Westminstenders: The 3 Million get their first offer.

[RedToothBrush]

The UK have finally put forward their proposals for EU citizens living in the UK. These 'bargaining chips' have been offered a 'generous deal' which is nothing of the sort.

For an in depth look at what it means this is a good summary:
Analysis: what is the UK proposing for EU citizens in the UK and EU citizens in the EU?
This is written by a leading immigration law blogger.

What they suggest, is this is probably what will happen in the event of a no deal situation and that hopefully there can be a better final deal. That does seem to be backed by the comments about EU citizens not needing to do anything now (including apply to remain under existing rules under the 85page document) although they are telling the civil service to prepare for a no deal situation. But who knows? Who can trust them?

What we should all be paying close attention to is not just the detail of this, but the language around it.

Numerous politicians have said that they will wait and see what the EU proposal is, even though it has been out for a couple of weeks. This is an effort to discredit and smear the EU.

This comes after Davis had suggested that the UK had achieved a 'victory' by getting the EU to 'agree' to put citizens rights at the time of priorities to be dealt with, even though it was also the top priority for the EU who refuse to talk about anything else until the matter is settled. Everything is being couched as a victory, even if its merely agreeing with the EU and constitutes a compromise by the UK and a row back from previous comments.

Also flying about a lot is confusion over the ECJ and the EHCR. Some of it is ignorant. Some of it is an effort to discredit and smear the ECJ to force a harder Brexit.

The EU position can be found here: EU proposals for post Brexit EU/UK citizens
It is essentially to preserve ALL current rights.

The UK position is to reduce EU citizens rights. This would also enable them to reduce UK citizens rights in the longer term, so what happens here, isn't just about EU nationals rights its also about UK nationals living in the UK.

Of course the proposals also have more significance for UK citizens living in the EU. The UK government have frequently suggested their use of bargaining chips was to help UK citizens living abroad. What has been put on the table could not be further from the truth. The government is quite happy to screw over UK citizens living in the EU. Probably because they are traitors.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to a deal is who oversees it all. The UK want it all done purely by UK courts. This is NOT going to happen (unless we have a no deal). There is no way the EU will compromise on this, due to our dreadful track record in deportations with unlawful behaviour and lack of regard for family life. (Thanks Theresa). Systems on the table as an alternative to the ECJ are a new court system - perhaps even merely one with the same judges but with a different name to appease a ignorant British public - or arbitration which is unlikely as it tends to be for states and not businesses or individuals.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses as it should give a good idea of how much we will compromise.

Its also been pointed out that the paper on EU citizens have been the first public document on Brexit which has had any substance. If I was a cynic I might say that Davis is sitting on his arse waiting for the EU to publish their proposals before and merely copying the EU's homework and making changes to it. If that happens to really be the case, then its perhaps a good thing, as our lot really are bloody useless and have no idea what they are talking about.

One thing that has long confused me: How does Corbyn being pro hard Brexit fit with his views on the north of Ireland?

He voted for the GFA (and against Maggie's Anglo Irish agreement, but that's understandable). He has more understanding of the underlying issues for both sides than most of the rest of parliament, and also at least some sympathy for the nationalist position in my opinion.

Now, the fervent republican cynics of my acquaintance think that the harder the Brexit, the worst the short term consequences for the north, and therefore the chances of getting a united Ireland will increase. So they will show gleeful outrage and anger at every step towards a hard Brexit and a physical border. I don't support that position, because what they actually mean is an end to the GFA and return to civil war in between the hard brexit and a referendum. And Corbyn is also a pacifist, as I understand it, and also wouldn't want that.

I suspect that Corbyn has warring opinions within himself over what is right. Which isn't a comfortable position for a human of conviction to be in. And I think it comes out in his party's attitude to Brexit.

One thing I'm sure of - if JC were in charge of Brexit, he would engage with, listen to and deeply consider the people of the north on both sides of the sectarian divide.

