| The Comments |
Looks as though Angela Merkel is considering revisiting the deal previously struck with the UK to cut welfare for migrants as former EU commission head Barrosso ( now working as advisor to Goldman Sachs!!) said more could have been done to keep Britain in the bloc..... See reference to In-work benefits pull factor... Sound familiar?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/merkel-hints-at-revisiting-eu-welfare-brake-in-brexit-gambit
On migration, leaders agreed on the need “to take account of a pull factor arising from a member state’s in-work benefits regime.” They proposed an amendment to “provide for an alert and safeguard mechanism that responds to situations of inflow of workers from other member states of an exceptional magnitude over an extended period of time.”
However, they fell short of Cameron’s demands. He had pressed for a benefits brake of 13 years, but ran into opposition from eastern European members.
Note: These in-work benefits were intended for nationals to incentivise them back to work ( they were not intended for migrants who were supposed to be coming to the UK to work) as these together with tax credits that migrants could claim, have been proving uneconomic to the UK....
This message was last edited by ads on 15/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 15/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 15/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 15/11/2016.
2
Like
|
Briando
Don't underestimate the sway of Germany on the other member states who alongside France are " currently propping up the EU.
For Eastern European States to take advantage of UK's in-work benefits in this manner and not be recognised by the EU bureaucrats as a "pull factor" in this equation without EU safeguard mechanisms in place ( I.e. flexibility to respond to large scale swift movements) , is an indication of how intransigent the bureaucrats have been to date, and demonstrate an unwillingness to review the realities.... No wonder other states are equally frustrated by such intransigence to recognise citizens genuine concerns.
Is Merkel finally recognising some of the failures that have led to citizens understandable disillusionment with the EU?
This message was last edited by ads on 16/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 16/11/2016.
1
Like
|
The British are as eccentric as they were, so I am not surprised that they quit EU.
1
Like
|
So BoJo is telling porkies again about what can be achieved with Brexit rather than being honest; pity. Is Post-truth still ruling leavers mentality?
Is the EU actually considering free movement of people?
Is TM really so autocratic as to believe that Parliament is going to pass a three line Bill about triggering Article 50?
Yes to all of the above...the UK is one screwed up little island. How in the hell did we ever run an empire or is that the reason we lost it?
2
Like
|
A supreme court judge has raised the prospect that the government would have to comprehensively replace existing EU legislation before they could even begin Brexit, in a move that could seriously delay the process.
In a speech that angered leave campaigners, Lady Hale said the supreme court judges could go further than simply forcing May to publish a short piece of legislation to approve the triggering of article 50.
The deputy president of the court said that next month’s case – in which the supreme court will hear the government’s appeal against a high court ruling that MPs must approve the triggering of article 50 – raised “difficult and delicate issues” about the relationship between government and parliament.
“Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple act of parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement of the 1972 act,” she said in comments to law students in Kuala Lumpur that were published online on Tuesday. The European Communities Act 1972 took the UK into the then European Economic Community.
Hale set out the arguments on both sides of what is expected to be the most constitutionally significant case ever heard by the supreme court. She told the students that while 51.9% of the British electorate had voted to leave the EU, “that referendum was not legally binding on parliament”.
She put forward the argument that the government was likely to make, saying it would suggest: “The basis on which the referendum was undertaken was that the government would give effect to the result. “Beginning the process would not change the law.”
Lady Hale is one of 11 judges due to hear the case at the supreme court in December.
Guardian 16 November.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 16/11/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
Whether or not you agree with this legal reasoning, have you ever heard of a Supreme High Court judge expressing an opinion in this public manner prior to debating evidence in court. let alone awaiting the decision/debate of fellow SC judges?
Will this now compromise her inclusion and I'm wondering purely from a legal standpoint what rules govern such public behaviour prior to sitting? If this had been a member of the jury speaking out in advance of debate and decision would they not be exempted? Most confusing.
With regard to autocracy, doesn't the apparent EU bureaucrats' lack of flexibility or willingness to respond and review changing factors that significantly impact nation states with unintended consequences require reasoned and fair review in terms of safeguard mechanisms as advocated by Merkel? Could failure to reflect this requirement for reform be deemed autocratic?
0
Like
|
A supreme court spokesman said that Hale was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the article 50 appeal in an impartial way for an audience of law students as part of a wider lecture on constitutional law, and it was proper for judges to set out arguments in high-profile cases to help public understanding of the issues involved in an even-handed way.
“One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for parliament to be able to lawfully trigger article 50, if the government loses its appeal,” the spokesman said. “A number of politicians have raised the same question. Though it was not dealt with explicitly in the high court judgment, it is not a new issue. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”
Alternatively, Theresa May has come out publicaly and said the government will win the appeal. Is this a veiled threat to the Supreme Court that they must side with her and the Government or else. Other politicians and media have been absolutely scathing against the High Court Judges calling them public enemies and saying their powers (which are clear) might need to be controlled if they don't side with the Government even if the Government is wrong in law.
You can't have it both ways Ads. The courts must stay impartial and rule on legality not emotion. But. The Government is expected to set the tone and do the same and is BOUND in supporting the Courts and Judges which they have failed to do.
1
Like
|
I wasn't aware that TM had said they will win the appeal as opposed to hoping to win the appeal? I'm not prejudging here by the way, just asking the questions.
Lady Hale appeared from her conclusions to have already stated her opinion
" She told the students that while 51.9% of the British electorate had voted to leave the EU, “that referendum was not legally binding on parliament”.
