Ooooh a butterfly…
Posted on 10/14/17 | 5:26 PM CEST
Yet another guarantee that there will be no withdrawal agreement. The UK is leaving the EU in order to become what in EU parlance is called a ‘third country’. The ECJ according to its own constitution has no jurisdiction in third countries. Either Macron and Merkel are ignorant of EU law or they are playing politics with the lives of 4 million EU nationals happily living, studying and working in the UK.
I wonder which explanation it is.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 5:49 PM CEST
Reading Guardian it seems that May is doddering through the ring and nobody really knows if she will fall down any moment or if she is still capable to fight.
Would be nice if EU would decide “UK not able to progress” instead of “not enough progress made”. We will stop the count down until UK has recovered.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 5:57 PM CEST
The arrogance of these two Euro-stooges is almost beyond belief. UK, just walk away now and wave goodbye.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 5:59 PM CEST
I suggest you stop reading the leftie Guardian and take up your own tendentious and biased news-rags like Der Spiegel instead.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:02 PM CEST
I thought a method of appeasing both sides had been suggested by UK by including legal commitments in the withdrawal treaty, the UK suggests the agreement on citizens will have the status of international law, raising the possibility that it could also be policed by a new independent body.
It complies with Junckers previous comments when he said – it was “inconceivable” to him that the European Court of Justice would not be ‘involved’.
As ‘involved’ does not mean complete control, on a third parties soil, it gives ECJ an equal say but not unprecedented authority.
You can only imagine the French/German faction are opposed to this because they want to use it as a bargaining chip to extract more money from UK as there is no common sense reason for opposing the above method of oversight.
Not as Brussels have ever used common sense in the past as a guide to policy. ?
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:04 PM CEST
The Guardian is not an objective source on Brexit matters. It is fanatically anti-Brexit. I would suggest you read The Telegraph instead. But The Telegraph is fanatically pro-Brexit. An objective interpretation lies somewhere between these two fanaticisms.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:07 PM CEST
Stop being so intelligent and reasonable! The demand for ECJ extraterritoriality is all about megalomania, preparing the ground for a ‘Breturn’ into the EU, and about playing along with the EU propaganda campaign (parroted in The Guardian and Der Spiegel) about Brexit Britain being seized by xenophobia and racism.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:11 PM CEST
If Merkel and Macron are called “arrogants”, I honestly wonder what denigrating terms can be attributed to Farage, Johnson, Hammond et al. ?
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:17 PM CEST
EXPEL UK NOW
expel uk now
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:28 PM CEST
London is doomed
There will be no end to right wing- national-patriotism in the Uk
27, together, stronger, faster !
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:34 PM CEST
“The ECJ according to its own constitution has no jurisdiction in third countries.”
I didn’t understand Germany and France ever asked ECJ jurisdiction should be extended to the UK after Brexit. Pretending this is quite inaccurate if not plainly demagogic.
What they do require is that ECJ will be the final arbitrator to guarantee EU residents rights in the UK and British resident rights in the EU. Which is totally different and quite sensical if reciprocity is to be considered.
British residents rights in the EU are already overseen by ECJ – and not by any national court. Therefore, it is only making sense the ECJ would also reciprocally oversee EU residents rights in the UK after Brexit. As it was the case from so many years. And I never saw any report about ECJ abuse regarding residents rights – so what’s the problem here?
I do understand the UK proposed a complicated legal construct to achieve something similar in the UK, but this is hardly reciprocity and the price for a Brexit taboo seems too high for Germany and France apparently.
You can pretend this is not acceptable and use this as a pretext to exit without a divorce but it will fool nobody on the continent. They will see it as a trick to reduce EU citizen rights post Brexit. After British residents rights in the EU will be secured and enforced by the ECJ, precisely.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:40 PM CEST
Merkel, the hostage to the AfD and Macron, the least worst against Le Pen, aren’t really in a position to tell other countries what do do.
The uk should just walk away. No deal is the best deal now.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:43 PM CEST
Completely agree! The EU has all the right to staunchly defend its citizens rights, that cannot be striped off, just because a bunch of xenophobic inbreed looneys have voted to blow up their lives, taking all others with them.
Anyway, the common sense solution for the European citizens there is always to leave a land where you are hated and not respected.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:43 PM CEST
Would it be OK if the the UK courts then hand control and a say over uk citizens in the EU?
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:47 PM CEST
Wrong. With all due respect you really ought to study EU law. After Brexit both the UK and EU will become ‘third countries’. This means that UK nationals living in the EU27 after Brexit will NOT be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, any more than a US citizen living in the EU is now. Instead they will be subject to whichever immigration/naturalisation law operated by the government where they live. Spanish laws, for example, will apply.
