The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[baboon]

	Quote:	Dougal's Breakfast
	But no. To prove we're not racist, we have to open the doors to any random white northern European, while closing the doors to people who arguably have much more of a right to settle in the United Kingdom, and who - coincidentally, I'm sure - happen to be largely black or brown. If that's not fcked up thinking, I don't know what is.

Who says you have to close the doors to the others? There is absolutely nothing in the EU rules that forces the UK to do that. Only it's own sovereign rules.

The four freedoms of the single market do force the UK to be open to goods, services, people and capital to and from other single market members (and quite rightly imo) but do nothing to stop the UK accepting non-EU immigration

	Quote:	Dougal's Breakfast
	I never said it was lovely. But it is a fact that a Pakistani or a Jamaican is likely to have existing family links - with associated cultural links - in the United Kingdom that a Rumanian or a Lithuanian isn't likely to have.

Last I checked there's relatively few Rumanians or Lithuanians in the UK. There are plenty of Poles, a decent number of whom DO have family connections thanks to the number of Poles that came over in WW2 (including a great uncle of mine).

Oh and on the Pakistanis or Jamaicans with family links, the european convention on human rights contains some nice clauses on the right to family life which help quite a lot in bring families together despite the best efforts of the UK Home Office to deny them. The Brexit crew of course what to withdraw from the european convention on human rights.

[MusicChick]

Aren't legal immigrants already taken care of by a proper family ties legislature? I don't see discrimination there. What does any skin color have to do with it? Romanians or Lithuanians only come if they have a job offer, hasn't that been the case with outsourcing low but dependable manual labor until now (Poland, Hungary..)? Again, not linked to skin color, either. Czech and Polish pilots were offered asylum after WWII. Nurses, doctors go there because of a huge draft by English headhunters, aparently there was a shortage of qualified local UK staff! Again, no skin color involved, just good education.

[baboon]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	Aren't legal immigrants already taken care of by a proper family ties legislature?

Said ECHR and it's integration in English law which the Brexit crew want to overturn.

[snapsterone]

After listening to Tessy May`s rousing speech yesterday I have re-named Brussel Sprouts. They are now Boris Sprouts.

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	baboon
	Said ECHR and it's integration in English law which the Brexit crew want to overturn.

To what..Commonwealth and open borders that direction?

Rrrrright. Oh, I mean - very left, actually. Lol.

[baboon]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	To what..Commonwealth and open borders that dirrection? Rrrrright. Oh, I mean - very left, actually. Lol.

To whatever the current UK government want to have. Given ministerial comments in that direction I can pretty well guarantee the right to family life won't be there in its current form.

[Castro]

	Quote:	Dougal's Breakfast
	But no. To prove we're not racist, we have to open the doors to any random white northern European, while closing the doors to people who arguably have much more of a right to settle in the United Kingdom, and who - coincidentally, I'm sure - happen to be largely black or brown.

Agree with much of what you say DB but you cannot ignore the benefits of reciprocity. We also have the rights and freedoms to live and work wherever we want, from middle-class wine lovers in Bergerac to retired cabbies on the Costa del Sol.

As nice as India and Jamaica may be, I don't think I would want to live there

[marton]

	Quote:	Phos
	FMOP is the current battle line with Brexit in public discussions. Elsewhere, FMOP is driving the upsurge of right wing populism; AfD, Le Pen, Geert Wilders, etc. Of course it goes deeper. Ultimately, it is about national sovereignty.

Well first you wrote "FMOP is causing a lot of problems for the EU." and now you have given up on trying to justify that statement.

Then you wrote "FMOP is driving the upsurge of right wing populism; AfD, Le Pen, Geert Wilders," can you prove this?
There is nothing in the AFD manifesto or Wilder's twelve point plan about FMOP.

	Quote:
	National sovereignty strikes me as a universally recognised principle.

But all the EU member states voted otherwise, often supported by local referendums?

	Quote:
	Whereas the EU's 4 pillars are the ideals of the organisation.

But all the EU member states voted for this, often supported by local referendums?

	Quote:
	The EU really needs to consider whether or not its 4 pillars is really delivering intended value to its members.

Such considerations have to be considered, proposed and voted on by the member states if they do not believe the intended value is being delivered to its members.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Phos
	The holder of said principle gets to decide that, which is sovereignty by definition.

More bollocks. You're suggesting that if the EU holds different principles to you they're less important, even though as holders of their own principles they get to decide what is important or not.