But the Tories, in league with the DUP, are doing the total opposite. For example, one solution to avoid a physical border is to ignore what people and goods travel between north and south, (either with a side-deal with ROI, or literally just turning a blind eye, as is done with so many other if things in the north, for the sake of peace.) And then to have customs and passport checks once people leave the island of Ireland to come to the UK. Unionists hate that idea of course. And there is no way the DUP will allow the Tories to consider it - they'd bring them down rather than have that go through. But they only hate it as much as nationalists living near the border hate the idea of a physical border, and it should be in the mix of options.

there is no group of people anywhere else in the European Union who believes that Britain leaving without a deal is good for anyone.

Which is why all the political posturing about No deal and "Tory hard Brexit" is pointless. The EU want a decent deal as much as we do and in reality, as discussed earlier, the key players don't want us back in holding up integration.

Valentine - as I understand it, one of the big attractions of leaving the EU for Corbyn/McDonnell etc is that continuing membership would make it very difficult to renationalise industries such as railways and the utilities. Member states that have these industries already under state ownership are (somewhat reluctantly) allowed to continue to keep them but it would break anti-competition rules to bring these industries under state control from private ownership.

For Corbyn and his supporters, the aim of state-owned infrastructure is of much higher priority than retaining the benefits of EU membership. Much as I'd like cheap train travel, I tend to disagree and, even if I felt that strongly about renationalisation, leaving the EU will very probably mean that the UK's credit rating sinks to a level where financing state ownership will become impossible .

There was at least one poster who was convinced that you already had to show passports to leave N Ireland to come to GB - based on the fact that airlines insist on ID, and Ryanair in particular insists on passports. Ryanair and others also insist on ID on flights within GB but it's not law.

Corbyn isn't against the principal of a united Ireland.

Also worth pointing out that the SF constituencies all border the republic... Which has potential for a third relatively undiscussed option appearing.

For example, one solution to avoid a physical border is to ignore what people and goods travel between north and south, (either with a side-deal with ROI, or literally just turning a blind eye, as is done with so many other if things in the north, for the sake of peace.)

The UK and ROI already have / had this arrangement prior to both joining the EU. I don't understand why anyone, especially soft Brexit minded DUP, would object to returning to it. That is why I am bemused at why NI is seen as a stumbling block. I think it much more likely that it is there, in the same way as EU nationals rights are, to give some easy wins in the negotiating process for both sides.

Very far from being inside JC's head, but I do share a lot of his tendencies so that is my tuppence worth Sommerville.

Holidays in Europe might never be the same. Without our little red passports we might well be subject to this

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/06/30-entry-exit-system/
Entry-exit system: Council confirms agreement between Presidency and European Parliament on main political provisions

Member states that have these industries already under state ownership are (somewhat reluctantly) allowed to continue to keep them but it would break anti-competition rules to bring these industries under state control from private ownership.

I am not sure that this is the case - the East coast main line got taken back into state ownership, made a profit, so it had to be privatised again.

The UK and ROI already have / had this arrangement prior to both joining the EU. I don't understand why anyone, especially soft Brexit minded DUP, would object to returning to it.

The UK and the RoI did indeed have a common travel arrangement prior to the EU but this very much didn't exist between the RoI and NI where crossing the border could be a long-winded and, on roads with army checkpoints, an intimidating affair (I did this journey a couple of times in the 80s, not much fun having an automatic shotgun pointed at you while you fumble for your passport).

I don't understand why anyone, especially soft Brexit minded DUP, would object to returning to it. That is why I am bemused at why NI is seen as a stumbling block.

Because they're opposed to anything that makes someone in Belfast feel or seem less British than someone who lives in Bath, Bangor or

The UK and ROI already have / had this arrangement prior to both joining the EU. I don't understand why anyone, especially soft Brexit minded DUP, would object to returning to it.

But these existing arrangements did not stop The Troubles breaking out, so it can't be as easy as you imply.

