EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[radamfi]

Teresa May has already offered a deal to the EU but was rebuffed.

What are you talking about? There have been no negotiations yet because Article 50 has not yet been triggered.

 

[furnessvale]

What are you talking about? There have been no negotiations yet because Article 50 has not yet been triggered.

Teresa May made the offer but was rebuffed by the EU.

You asked for a solution. I gave what May had done. If you have a problem with that speak to your mates in the EU who did the rebuffing.

 

[AlterEgo]

Teresa May made the offer but was rebuffed by the EU.

You asked for a solution. I gave what May had done. If you have a problem with that speak to your mates in the EU who did the rebuffing.

What deal was that? And when?

 

[furnessvale]

What deal was that? And when?

Google it

 

[AlterEgo]

Google it

I already did and it brought up this:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....u-theresa-may-brexit-referendum?client=safari

Theresa May has said her offer to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK has been snubbed by “one or two” European leaders...

...“I have told EU leaders we could do that now,” she said. “Many of them favour such an agreement, one or two others do not,” she said.

Surely you must have been on about something different as that's not exactly "the EU rebuffing an offer", is it?

 

[furnessvale]

I already did and it brought up this:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....u-theresa-may-brexit-referendum?client=safari



Surely you must have been on about something different as that's not exactly "the EU rebuffing an offer", is it?

I suggest you look again at Google. That was very selective of you. There are lots of other references which go back to the original offer by May which was made, I believe, about July last year.

 

[EM2]

What are you talking about? There have been no negotiations yet because Article 50 has not yet been triggered.

Teresa May made the offer but was rebuffed by the EU.

May was rebuffed because, as radamfi said, we are still members of the EU. Cameron negotiated all our opt-outs, rebates and exemptions, and the UK was clearly told that that is all you get.
Once we trigger Article 50, and notify the EU that we are leaving, that 'offer' of May's can be discussed.

 

[EM2]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ndon-brexit-eu-financial-hub?CMP=share_btn_tw

Citigroup plans new operations away from London after Brexit
US bank in talks with Ireland, Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Netherlands in search for new European base once UK leaves EU

Citigroup has set out 25 criteria to weigh up which financial centre in the European Union will house the new operation it expects to set up as a result of Brexit.

The US bank, which employs 9,000 people in the UK, has been in discussions with the authorities in Ireland, Italy, France, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands as potential locations for the new operation it is preparing in anticipation of losing access to the remaining 27 members of the EU once the UK leaves the trading bloc.

James Cowles, who runs Citi’s operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said a decision would be made in the first half of the year. He told a conference in Dublin he thought many other financial firms with London operations would be working to a similar timescale.

The City is rife with speculation that the triggering of article 50 – which is planned for March and will signal the formal negotiations to leave the EU – will lead to major US, Japan and Swiss banks in the UK implementing their Brexit contingency plans. The race is on among financial centres in the EU to lure any business lost by the City in the Brexit fallout.

 

[Howardh]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ndon-brexit-eu-financial-hub?CMP=share_btn_tw

Citigroup plans new operations away from London after Brexit
US bank in talks with Ireland, Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Netherlands in search for new European base once UK leaves EU

Thought we were gonna be a tax haven??

 

[miami]

May was rebuffed because, as radamfi said, we are still members of the EU. Cameron negotiated all our opt-outs, rebates and exemptions, and the UK was clearly told that that is all you get.
Once we trigger Article 50, and notify the EU that we are leaving, that 'offer' of May's can be discussed.

If

 

[AlterEgo]

I suggest you look again at Google. That was very selective of you. There are lots of other references which go back to the original offer by May which was made, I believe, about July last year.

Sorry, can't find anything at all about any offer May made in July last year. What sort of offer was it? Was it about the status of EU nationals, or some sort of wider negotiation?

Trying to find out because

a) I haven't heard of May entering any negotiations with the EU, and
b) it's good to fact-check.

 

[DarloRich]

Nick Clegg, Owen Smith, Mandelson, Branston, Clarke, Gina Miller, Sturgeon and many many others want Brexit stopped, no other outcome will ever be good enough.
You're deluded if anyone thinks these people will be content with ANY Brexit however many amendments have been made.
They don't want amendments they have never wanted amendments they want Brexit cancelled which is also what the vast majority of Remainers also want.

it is strange that they aren't entitled to their opinion yet 7 times Westminster electoral failure and serial Euro Parliament absence management process subject Nigel Farage was entitled to express his opinion on the EU for many years. Odd that.

Also odd that "remainers" should shut up and accept the result of the referendum, just like 7 times Westminster electoral failure and serial Euro Parliament absence management process subject Nigel Farage shut up and accepted the result of a referendum on EU membership for all of those years.