[marton]

	Quote:	Dougal's Breakfast
	EU immigrants still get unfair privileges, even if they do make up less than 50% of immigrants to the United Kingdom. It's a matter of principle, not numbers. I never said it was lovely. But it is a fact that a Pakistani or a Jamaican is likely to have existing family links - with associated cultural links - in the United Kingdom that a Rumanian or a Lithuanian isn't likely to have. We can't just pretend that the Empire and the Commonwealth didn't exist. They shaped the United Kingdom just as they shaped India, Bangladesh, South Africa and elsewhere. Some acknowledgment of that wouldn't go amiss. But no. To prove we're not racist, we have to open the doors to any random white northern European, while closing the doors to people who arguably have much more of a right to settle in the United Kingdom, and who - coincidentally, I'm sure - happen to be largely black or brown. If that's not fcked up thinking, I don't know what is.

I agree with what you say but it has nothing to do with the EU.

It was the UK in the early 80's with the British Nationality Act in 1981 who withdrew "right of abode in the UK" from Commonwealth citizens along with a set of rules about which dates and which countries.

Commonwealth citizens in the UK also have "unfair privileges"; for example, they can vote and also stand for Parliament.

On reciprocity UK citizens do not have automatic "right of abode" in Commonwealth countries and Commonwealth citizens do not have automatic "right of abode" in other Commonwealth countries.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Castro
	Agree with much of what you say DB but you cannot ignore the benefits of reciprocity. We also have the rights and freedoms to live and work wherever we want, from middle-class wine lovers in Bergerac to retired cabbies on the Costa del Sol.

don't know how realistic the threat to that is.

I was in Spain over the new year and discussed the Brexit with Spanish friends and they were really concerned that Brits would stop coming to Spain. They were afraid all the income and economy connected with Brits buying homes and retiring there was at risk. There are entire towns that could just as well pack up and shut down and countless locals working in the building and hospitality trades, not to mention tax income and secondary contributions to the economy. A lot of the official talk is about Gibraltar and what will happen to it, but I think up and down the costas the futures of retirees is a bigger topic than that of a big rock that happens to be home to dodgy banks and that nobody else really cares about.

I would very much hope that no matter what else happens that Spain somehow hashes out a deal to protect its interests.

Then of course there is also the effect of a potentially weakened pound on Brits being able to holiday in Spain.

A lot of people there have every reason to be concerned.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Dougal's Breakfast
	EU immigrants still get unfair privileges, even if they do make up less than 50% of immigrants to the United Kingdom. It's a matter of principle, not numbers. I never said it was lovely. But it is a fact that a Pakistani or a Jamaican is likely to have existing family links - with associated cultural links - in the United Kingdom that a Rumanian or a Lithuanian isn't likely to have. We can't just pretend that the Empire and the Commonwealth didn't exist. They shaped the United Kingdom just as they shaped India, Bangladesh, South Africa and elsewhere. Some acknowledgment of that wouldn't go amiss.

Just off the top of my head, I know four people (including my OH) who hold dual nationality where one passport is EU and the other is Commonwealth. They all worked in the UK based upon FMOP using their EU passports, but are entitled to vote based upon their Commonwealth passports, and ll four see the loss of FMOP as an issue for them. Immigration isn't as compartmentalised as you might think it is.

The problem with Brexit and FMOP is that I believe a large proportion of the leave voters expected their European colleagues to have to leave the UK, which is unlikely, and many also expected to see fewer black and Asian faces in the street, which is definitely not going to happen.

Along these lines, from May's speech yesterday...

	Quote:
	We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can. I have told other EU leaders that we could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now. Many of them favour such an agreement; one or two others do not.

http://time.com/4636141/theresa-may-...ch-transcript/

Which one or two others would that be? Am I right in thinking that could be enough prevent the rights of UK citizens living in the EU being guaranteed?

Secondly...

	Quote:
	And when it comes to Parliament, there is one other way in which I would like to provide certainty. I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.

How many millions of tax payers money were wasted by May challenging the High Court judgement on this in the Supreme Court?

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	marton
	Then you wrote "FMOP is driving the upsurge of right wing populism; AfD, Le Pen, Geert Wilders," can you prove this?

I've no doubt that he could show that FMOP is one of the drivers of right wing populism, but it's certainly not the driver.

Even where it comes to immigration, backlash has come for two different and largely exclusive reasons; cultural incompatibility and economic competition. The former is a reaction to parallel cultures forming and has almost completely involved Muslim and sub-Saharan immigration. The latter is immigration with the right to work, undercutting the local, typically semi skilled, labour market.