She put forward the argument that the government was likely to make, saying it would suggest: “The basis on which the referendum was undertaken was that the government would give effect to the result. “Beginning the process would not change the law.”
I agree entirely that the judges should remain impartial by the way, hence my query with regard to openly debating and expressing conclusions prior to the sitting.
1
Like
|
Look at news for 4 November. She told EU she was 'confident' Government would win appeal.
Confident means: certain that something will happen or that something is true
This message was last edited by perrypower1 on 16/11/2016.
0
Like
|
Whenever an appeal is made isn't it the norm that this is approached in a confident manner? That is not the same as suggesting undue influence in that process, is it?
This message was last edited by ads on 16/11/2016.
1
Like
|
No it is in the public domain so not confidential. There is a broad difference between we hope to win our appeal and we are certain of winning the appeal and telling senior EU people the time table is still on because we expect to win.
Mrs May is trying to circumvent Parliament and does not want to accept you can't as the answer. This is a very important matter. Why not put it to Parliament in the first place. The answer is she does not want to provide elected MP's with a running commentary or any commentary. We need to know what is being planned...if there is any plan which I do not believe there is.
2
Like
|
The high court made it perfectly clear parliament has to be consulted before article 50 can be triggered. I cannot understand why May is so hung up on a self-imposed March deadline. Why do it? It’s bad political tactics to announce a deadline where there is so much uncertainty, so much to consider, and so much at stake. You lose face whenever there is a forced retreat and your political star as a consequence does not shine so brightly.
Then to publically say she was confident the judgment would be over turned on appeal was a nod and wink to their ‘Milords’ to toe the party line. Never a good idea to put yourself at odds with the judiciary.
I don’t know who is advising the prime minister but it seems to me the Brexit process by this government has the whiff of amateurism to me.
I want this Brexit process to succeed. I want a good deal for Britain. I want Britain to remain in the single market and customs union. I want to see free movement of people to continue. It’s the best deal we as expats can hope to achieve now since Britain is leaving the EU.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
THERESA MAY has said her government does have a plan for Brexit despite a leaked memo suggesting the cabinet is divided and has no strategy for leaving the EU
Mrs May told the Commons: "We do have a plan. Our plan is to deliver the best possible trading deal. Our plan is to control the movement of people and negotiate free trade agreements around the world
1
Like
|
Mrs May told the Commons: "We do have a plan. Our plan is to deliver the best possible trading deal. Our plan is to control the movement of people and negotiate free trade agreements around the world
She call's that a plan really?
Are people really that gullible to accept this statement as the Brexit plan?
What we need to see is EXACTLY HOW they are going to achieve this, which might just constitute a plan
Still no plan, no strategy, no answers and still NO IDEA
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
2
Like
|
Mickeyfinn,
I'm confused. Wasn't it the EU bureaucrats that were demanding a swift evoking of article 50 due to potential instabilities, hence TM's "reassurances"?
Also freedom of movement without safeguard mechanisms in place ( i.e. flexibilty) is, IMHO, not a civilised and fair way to proceed, without due regard to the ability to respond to swift, large scale, unplanned movement of economic migration within EU member states, born from unintended consequences, without due regard to the ability of migrants to adequately sustain work and income without reliance upon recipient member states' benefit structure, or on the recipient state's ability to make realistic adequate preparation ( infrastructure, housing, education, health, etc) on such a scale and relative short timeframes which, in that process, place at risk cohesion within those member states. Isn't it reasonable to build in fair flexibility to protect member states from those circumstances rather than leave them to suffer the consequences in the name of " freedom of movement"?
This message was last edited by ads on 16/11/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 16/11/2016.
1
Like
|
BLEEDING NORA
Is this POST still GOIN
zzzz Hugh xx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
4
Like
|
Ads wrote: I'm confused. Wasn't it the EU bureaucrats that were demanding a swift evoking of article 50 due to potential instabilities, hence TM's "reassurances"?
Reassurances? Don’t you mean unrealistic promises designed to keep the baying mob of the back bench Tory party satisfied? The conference speech is now beginning to look like so much ‘heifer dust’.
Odd thing I notice, whenever EU officials are written about it’s always “EU Bureaucrats”. They are never given their proper title or name just “bureaucrats”. It re-enforces a stereotype and is inaccurate.
EU officials actually are usually former elected politicians who have distinguished themselves in political careers in their own state. They are appointed to their current role by all heads of member governments and their position ratified by the EU parliament, so let’s give them some status.
Freedom of movement alas will not be the same as before I accept that. However if a work visa system was introduced I believe that would satisfy most people.
Please don’t forget David Cameron negotiated a three year moratorium on EU migrant claiming state benefits before the referendum took place but that has been lost in the dust of time. Presumably concession may well still form part of the negotiations to come.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
The odd thing is the Freedom of Movement right affects all of us. It is a right that I will be stripped of if, as and when we Brexit. I demand compensation!
3
Like
|
There are apparently 51 plans. None of them are complete, none of them are joined up and none of them are based on an overall position. Wait, this has to be a Government operation.
3
Like
|
We don't need any plans - we just need to leave the EUSSR as soon as possible thats what the majority voted for. The rest can move to the EUSSR if they don't like it. Freedom of movement - joke - I have travelled all over the world .with my British passport before the EUSSR brought in their stupid ideas
Keep adding the doom, gloom and armegeddon but the only thing thats going to collapse is the EUSSR
2
Like
|