Its called democracy and having a sovereign parliament. Something Nigel Farage might understand, if he had ever managed to get elected to it!

However my point isn't about what ends up being decided about Brexit. It was more that part of the Brexit campaigning was based on returning power to our Parliament (not our government). So the very fact our parliament is going to have a vote on this, so that the government can't just randomly decide to do something without democratic oversight, is a good thing surely? Would you really want a precedent set where the government can make such large decisions on its own without parliaments consent? If so what would the point of parliament be?

Exactly - this is the demanded parliamentary sovereignty in action. It seems many people had no idea what that meant and will now have a paddy when the plan for leaving the EU is subject to scrutiny and challenge.

Whether that's the case or not (and not knowing any of these people personally, I can't say), that is not what this court case was about.

Kippers have little time for facts....................

And Sturgeon is already screaming that this is a 'betrayal' and that Scots must now vote for independence for some reason.

perhaps because the majority in Scotland voted to remain and she is representing the views of her constituency - something many leavers expect/demand from English MP's

Brexiters, why don't you address the concerns that UK citizens may find it difficult to live and work in the EU in future? I'm still waiting for your solution.

because ( comparatively) few people go from the UK to Europe to work - the flow is the other way round.

Teresa May has already offered a deal to the EU but was rebuffed.

no she hasn't! At least not on the basis of our post Brexit relationship with Europe.

 

[radamfi]

because ( comparatively) few people go from the UK to Europe to work - the flow is the other way round.

There is not just work. Millions have already gone from the UK to EU to retire, with millions probably intending to do so in the future. So their concerns should be addressed.

 

[DarloRich]

There is not just work. Millions have already gone from the UK to EU to retire, with millions probably intending to do so in the future. So their concerns should be addressed.

so? Lots of the older demographic voted to leave they EU. They will have to eat the cake they baked.

In any event I think we have bigger fish to fry than retirees who might want to move to Spain in the near future.

 

[radamfi]

so? Lots of the older demographic voted to leave they EU. They will have to eat the cake they baked.

In any event I think we have bigger fish to fry than retirees who might want to move to Spain in the near future.

What about younger people who might want to retire in the EU in 20, 30 or more years in the future?

 

[furnessvale]

May was rebuffed because, as radamfi said, we are still members of the EU. Cameron negotiated all our opt-outs, rebates and exemptions, and the UK was clearly told that that is all you get.
Once we trigger Article 50, and notify the EU that we are leaving, that 'offer' of May's can be discussed.

Thank you for confirming an offer was made and that it was rebuffed.

Please tell alterego, I can't be bothered.

 

[radamfi]

Thank you for confirming an offer was made and that it was rebuffed.

Please tell alterego, I can't be bothered.

You are clearly being obtuse. But even if I accept this as an offer, it had nothing to do with future immigration and was only concerning people currently in another member state. So this doesn't address the issue that I am taking about.

I am talking about immigration IN THE FUTURE!

 

[EM2]

Thank you for confirming an offer was made and that it was rebuffed.

Please tell alterego, I can't be bothered.

I'm agreeing with what was in AlterEgo's link, but explaining to you why that happened.

 

[DarloRich]

What about younger people who might want to retire in the EU in 20, 30 or more years in the future?

Frankly: tough. We as a country chose to leave the EU and all that brought. Free movement and residence rights across Europe are one of the things we have, potentially, chosen to chuck in the bin.

This is why the "post brexit deal" needs to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in order to try and protect as many of our current rights as we can.

 

[radamfi]

Frankly: tough. We as a country chose to leave the EU and all that brought. Free movement and residence rights across Europe are one of the things we have, potentially, chosen to chuck in the bin.

This is why the "post brexit deal" needs to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in order to try and protect as many of our current rights as we can.

We didn't vote to end free movement. Only to leave the EU. There is still time to salvage a soft Brexit meaning that Brexit won't adversely affect our lives as much as it could.

 

[EM2]

We didn't vote to end free movement. Only to leave the EU. There is still time to salvage a soft Brexit meaning that Brexit won't adversely affect our lives as much as it could.

Membership of the EU means subscribing to the four freedoms. It follows that if you aren't a member of the EU, you do not have to subscribe to them.
As soon as the result was announced, I fully expected a swift, hard Brexit. I'm actually surprised that it's taken this long and and there is a possibility that it may be somewhat ameliorated.

 

[Trog]

This is why the "post brexit deal" needs to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in order to try and protect as many of our current rights as we can.

How would that work as what is on offer is not in parliaments gift.

 

[DarloRich]

How would that work as what is on offer is not in parliaments gift.

