[Merged]Brexit stuff (part 2)

[sasguru]

More good new for Brexiters,





Brexit: 40% of US firms with British offices are considering relocating to the EU | The Independent

Well it depends on the industry, but if you are a US, Japanese, Korean, Indian or even British CEO who wants access to one of the 2 largest and richest single markets in the world, why would you invest in the UK at the moment?

[BlasterBates]

David Davis has just finished speaking at the select commitee, he has a clear position now:

1) the UK might be completely in the customs union or it might be completely outside or somewhere inbetween
2) the UK might be completely in the single market or might not or somewhere inbetween
3) there might lots of controls on immigration or none at all
4) the UK might pay into the EU budget or not
5)there might be a transitional deal, or there might not

Excellent....nothing like clarity

David Davis backs transitional deal 'if necessary' as MPs told Government will publish Brexit plan in February

[GB9]

David Davis has just finished speaking at the select commitee, he has a clear position now:

1) the UK might be completely in the customs union or it might be completely outside or somewhere inbetween
2) the UK might be completely in the single market or might not or somewhere inbetween
3) there might lots of controls on immigration or none at all
4) the UK might pay into the EU budget or not
5)there might be a transitional deal, or there might not

Excellent....nothing like clarity

David Davis backs transitional deal 'if necessary' as MPs told Government will publish Brexit plan in February

I think that's known as providing an update without actually saying anything.

[jamesbrown]

David Davis has just finished speaking at the select commitee, he has a clear position now:

1) the UK might be completely in the customs union or it might be completely outside or somewhere inbetween
2) the UK might be completely in the single market or might not or somewhere inbetween
3) there might lots of controls on immigration or none at all
4) the UK might pay into the EU budget or not
5)there might be a transitional deal, or there might not

Excellent....nothing like clarity

David Davis backs transitional deal 'if necessary' as MPs told Government will publish Brexit plan in February

Did you actually watch it? I did, and he performed pretty well, overall, given the constraints. Indeed, he received a few compliments, which is rare for an SC hearing. There won't be any further clarity in advance of the "plan", and I'd expect the plan to be very unrevealing too (maximum access at minimum cost, i.e. have/eat cake, which is where most negotiations begin). He did clarify one thing today, though, namely that control over immigration means complete control by the UK Parliament and that immigration policy (whether tight or loose) will not be a point of negotiation under A50 or beyond In other words, unless the EU has a massive change of heart, you can certainly eliminate "membership" of the single market and probably unfettered access too, even if the UK Parliament ultimately prefers a loose immigration policy. National control over policy precludes any centralised arrangements, such as EEA or Swiss-style controls, which Davis also confirmed today

I think it's pretty clear that the expectation is emerging as a Canada+ deal (+on services, with some sector-specific arrangements for integrated supply chains and financial services), likely with a time-limited transition that is compatible with WTO rules, although Davis appears to favour a more limited transitional arrangement. Much of the A50 process will be on the low-level stuff, such as legacy payments and joint initiatives (EMA, Horizon 2020 etc.).

[darmstadt]

Farage is there for buying his new home ready for his German residency and German Passport. He has done well living off EU money.

He won't be getting a German passport because he hasn't lived in Germany for long enough, i.e. never...

To become a naturalized citizen, you have to have lived in Germany under a limited residence permit for at least eight years. But you can also get this shortened to seven years if you take a German-language integration course, which can be done fairly affordably through a local Volkshochschule (basically a community college).
But very crucially, you also have to know German.
“The ability to speak German is an absolute necessity. Being able to communicate in German is essential for social and economic integration,” writes the Interior Ministry.
So how good does your German have to be?
“Sufficient command is defined as being able to cope in German with daily life in Germany, including dealing with the authorities, and being able to conduct conversations commensurate with one’s age and education. As a rule, this includes being able to read, understand and orally reproduce a German text on a general topic.”
On top of that, you have to prove you can support yourself financially, have committed no serious criminal offences and give up your current nationality - except for in circumstances where this isn’t possible, like countries that do not allow citizens to do this.
There’s also a naturalisation test that you must pass, which has 33 questions in B1 level German about the country’s laws, history and people. You must pass 17 out of the 33, or just over half.
If you’re already married to a German, or in a same-sex partnership, this can make things way easier. Spouses must live in Germany legally for three years and have been married to their partner for at least two years at the time of application.
And the general requirements of naturalization also apply: good command of German, no serious criminal record, etc.