Anna Soubry @ anna_soubry
Spot on @jameschappers Govt must drop absolutist approach to #Brexit staying in #Euratom wld be part of a responsible #Brexit

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/01/china-humiliating-uk-hong-kong-handover-deal
China 'humiliating' the UK by scrapping Hong Kong handover deal, say activists
Pro-democracy leaders say Britain has ‘legal, moral and political responsibility’ to stand up to Beijing

Sad truth. Brexit and Trump mean we have little influence nor ability to champion and defend democracy in HK as Europe and USA have no obligations to us. Consumed by other sovereignty issues we have neither the time nor interest in HK.

A sign we are no longer a world player.

howabout that's completely untrue. Prior to 1993 there were border forces in operation, people and goods weren't simply ignored. Passports were often required for people travelling between the two and sometimes fees though not necessary under the terms of cta.

I am finding a lot of mixed messages online regarding the impact of EU nationalisation on the possibility of renationalising the railways. I am no expert, but my understanding is that there is nothing to say the railways can't be state run but that they must not be a state manopoly and that any state run system must be competitive. Now the real question is how you choose a winner in a competitive tender system? Anyone who has been involved in tenders will know that how you write the tender documents and weighting is everything. There is nothing to stop a state run option winning the tenders in this scenario (in fact they already do across other sectors in the UK), so I just don't see the EU as a block in this regard.

As mentioned before I don't agree that Corbyn is hard Brexit these days. During the referendum campaigning he talked well on the issues with Europe and his view that on balance he now believed we were better of in than out. Not a simple "the EU is awesome" message, but hardly shouting for a hard Brexit. To be honest I think at most he is ambivalent and would take stay or leave as his primary agenda is internal issues around austerity and social service, which he believes he can deal with either way. If anything I think it will be easier for him to get much of what he wants in the EU as his policies are pretty mainstream for a lot of European countries.

The nationalisation of the East Coast mainline was only ever seen as a temporary measure - if memory serves, it was only meant to last about a year - because the franchise owner withdrew. It was a transitional deal until it could be retendered.

On a separate note, does anyone remember the furore when the government took over Railtrack in the 2000s after it failed as a company? The shareholders started group actions demanding more money for their (worthless) shares - imagine the difficulty in buying out many different rail operators some of which are owned by huge and very powerful overseas companies.

How is the UK going to stand up to Beijing? Do we have any gunboats we can send? What about all those lovely trade deals that we are going to do, are we going to endanger those?

So trying to piece it together - Labour has the support of the younger vote, which tended to be Remain. Paid up supporters tended to be Remain. The Labour vote in those 'heartlands' which tended to vote Leave, didn't go and desert to the Tories/UKIP in large numbers - barring a few exceptions. So Labour can sit on the fence a bit, but gradually skew the narrative. Peregrina

I agree with analysis of the election and Liz Kendal said as much on This Week. She also pointed out that having won over the under 45s Labour still had work to do with the traditional Labour older vote. That is why agreeing with the analysis I come to the opposite conclusion. For Labour to win over the 60 or so seats more it needs to regain not just hold on in heartlands. Labour held on because they got the benefit of the doubt on Lexit with their clear commitment to end FoM and while wanting Brexit voters wanted to bring the anti-austerity agenda forward. Given how little support there was for Chuka and which MPs in which seats it came from it looks like the PLP are shaping their tactics with this in mind.

It is a bit difficult to take the uni educated metropolitan "winners" voting Left in the interests of everyone else narrative, when everyone else is not convinced.

The shareholders started group actions demanding more money for their (worthless) shares - imagine the difficulty in buying out many different rail operators some of which are owned by huge and very powerful overseas companies.

Do they need to be bought out? Is the simplest solution just to wait until the Contracts expire?

Hashi as I understand it the border controls were not about stopping FoM or imposing tariffs?

howabout The border was there for customs checks. I have a dim recollection of tariffs but have forgotten the details.

It wasn't to stop FoM. There was never an obligation to show a passport until the 70's when British soldiers started asking for ID - especially of those of us who 'smelled Catholic' (direct quote from an experience of mine as a child in the '80's).

