic to other institutions as well?

In related news, in last night's local elections the pro-Brexit parties got a kicking, with UKIP losing nearly all their councillors, the Tories over 1300, and Labour a net loss after expecting gains of 400 (cf. McDonnell). The Lib Dems gained 700, the Greens nearly 200, and independents the balance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How? And do you apply this logic to other institutions as well?

I have enumerated this point at length probably hundreds of times over the last ten years. A search of this thread with the terms "Lisbon Treaty" and "Democratic Deficit" should yield an answer for you.

In related news, in last night's local elections the pro-Brexit parties got a kicking, with UKIP losing nearly all their councillors, the Tories over 1300, and Labour a net loss after expecting gains of 400 (cf. McDonnell). The Lib Dems gained 700, the Greens nearly 200, and independents the balance.

In other news, pro-Brexit parties still won the vast majority of seats.

[Beskar]

It gives me the same feeling as deciding to have a quick swim in an open cesspit.

On the plus side, it is legitimate grounds for impeachment if he got knighted.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In other news, pro-Brexit parties still won the vast majority of seats.

Quite a spin. So was May's snap election great for the Tories/Brexit as well?

[Beskar]

In other news, pro-Brexit parties still won the vast majority of seats.

41% is a vast majority? (Conservatives & UKIP)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quite a spin. So was May's snap election great for the Tories/Brexit as well?

41% is a vast majority? (Conservatives & UKIP)

Labour is officially pro-Brexit, even if its MP's aren't.

Both Labour and the Conservatives, especially Labour, had their biggest losses in Leave areas because their voters just stayed home.

Lab + Cons got the majority of the votes cast - ergo the majority voted for pro-Brexit parties.

[InsaneApache]

Didn't DrJunker get an award for being able to tie his own shoelaces or summat?

[InsaneApache]

A man after my own heart....

[Pannonian]

A man after my own heart....

What do you think of Nigel Farage the MEP?

[InsaneApache]

What do you think of Nigel Farage the MEP?

Top man who believes in democracy, unlike the main parties. This is no longer about Brexit it is now about the political class declaring war on democracy. They will get it good and hard this Thursday.