The PM will have to present the "deal" to our sovereign parliament for consideration, scrutiny and approval

Membership of the EU means subscribing to the four freedoms. It follows that if you aren't a member of the EU, you do not have to subscribe to them.
As soon as the result was announced, I fully expected a swift, hard Brexit. I'm actually surprised that it's taken this long and and there is a possibility that it may be somewhat ameliorated.

Exactly.

 

[Howardh]

What about younger people who might want to retire in the EU in 20, 30 or more years in the future?

There will be some entering Uni this year who, in four years time, may find it difficult to travel in Europe and work as and when should they choose to take a "gap year" (or the hiatus before gaining employment) where as now they barely have to think about it.

Of course, many travel the world and manage the bureaucracy, but Brexit could still be an unnecessary obstacle in their way.

 

[Howardh]

Membership of the EU means subscribing to the four freedoms. It follows that if you aren't a member of the EU, you do not have to subscribe to them.

Not quite. Those in the EEA but not the EU also have to subscribe to them.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.5.3.html

The EU’s external relations Contents

The European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland and the North

The European Economic Area (EEA) was formed in 1994 in order to extend the European Union’s provisions on its internal market to countries in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). EU legislation relating to the internal market becomes part of the legislation of the EEA countries once they have agreed to incorporate it. Implementation and enforcement are then monitored by specific EFTA bodies and a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
The EU and two of its EEA partners — Norway and Iceland — are also linked by various ‘northern policies’ and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole.
While Switzerland is not part of the EEA, it remains a member of EFTA. More than 120 sectoral bilateral treaties linking the country with the EU incorporate largely the same provisions as those adopted by the other EEA countries in the fields of the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. However, bilateral relations have been severely strained since the February 2014 anti-immigration initiative, the outcome of which called into question the principles of free movement and the single market that underpin those relations.
Legal basis

For the EEA: Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Association Agreements).

For Switzerland: Insurance Agreement of 1989, Bilateral Agreements I of 1999, Bilateral Agreements II of 2004.
The EEA
a.Objectives

The purpose of the European Economic Area (EEA) is to extend the EU’s internal market to countries in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). These countries either do not wish to join the EU or have not yet done so.
b.Background

In 1992, the then seven members of EFTA negotiated an agreement to allow them to participate in the ambitious project of the European Community’s internal market, launched in 1985 and completed at the end of 1992. The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement was signed on 2 May 1992 and entered into force on 1 January 1994. The EFTA/EEA members, however, soon saw their numbers reduced: Switzerland chose not to ratify the agreement following a negative referendum on the matter, and Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the European Union in 1995. Only Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein remained in the EEA. The 10 new Member States that joined the EU on 1 May 2004 automatically became part of the EEA, as did Bulgaria and Romania when they acceded to the Union in 2007, and Croatia in 2013.

In June 2009, Iceland also applied for EU membership as a way out of the global financial crisis of 2008. The Council accepted Iceland’s application on 17 June 2010, and the negotiations started in June 2011. However, following the April 2013 parliamentary elections, the new centre-right coalition of the Independence and Progressive Parties halted the negotiations immediately after coming to power in May 2013. Later, in March 2015, the coalition government stated in a letter to the Council of the European Union that ‘Iceland should not be regarded as a candidate country for EU membership’. Although the government did not officially withdraw the application, the presidency of the Council of the EU took note of the letter, and certain practical adjustments have been made within both the Council and the Commission. Accordingly, the EU does not currently treat Iceland as a candidate country.
c.Scope of the EEA

The EEA goes beyond traditional free trade agreements (FTAs) by extending the full rights and obligations of the EU’s internal market to the EFTA countries (with the exception of Switzerland). The EEA incorporates the four freedoms of the internal market (free movement of goods, people, services and capital) and related policies (competition, transport, energy, and economic and monetary cooperation). The agreement includes horizontal policies strictly related to the four freedoms: social policies (including health and safety at work, labour law and the equal treatment of men and women); policies on consumer protection, the environment, statistics and company law; and a number of flanking policies, such as those relating to research and technological development, which are not based on the EU acquis or legally binding acts, but are implemented through cooperation activities.
d.The limits of the EEA

The EEA Agreement does not establish binding provisions in all sectors of the internal market or in other policies under the EU Treaties. In particular, its binding provisions do not concern:

the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy (although the agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fishery products);
the customs union;
the common trade policy;
the common foreign and security policy;
the field of justice and home affairs (although all the EFTA countries are part of the Schengen area); or
the economic and monetary union (EMU).