He was also unable to get what he wanted at the airport, ha ha, because you can't get Benson and Hedges Gold here

[NotAllThere]

... He did clarify one thing today, though, namely that control over immigration means complete control by the UK Parliament and that immigration policy (whether tight or loose) will not be a point of negotiation under A50 or beyond ...

You do realise that he can fulfil that by the UK Parliament and government voting through an immigration policy that allows free movement of people between the UK and the EU?

[jamesbrown]

You do realise that he can fulfil that by the UK Parliament and government voting through an immigration policy that allows free movement of people between the UK and the EU?

No, he literally cannot, because it wouldn't be justiciable by the ECJ. That's precisely my point. But don't take my word for it, see the analysis in your preferred morning rag. Of course, whether they stick to that approach is another matter, but he seemed pretty adamant about that at the SC (watch the coverage).

[NotAllThere]

No, he literally cannot, because it wouldn't be justiciable by the ECJ. That's precisely my point.

I've tried various alternatives to "justiciable" and I can't figure out what you meant, and so your point eludes me. Could you expand?

[jamesbrown]

I've tried various alternatives to "justiciable" and I can't figure out what you meant, and so your point eludes me. Could you expand?

Sure. Essentially, you cannot have the UK Parliament and, on points of law, the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter on what constitutes one or other of the four freedoms, in this case free movement. The UK always has sovereign power to make and break international treaties, but those treaties otherwise depend on a joint mechanism of rule making and arbitration, in this case the ECJ. When Davis points to sovereign control over immigration, as distinct from a mutually recognised system of rules and arbitration, he is actually saying something quite profound (at least it would've been, had the direction not been clear already). It really doesn't matter what the UK Parliament and Supreme Court decides at any given point in time about immigration policy. The rules must be mutually recognised and "justiciable" by the ECJ or an equivalent international body that isn't the UK Supreme Court, otherwise there is no basis for an international treaty. The scope of arbitration can vary between treaties, of course (e.g. ECJ for EEA vs. EFTA Court for EFTA), but the EU has so far been very clear that freedom of movement is involiable, i.e. within the scope of the founding treaties.

[BlasterBates]

Sure. Essentially, you cannot have the UK Parliament and, on points of law, the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter on what constitutes one or other of the four freedoms, in this case free movement. The UK always has sovereign power to make and break international treaties, but those treaties otherwise depend on a joint mechanism of rule making and arbitration, in this case the ECJ. When Davis points to sovereign control over immigration, as distinct from a mutually recognised system of rules and arbitration, he is actually saying something quite profound (at least it would've been, had the direction not been clear already). It really doesn't matter what the UK Parliament and Supreme Court decides at any given point in time about immigration policy. The rules must be mutually recognised and "justiciable" by the ECJ or an equivalent international body that isn't the UK Supreme Court, otherwise there is no basis for an international treaty. The scope of arbitration can vary between treaties, of course (e.g. ECJ for EEA vs. EFTA Court for EFTA), but the EU has so far been very clear that freedom of movement is involiable, i.e. within the scope of the founding treaties.

It not profound at all, the EU is pretty flexible when it comes to treaties. Switzerland is different to Norway. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but also has bilateral agreements with the EU as well which are not subject to any court. There would be no point in setting up a court for a transitional deal, it would simply be a bilateral treaty. It's also pretty clear that a transitional deal will involve an agreement on the freedom of movement similar to Switzerland. Of course the UK government could claim they have sovereign control, but as soom as they introduce changes to restrict immigration it will be met with punitive trade sanctions from the EU commission.