– being a compilation of instant, sometimes off-the-cuff reactions to the day-to-day Brexit saga ……
A deadline for Brexit? Great idea!
14/11/2017. Amazing to hear the British government wishes to fix a deadline for Brexit, while the rebels (generally against the whole Brexit concept) argue against. Meantime the EU establishments watch in amazement; they want a fixed deadline! Why? There are European Parliament elections coming up, not to mention the appointment of a new Commission. Who wants the complications of Brexit added to that mix? Um ….
Opinion is not the same as fact – a distinction worth remembering
21/10/2017. Time and again I hear some ‘news’ report on Brexit, with a failure to distinguish between fact and the reporter’s own interpretation. I’m not surprised that politicians are picking up on Donald Trump’s lead, and starting to label every inconvenient truth as ‘fake news’. In my younger years the distinction between fact and opinion was a clear one, and able to be heard in every BBC news report – in fact it was one of the characteristics that made the BBC so respected around the world for its accuracy in news reporting. Nowaways when I hear some young reporter ask a leading question (and the BBC is not immune), I begin to doubt their abilities as well as those of their news organisation. It is a very fine line between fact and propaganda, and we cross it at our peril. Blurring the distinction between fact and opinion, even by as little as leading the speaker in order to get the headline you want, plays into the hands of those who would discredit all news groups that they do not control. So please, remember the distinction between fact and opinion; it is a boundary that you blur at your peril.
Brexit could be delayed? Next Euro elections are 2019
24/07/2017. Unfortunately, Andrew, we may have to make a start before knowing the destination: We can’t prepare to leave Europe until we know where we’re going. Or, come 2019, prepare for the election of a whole new batch of MEPs (who would face being in place for a short time only – seldom an attractive career proposition for politicians).
What about all those Brits in Brussels?
24/07/2017. Recent conversations have elicited some of the concerns about Brexit felt by the many (thousands of) British citizens working for the European institutions, particularly those in the Commiission (Parliamentarians know their careers would end at some point anyway – such is the fate of politicians).
Many Brits in the Commission are worried about their likely fate. You might be tempted to say that, with their comfortable salaries and discounted tax, ‘my heart bleeds for them.’ But here are people who have worked hard for the benefit of the EU for many years. And they would find it very hard to return to a Britain that has suffered more than a decade of austerity, even if the Civil Service was able (or wished) to find jobs for all of them.
Despite the united front that the staff unions try to present in discussions with Commissioner Oettinger, the concerns of British staff are not helped by the attitude of certain of their (French and Italian) colleagues, who seem to feel that since the European budget will shrink with the loss of Britain’s contribution, then losing the Commission’s British staff will help towards balancing the books (or, less charitably, your countrymen caused this problem, now you can suffer).
Also, because Commission officials do not pay the full rate of Belgian tax or social security, they are not entitled to claim Belgian citizenship (or that of Luxembourg, Italy, or other EU countries hosting Commission institutions) after working in the country for over five years. They have to rely on their British citizenship only.
Yet clearly the Commission cannot sack thousands of officials in one go. Apart from the large-scale disruption that such an act would cause, it would very likely end up, eventually, in the European Court of Human Rights. So, what to do?
A decision from the European Commission does not depend on any commitment from the UK government. This is a matter solely for the EU, and fundamentally for the Commission itself. Therefore, it must be down to the Commission to make a decision and commit to the future of its staff, many of whom do actually remain loyal to the European ideal (or experiment, or whatever you want to call it).
Delaying a decision, merely as a bargaining counter in the Brexit negotiations, does not reflect well on the Commission’s posture as a promoter of human rights and responsible employment practices. So come on Commissioner Oettinger, how about a commitment to looking after your staff?
Brexit – options and consequences from a financial perspective (Robeco)
10/07/2017. Financial advisers Robeco have published an analysis of the options and consequences of Brexit. Written mainly from a financial point of view and with a marked bias toward the ‘Remain’ camp, it has little analysis of the real political or social drivers of Brexit. It is however an interesting assessment of likely initial financial consequences (despite the annoyingly selective use of Winston Churchill quotes).
EU ‘Associate Citizenship’ a possibility?
08/07/2017. Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans has released a new report that explores how UK citizens could retain EU citizenship after Brexit. The report on the potential for ‘Associate Citizenship’ was produced by a team at Swansea University led by Professor Volker Roeben. Since EU citizenship includes the right to travel, live and work anywhere in the EU and covers a range of standard EU benefits, the prospect of losing them is exercising minds.
Jill Evans comments, “On the EU side, there is a lot of support in principle for the idea of ‘associate citizenship’ ….. The European Parliament’s resolution proposes to “examine how to mitigate [the loss of citizens’ rights] within the limits of Union primary law”.
Consider the freelancers – keep regulations simple
29/06/2017. As Brexit begins, European Parliament MEPs appear to be following the European Commission line, that the initial UK Brexit offer on the residence status of EU citizens and UK expats is inadequate. Apparently however, few of the negotatiors have yet considered tbe position of ‘atypical workers’, aka the precariat or freelance sector.
As usual, the politicos have put their focus on full-time staff like themselves in clearly structured employment, albeit over staff from other EU countries. Hopefully (and I live in hope), they are also considering the position of the many UK and EU pensioners.
But for the ever-growing army of freelancers with a vested interest in residence status, such as journalists, IT specialists, building contractors or just plain employment hopefuls, we have not yet even entered the equation!
In a sector where people already struggle to earn enough to cover their accommodation costs, let alone cope with additional regulations, perhaps the bureaucrats, once they remember we exist, should try to remember to keep new laws as simple as possible.
Investing in smuggling could be a good thing post-Brexit
15/06/2017. Many (of us) are as concerned about the post-Brexit status of British citizens in the EU as that of EU citizens in the UK. You’d think that UK gov could show generosity and say all existing EU residents can stay, thus embarassing the EU institutions into making a corresponding gesture (the European Parliament now has four committees looking at just this issue).
Sadly there’s little sign of today’s politicians showing any vision amongst all the backbiting; it feels like we’re just pawns in a real-life Game of Thrones.
It would be interesting to know, for example, the stated view of Spain’s government on granting EU residency status to its (many) existing British residents. However that country is likely to use such concerns as part of its power play over Gibraltar.
As things are at the outset of Brexit, we can look forward to seeing hard EU borders appear both in Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, despite the differing attitudes of Eire (cooperative) and Spain (intransigence) to Brexit border negotiations.
I predict a growth in smuggling at both places, which means that local border authorities need to start improving their capabilities. But if it was possible to invest in an organisation such as ‘Smuggling Inc.’, I would probably go for it.