Just as Spanish laws regarding citizens of ‘third countries’ are democratically accountable Spanish people alone, so will EU nationals in the UK be under the jurisdiction of democratically British law alone.
You are proposing the imposition of a democratically unaccountable foreign court (ECJ) over a select minority of foreigners in the UK and EU27. Reciprocity can be achieved via an international treaty or tribunal, but not by the one-sided jurisdiction of one party on its own. This is why the British government is very reasonably rejecting any ‘final say’ for the ECJ on citizens’ rights after Brexit. Any self-governing democracy would do the same.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 6:52 PM CEST
Bargaining with people is just pathetic. It’s not like the EU is gonna fold because of that. It just makes the UK look bad.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:13 PM CEST
100 Billion bill
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that th EU is not interested in a deal. They are only interested in punishing he UK and therefore the UK should withdraw from negotiations immediately.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:15 PM CEST
I didn’t expect such a hardline attitude from France and Germany. Interesting.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:17 PM CEST
It is obvious that the EU is playing for time to get as much money as they possibly can from the UK & as many businesses as possible to relocate. By EU I mean Germany & France as they control the EU. No other country gets a look in. The UK must NOT make anymore concessions. The UK should run down the cloak, whilst spending big on the infrastructure needed for a clean Brexit under WTO rules.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:26 PM CEST
Well, I did a bit. Theresa May made another U-turn regarding EU citizens. She couldnt even reassure that EU citizen who’s been in the UK for 31 years, that she’ll be fine after brexit (LBC interview).
I kind of expected some EU members to not appreciate that wobbling.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:29 PM CEST
“Completely agree! The EU has all the right to staunchly defend its citizens rights, that cannot be striped off…..”
For once I almost agree with you but that won’t help the Catalans will it?
Nothing in Brexit should affect the rights of EU citizens living within the boundaries of the EU, its just that those boundaries are reducing.
Nothing in Brexit should affect the rights of EU citizens living outside the boundaries of the EU, its just that those boundaries are expanding
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:32 PM CEST
The more I read the more I wish the UK well and think they have done the right thing leaving this ‘club’ As a Sweede I am appalled that we are so nasty to a country who only want self rule. Imagine if Germany or France wanted out I am sure they would not follow the rules of the ECJ once you have left you have left.
Good luck UK but with the likes of Merkel and Junker you are going to need it.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:33 PM CEST
quote “@ kermelen
Wrong. With all due respect you really ought to study EU law. After Brexit both the UK and EU will become ‘third countries’ ” unquote
Uhmmm. The EU is not a ‘country’, hence cannot become a ‘third country’. The EU is a union of countries :-D.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:36 PM CEST
“As a Sweede I am appalled that we are so nasty to a country who only want self rule”
First why as a Swede? Are you trying to convey impartiality, or are swedes morally superior in your opinion?
Second, Arent you oversimplifying things? Both parties are trying to negotiate a deal. UK can just leave and rule itself the way it pleases. However, as soon as you engage in trade relations, you’ll always relinquish a part of your sovereignty. Not even North Korea is fully sovereign
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:39 PM CEST
quote “I didn’t expect such a hardline attitude from France and Germany. Interesting.” unquote
I wouldn’t call this a ‘hardline attitude’, more a ‘firm’ and ‘consistent’ attitude, without flip-flopping and u-turning. Or call it a sensible and no-nonsense stance. If i was sarcastic, i’d use the poisonous term ‘strong and stable’ :-D.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:43 PM CEST
Push all you like it won’t happen. Either take it off the table and there will be a deal or stick to the ecj red line and there won’t be a deal but either way neither scenario has the ECJ in it.
And to be frank from what we have seen in Spain I think citizens rights are FAR better protected under uk law anyway!
Posted on 10/14/17 | 7:59 PM CEST
“After Brexit both the UK and EU will become ‘third countries’. ”
Wrong: the EU is not a country, to start with. And EU residents will not become UK nationals after Brexit.
You never understood reciprocity, do you? There is only a gloomy emptiness beyond British borders apparently. And UK residents abroad should be just ignored because they are traitors, are they not? That’s most probably the unspoken reason they were not even allowed to vote in the referendum.
You can’t expect EU residents in the UK to have fewer rights than UK residents in the EU.
That is the foundation for reciprocity.
Germany and France are not saying the UK’s laws must comply to ECJ like it was the case before Brexit, but that reciprocal citizen’s rights must be overseen by one single court and that the only court that can do this is the ECJ.
If this was too much for Britain then forget about any cherry-picking trade deal. And this is precisely why divorce terms must be agreed first.