e.EEA institutions and mechanisms
1.Incorporation of EU legislation

New EU internal market texts are examined by an EEA Joint Committee, composed of representatives of the EU and the three EFTA-EEA states. Meeting once a month, this body decides what legislation — and, more generally, which EU acts (actions, programmes, etc.) — should be incorporated into the EEA. Legislation is formally incorporated by including the relevant acts in lists of protocols and annexes to the EEA Agreement. Several thousand acts have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement in this way. An EEA Council, made up of representatives of the Council of the EU and the Foreign Ministers of the EFTA-EEA states, meets at least twice a year to draw up political guidelines for the Joint Committee.
2.Transposition

Once an EU act has been incorporated into the EEA Agreement, it must be transposed into the national legislation of the EFTA-EEA countries (if this is required under that national legislation). This may simply require a governmental decision, or it may require parliamentary approval. Transposition is a formal task, and the acts can only be adjusted technically at this point. There are provisions specifying that the EFTA countries should be involved in preparing EU acts.
3.Monitoring

After internal market legislation has been extended to the EFTA-EEA countries, transposition and application are monitored by the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court. The EFTA Surveillance Authority maintains an internal market scoreboard that tracks the implementation of legislation in the EEA countries.
4.Role of the parliaments

Both the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the EFTA-EEA states are closely involved in monitoring the EEA Agreement. Article 95 of the agreement establishes an EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which meets twice a year. The European Parliament and the EEA national parliaments take turns hosting this committee, whose chair alternates annually between a Member of the European Parliament and an EEA national parliamentarian. Each delegation is composed of 12 members. Parliamentarians from the Swiss Federal Assembly attend the meetings as observers. All EU legislation that applies to the EEA is scrutinised by the EEA JPC, whose members have the right to put oral and written questions to representatives of the EEA Council and the EEA Joint Committee and to express their views in reports or resolutions. The same procedure holds for scrutinising the implementation of legislation.

 

[burneside]

We didn't vote to end free movement. Only to leave the EU. There is still time to salvage a soft Brexit meaning that Brexit won't adversely affect our lives as much as it could.

Soft Brexit = No Brexit. Various EU leaders have already said we cannot cherry-pick, it's all or nothing.

 

[EM2]

Not quite. Those in the EEA but not the EU also have to subscribe to them.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.5.3.html

As I said 'It follows that if you aren't a member of the EU, you do not have to subscribe to them'. You do not have to, but you can if you wish.
I'd be very happy if one, some or all of the four freedoms continue when we leave the EU, but I don't expect that they will.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Frankly: tough. We as a country chose to leave the EU and all that brought.

No we didn't.

We voted to stop being a member of the EU. That is all.

We did not vote to leave the single market, or to stop free movement, or to introduce trade tariffs, or to turn into a low tax state to annoy the rest of Europe, or to remove human rights protections given by the EU, or to remove workers rights given by the EU etc etc.

Membership of the EU means subscribing to the four freedoms. It follows that if you aren't a member of the EU, you do not have to subscribe to them.

Of course, you can also subscribe to them if you are not a full EU member. Which is what many of us are pointing to. Not being in the EU does not automatically mean you don't have free movement etc. Obviously you cannot cherry pick, so if you want access to the single market you need to have free movement, but leaving does not automatically mean giving those things up.

edit - I see you've just posted to say the same thing!

Soft Brexit = No Brexit.

Nope.
If we are not an EU member, then that is Brexit. Even if nothing else changes, we would have still left the EU, this it would be Brexit. You (and others) may not like that outcome, but it would still mean the UK wouldn't be in the EU.

 

[DarloRich]

No we didn't.

We voted to stop being a member of the EU. That is all.

We did not vote to leave the single market, or to stop free movement, or to introduce trade tariffs, or to turn into a low tax state to annoy the rest of Europe, or to remove human rights protections given by the EU, or to remove workers rights given by the EU etc etc.



Of course, you can also subscribe to them if you are not a full EU member. Which is what many of us are pointing to. Not being in the EU does not automatically mean you don't have free movement etc. Obviously you cannot cherry pick, so if you want access to the single market you need to have free movement, but leaving does not automatically mean giving those things up.

But that is all a logical connection ( or at least a potential connection) with our decision to leave the EU.

You cant expect to use the snooker room and the bar if you don't pay the club subscription. You may be invited into the lounge for special occasions IF a member signs you in.

 

[burneside]

Nope.
If we are not an EU member, then that is Brexit. Even if nothing else changes, we would have still left the EU, this it would be Brexit. You (and others) may not like that outcome, but it would still mean the UK wouldn't be in the EU.

If we leave the EU in name only and nothing changes then that is not leaving the EU at all. Thankfully May and the government appear to be of the mind that things will change, and change in a big way. The whole point of voting leave, really.