hotShot, on 2017-October-13, 16:25, said:
Britain's vote made it clear they don't want to pay , they don't want the EU regulations and they don't want EU citizens to come an work in Britain.
But they want free access to the common market.
There are about 60 Billion that Britain had agreed on paying for future projects prior to the Brexit vote.
There are EU citizens in Britain and British citizens in other EU countries.
One would have expected that those who wanted the Brexit would have a plan or better a suggestion how to solve those issues.
A pessimistic EU would expect that a hard Brexit means no more money from GB, and lots of people coming home.
So they want that solved first.
I suspect this might be the common perception of the situation in mainland EU. However, I feel some of it is not true.
A.
...they don't want to pay, they don't want the EU regulations & they don't want EU citizens to come an work in Britain. But they want free access to the common market.
The "don't want to pay" is not Govt policy (at least it wasn't until recently). Originally, the UK Govt seemed willing to pay in a reasonable price; for access to EU markets, and for previously committed EU projects.
The crucial issue is "how much?". The press quoted figures of EUR 120bn-220bn, allegedly "non-negotiable". The UK used to contribute approx EUR 16bn per year and UK institutions / regions got a variety of grants totalling EUR 6bn per year -- so in effect the UK is being asked to finance the next 12-22 years of net contributions as exit costs!
B.
There are EU citizens in Britain and British citizens in other EU countries.
Again, not a problem in principle. As per my cursory study of the document on EU negotiating position
The EU wants for all EU citizens in the UK to get:
(a)
Full settled rights -- No problem, this makes sense.
(b)
To anyone coming over till the day of Brexit (29-Mar-19 or later if exit is delayed) -- Some may object but so far nothing weird about the request.
©
And to any EU citizen who may have been resident in the past but no longer resides in the UK; to apply to resettle any time in the future. FYI, the law for non-EU nationals is: If a permanent residence visa holder leaves the country for two whole years, he/she automatically loses all rights given by the PR visa. While the principle behind EU's demand for resettlement is not totally unreasonable, it would have been sensible to permit UK the right to impose some limitations on what qualifies & what doesn't.
d)
Also apply to spouses/partners, children and dependants regardless of when they arrive in future -- i.e. akin to saying "my Grandma was an EU citizen who lived in the UK between 2012-2018, so in the year 2030 I (a national of X) automatically have rights to live in the UK" -- Getting weird already.
(e)
If there are any disputes, the final arbiter on whether some person can remain or not in the UK will be decided by the European Court of Justice & not the UK courts --- absolutely crazy!! This basically implies that UK courts are too easily influenced or not independent & so cannot be trusted to get the decisions right!
This is nothing short of haughty contempt and disdain of long-established British institutions.
I agree with your statement:
C.
One would have expected that those who wanted the Brexit would have a plan or better a suggestion how to solve those issues.
It's evident that the UK is woefully under-prepared entering into these negotiations; and it is obvious to many that M. Barnier is more forceful and impressive in his press briefings.
I do want to add one small point: The strongly anti-EU Mr. Varoufakis once said on British TV "The UK will spend the next two years negotiating
their right to negotiate". If I recall he said that EU will create so many hurdles and obstacles in the procedural matters that substantive matters will never come to the forefront of any negotiations.
Help