That is the German-French position as I understand it.
Very far away from your nationalistic distortions indeed.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:11 PM CEST
kermelen explained it very well. EU and UK will be ‘third countries’ as you mentioned and indeed the countries will be and have to be independent. However, what EU is asking is UK to be responsible under ECJ that EU citizens will be treated same as british’s and UK will not discriminate against them after April 2019. We are not sure UK will keep its word, look at the UK financial commitments for the current EU budget and you will understand.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:21 PM CEST
@ a reader
Mmmm. So in your mind;
Flip flop – A negotiation with an approach that looks at give and take, supported by proposals as ways to look for common ground.
Firm – an approach that neither seeks to find common ground nor compromise on extortionsl and unreasonable demands that cannot be met regardless
The UK look like they want to compromise. The EU doesn’t.
History will show that the EU are on the wrong side of fair.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:23 PM CEST
Quote: « Germany and France are not saying the UK’s laws must comply to ECJ like it was the case before Brexit, but that reciprocal citizen’s rights must be overseen by one single court and that the only court that can do this is the ECJ. »
Why should reciprocal citizen’s rights be overseen by one single court, and why should that court be the ECJ? If they don’t trust the UK courts, why should the UK trust theirs?
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:32 PM CEST
As anyone can invent any name for themselves and invent even an email address I would suggest these comments are mostly worthless and many of them probably originate in spam factories. Politico comments will have no credibility until a more robust platform is introduced.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:38 PM CEST
I am not advocating their position but merely decipher it without prejudice.
Now to answer your question more precisely: I believe they see the ECJ as an independent body. Independent from national laws that is.
Typically, when a German law is not compatible with a French law, the arbitrator is the ECJ. Similarly, they believe citizens rights can only benefit from independent arbitration.
And if the same court is overseeing rights of both EU residents in the UK and UK residents in the EU then inconsistencies are (mostly) impossible.
When they would a sure thing if they were not.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:42 PM CEST
« However, what EU is asking is UK to be responsible under ECJ that EU citizens will be treated same as british’s and UK will not discriminate against them after April 2019.»
Why should a non-British be treated the same as a British citizen once the UK leaves? Are non-EU citizens treated the same as EU citizens? Once the UK leaves, there will be no difference between a EU citizen and any other immigrant.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:50 PM CEST
“Cour De Justice De’L union Europeenne”
I wish we could all accept that the clue is in the title, it avoids the necessity for much of the stuff here!
Posted on 10/14/17 | 8:59 PM CEST
« I believe they see the ECJ as an independent body. Independent from national laws that is. »
It may well be independent from national laws, but there is no reason, none whatsoever, to believe it will be impartial.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:00 PM CEST
@ EXPEL UK NOW
“expel uk now”
That is not possible under EU treaties.
A country can call for Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to leave the EU but the EU can’t expel a country member. And it is a good thing if you’ll ask me. It mostly proves the EU is not alienating member countries’ sovereignty.
Otherwise, the EU would have declared the British referendum illegal, just like Spain did to Catalunia.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:04 PM CEST
Many people seem to be getting it wrong.
Firstly the exit bill isn’t punishment of any sort,
It’s to fund stuff like British EU staff pensions etc. Do some people expect the EU to pay for their pensions ? That’s mad.
It’s also to cover the cost of the European Banking Association and Medical associations moving out of Britain into the EU (common sense they’ve to be in an EU country). It’s moving out due to the brexit vote and not the fault of the European people so why should they pay for that ?
Btw, London clears 1 trillion+ euros a day which we’re also set to lose. We earn 80 billion from that every year alone which is a hundred percent set to disappear once we leave the single market.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:11 PM CEST
“It may well be independent from national laws, but there is no reason, none whatsoever, to believe it will be impartial.”
Impartiality is not the principle of reciprocity. They would just need to keep rights alike from both sides. To keep them balanced accordingly. Partiality has not much room to develop under these terms. I have also a feeling you are missing something important. The EU is not a country and consequently, the ECJ is not bound to any country body of laws, like British courts are. In that, it is more independent than any national court, by definition.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:15 PM CEST
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. NOT as you would at home.
Don’t like it? go home !
However, most EU citizens in the UK prefer UK law.