Assuming no-one's stupid enough to impose another manned border, then the question is how to identify and stop an EU national (other than Irish, who will presumably still be welcome in U.K.) who goes from ROI to the north and then into Britain by boat or plane with no passport control at any stage.

I suspect that allowing that under the 'turn a blind eye to keep the peace' unspoken rule for the north of Ireland would be a step too far for Brexiteers?

Precisely somerville. And the halfway house of the uk mainland becoming the border disenfranchises the NI Brits and has issues for their trade with the mainland.

Sean Jones @ SeanJonesQC
Lab and Con leadership agree on FoM, SM and CU. But Labour calls it "Brexit for jobs" so its version is better. Even if it destroys jobs.

The big swings to labour in my local areas did not come from lexiters, how, they came from students and remainers under 40. The few lexiters I know stuck with labour because of their anti-austerity policies which were more important to them than Brexit. Brexit was really not a big issue for them.

Labour are stuck between a rock and a hard place which is why I think they will struggle to gain a decent majority anytime soon. In trying to please everyone they are at great risk of disappointing them too.

Those student voters will not be happy if they graduate into a recession which labour supported.....

Sorry this is long but it is one politician willing to be clear on what they propose

Statement from Vince Cable on his position on Brexit, including business and trade and FOM

"BREXIT
Since declaring my intention to stand for the Liberal Democrat leadership I have been overwhelmed by messages of support. In the strong liberal tradition I have also received a great many questions about my vision for the country and the party. The first and most immediate issue on all our minds is the UK’s future relationship with the European Union, and I therefore welcome the very direct questions from party members on this subject.
I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Democrats, the most internationalist of parties, and I wholly subscribe to the statement of beliefs set out in the preamble to the party constitution, including our commitment to ‘fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services’.
I possess liberal views on immigration and its economic and cultural benefits. I married into an Asian family and I have spent much of my life battling anti-immigrant prejudice.
I have been a supporter of the European project and Britain’s role in it for over half a century. I was and am a Remainer. I support and promote our party’s policy of a referendum at the end of the Brexit process on the terms of the deal as finally negotiated, including the option of remaining within the EU – an option which I strongly endorse and would campaign for.
I specifically support the aims of the single market and its four freedoms – the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. I spent five years in government as Business Secretary evangelising for it, and on the 29th of June, at the end of the debate on the Queen’s Speech, I voted with all my Liberal Democrat colleagues and 90 members of other parties to keep Britain a full member of it. If Brexit is to go ahead, maintaining membership of the single market should be our negotiating objective – a position which we must champion as Labour betrays, once again, its Remain supporters.
I am not, however, a free market fundamentalist; I believe that the four freedoms must take account of wider social concerns at the national level. I believe, for example, that while the freedom of movement of capital can be beneficial, it must be constrained – a position which the party has long supported. I worked, for example, with Emmanuel Macron, when he was my opposite number, to restrict the ease of corporate take-overs.
I believe in free trade, but I worked in government to stop a narrow interpretation of EU public procurement rules, in order to enable supply chain factors – such as local sourcing – to be promoted within the UK’s industrial strategy.
I have observed that other member states impose restrictions on free movement. Germany, for example, restricts the free movement of professional staff. It seems entirely reasonable to look at ways through which the UK can remain within the single market – and, I hope, the European Union – but manages migration in a way that better deals with some of the real social impacts on local communities. I have suggested a variety of options, including restricting admission to those with jobs to come to. The failure to consider reforms of this kind may well have contributed to the Brexit vote.
I believe that Brexit would be a disaster for Britain, but we have to recognise that we lost the vote last year. If we can help to prevent it, even at this late stage, by looking in an open-minded way at reforms such as these, it seems to me that the prize is worth the effort.
One final point: one of the great strengths of the party I hope to lead is that its policy is set through discussion and debate to which any party member can contribute – not imposed from the top down like the Conservatives or, increasingly, Labour. The leader has the right, and the duty, to put forward his or her views and to debate them with party members in an open and positive way, but at the end of the day it is the party, not the leader, which decides our policy – and that is entirely right.