FMOP only really affects the latter as the former would not really be driven by EU citizens - AfD, Le Pen and Geert Wilders all mainly campaign against the latter. Having said this, as happened in here with the quotas initiative a few years ago, the electorate can end up confusing the two - quite a few voted in favour of quotas here thinking it would mean "fewer Yugos".

[Phos]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	More bollocks. You're suggesting that if the EU holds different principles to you they're less important, even though as holders of their own principles they get to decide what is important or not.

Said bollocks is what is determining the course of UK's actions, which is what will put EU principles back on the shelf.

[marton]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	I've no doubt that he could show that FMOP is one of the drivers of right wing populism, but it's certainly not the driver. Even where it comes to immigration, backlash has come for two different and largely exclusive reasons; cultural incompatibility and economic competition. The former is a reaction to parallel cultures forming and has almost completely involved Muslim and sub-Saharan immigration. The latter is immigration with the right to work, undercutting the local, typically semi skilled, labour market. FMOP only really affects the latter as the former would not really be driven by EU citizens - AfD, Le Pen and Geert Wilders all mainly campaign against the latter. Having said this, as happened in here with the quotas initiative a few years ago, the electorate can end up confusing the two - quite a few voted in favour of quotas here thinking it would mean "fewer Yugos".

Yes, many people are unable to distinguish the differences between refugees, non EU immigrants, FMOP and Schengen and this is exploited in "populism".

[marton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Just off the top of my head, I know four people (including my OH) who hold dual nationality where one passport is EU and the other is Commonwealth. They all worked in the UK based upon FMOP using their EU passports, but are entitled to vote based upon their Commonwealth passports, and ll four see the loss of FMOP as an issue for them. Immigration isn't as compartmentalised as you might think it is. The problem with Brexit and FMOP is that I believe a large proportion of the leave voters expected their European colleagues to have to leave the UK, which is unlikely, and many also expected to see fewer black and Asian faces in the street, which is definitely not going to happen. Along these lines, from May's speech yesterday... http://time.com/4636141/theresa-may-...ch-transcript/ Which one or two others would that be? Am I right in thinking that could be enough prevent the rights of UK citizens living in the EU being guaranteed? Secondly... How many millions of tax payers money were wasted by May challenging the High Court judgement on this in the Supreme Court?

"Which one or two others would that be? Am I right in thinking that could be enough prevent the rights of UK citizens living in the EU being guaranteed?"

No, according to Art. 50 the Brexit deal requires a "qualified majority" not 100% agreement, that is reserved for trade deals

Frankly I do not believe May that one or two countries are blocking the rights of UK citizens living in the EU being guaranteed.
Firstly because of the "qualified majority" already mentioned and secondly the real reason for this is due to the firm statements from all member states that they will not negotiate anything before Art. 50 is invoked.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Phos
	Said bollocks is what is determining the course of UK's actions, which is what will put EU principles back on the shelf.

No it's not. You've stated your theory, not bothered to back it up and now you're presuming we've all accepted it because you said so. Go sell your nonsense elsewhere - like at a BNP rally.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	Frankly I do not believe May that one or two countries are blocking the rights of UK citizens living in the EU being guaranteed. Firstly because of the "qualified majority" already mentioned and secondly the real reason for this is due to the firm statements from all member states that they will not negotiate anything before Art. 50 is invoked.

So on what basis would EU officials be able to guarantee the rights of UK citizens within the EU??? They current have that right under the treaty of Rome which they loose once the UK departs. The only way that that can change is if the treaty is changed and the requires all states to agree, the parliament to agree and positive referenda in France, Ireland and Denmark...

As for the qualified majority, do you serious expect that the long term members of the EU are going to but their relationship at risk for the same of a third country????

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	So on what basis would EU officials be able to guarantee the rights of UK citizens within the EU??? They current have that right under the treaty of Rome which they loose once the UK departs. The only way that that can change is if the treaty is changed and the requires all states to agree, the parliament to agree and positive referenda in France, Ireland and Denmark... As for the qualified majority, do you serious expect that the long term members of the EU are going to but their relationship at risk for the same of a third country????

Art. 50 states the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal,taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

It seems that the EU acting by a qualified majority could guarantee the rights of UK citizens within the EU?

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	Art. 50 states the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal,taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. It seems that the EU acting by a qualified majority could guarantee the rights of UK citizens within the EU?

The plan sounds a bit speculative to me.