Noting more than another attempt by the EU (this time under France and Germany by dictate as they rule the EU) to stop brexit.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:22 PM CEST
The ECJ will apply only to citizens who currently have settled in UK, not the “new comers”. There are 45 years of EU citizens moving an making a life in UK and vice versa UK in EU. Over 5 millions between EU and UK. Lives will be ruined if there is no guarantee that the UK or EU can keep the status quo for these people.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:41 PM CEST
« The EU is not a country and consequently, the ECJ is not bound to any country body of laws, like British courts are. In that, it is more independent than any national court, by definition. »
Whether the EU is a country or a Disco club is irrelevant, it’s the fact that the ECJ is bound by the EU’s law and that its judge are EU citizens that makes impartial by definition.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:42 PM CEST
Correction: I meant biased, not impartial.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:45 PM CEST
@ Scott Chegg,
I wouldn’t trust the home office if I were an EU citizen. Fully support ECJ control for them. The home office wrongly sent deportation letters to over 50 EU citizens. They cannot be trusted. EU is correct.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:47 PM CEST
They also sent them to British citizens by mistake. Grow up.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:53 PM CEST
« The ECJ will apply only to citizens who currently have settled in UK, not the “new comers”. »
Citizens who currently settled will have no problem aquiring residency, they don’t need the “protection” of the ECJ.
« Lives will be ruined if there is no guarantee that the UK or EU can keep the status quo for these people. »
More lives will be ruined (on both sides of the Channel) in case of a hard Brexit, but that doesn’t seem to bother the EU.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 9:59 PM CEST
Never going to happen as the EU (Germany & France know very well), it is a pantomime to force the UK into submission. UK should stick to its position, no more concessions. A clean Brexit under WTO is our best option. Use the time between now & March 2019 to get ready.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 10:03 PM CEST
That proves they’re even more untrustworthy. The Home Office is massively understaffed. They take decisions without even properly looking at evidence.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 10:08 PM CEST
@ a reader
You are right that the EU is not a country, and therefore cannot be a ‘third country’, but the principle is the same. The ECJ is still the Supreme Court of the EU, and the political ambitions of both the ECJ and EU are for further EU integration (i.e. to approximate a ‘United States of Europe’). Most importantly the ECJ has no extraterritorial jurisdiction over non-EU/EEA countries, in the same way the US Supreme Court has no extraterritorial jurisdiction over non-US territory. Right now the ECJ has no jurisdiction over the millions of EU nationals living in Algeria. Why? Because Algeria in 1962 left the then EEC and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. So will it be for the UK in 2019.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 10:29 PM CEST
@ a reader
Correct but I was deliberately translating my terms into EU-speak so the EU fanatics might understand.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 10:34 PM CEST
First of all, I have no concerns about the rule of law in either the UK or the EU27 (even Poland and Hungary). I have lived and worked throughout Europe, speak several languages, and am by no means a nationalist (I am pro-Brexit because I am an internationalist).
Second of all, ‘reciprocity’ can be achieved either by an international treaty enforceable in UK and EU27 courts or by the creation of an international court or tribunal the ECJ is NOT an international court. It has no jurisdiction outside the EU (and, indirectly, the
EEA). Any such body could be neither the EU Supreme Court (ECJ) nor the UK Supreme Court.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 10:42 PM CEST
@ Just once
I’m not sure the ECJ will safeguard EU citizens’ rights either. It is a politicised court and highly selective in its judgements, as recent events in Spain and Poland have shown. I could tolerate it when the UK was a member because it was still democratically accountable to the UK, albeit in a horribly indirect fashion. Now we are finally leaving I am glad to be shot of it. Our rights will be protected by a democraticallly accountable legal system, including the rights of the 4 million EU nationals who have chosen to make their home here (and who might choose to become UK citizens and help safeguard our rights).
ECJ jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit simply isn’t going to happen, Brexit deal or no Brexit deal. You really don’t need to trouble your mind about this.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 10:49 PM CEST
Since the UK is politically unable to propose anything except “creativity” and have-cake-and-eat-it, someone’s got to be the adult in the room. The EU is being forced to do the UK’s heavy lifting, just to avoid the disruption of no deal.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 11:18 PM CEST
Having knowledge of EU (DE,FR, IT) negotiatio techniques, I understand the calls for UK to just walk away. UK will be better off if spends resources on preparing a no deal scenario
Posted on 10/14/17 | 11:38 PM CEST
Interesting that it’s the French and Germans making the decisions. No doubt they realise they will have to pay the bill. I wonder how the other states feel about this.
Reading this report it seems that this is just a control freak thing. I can’t see any way the UK will accept rule of a foreign court, which is what the UK really voted to get away from. Along with the promise of a single president (unelected), finance minister, and their own personal army, the chances of getting the UK to agree to anything the EU wants is diminishing rapidly.
Posted on 10/14/17 | 11:54 PM CEST
At this rate the UK will be out by Christmas!
Posted on 10/15/17 | 12:52 AM CEST