Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
And as for the casual dismissal of "trivial" reasons for migrating, what about, for example, a UK citizen that meets a partner in, say, Romania on holiday? Brexit and the end to FoM means that it's difficult for them to get together: the only reliable solution is for both to live in Ireland, which requires both of them to leave their home country and give up their job. (It's just as well that the UK does still have FoM to Ireland, otherwise there would be no reliable solution at all). But I suppose the Brexiter attitude is simply to suggest only getting together with someone of your own nationality - and why I think Farage, with his German wife, met during the EEC/EU era, is particularly hypocritical in this respect.
The UK citizen would do exactly the same as they would if they met a partner from, say, South Africa or Phillipines or USA. Why should a partner from an EU country be treated any better or worse?
Well, 37% of them of course (and discounting EU citizens who were banned from participating, despite the whole question impacting them more than anyone else)!
37% (including the non-voters) isn't a mandate for radical change, though I would have certainly accepted a Norway arrangement. Complete lack of compromise, with not a single concession being made to remainers, is my big, big problem and I know, from other posters on here and people I speak to privately, that I am not alone.
My problem with simple-majority referenda is exactly the same as my problem with FPTP. Both completely sideline and ignore large sections of the population. Thanks to our electoral system, in 2020s Britain, only Tory voters and Brexiters count, it seems. "The tyranny of the largest minority".
If you can vote, but don't vote, then there is no reason for your view to be considered. The referendum was amongst UK citizens for an issue affecting the UK. There was no reason for including EU citizens, whether they were affected or not. Mere residency does not confer right of participation. UK citizens living in other EU countries did not get to vote in those countries Referendums or central Government elections, even though those decisions may affect them. Take out citizenship if you want to participate.
Yes, democracy can and does ignore large sections of the population. All over the world. Nothing that can be done if there is no or little consensus between large blocks of the population wanting complete opposites on a particular question. No concession could be made to the remainers on Single Market/Customs Union and therefore FoM because either a country is in, or out. The Norway arrangement is nothing - in the EU in all but name. Remainers equally were not prepared to compromise with the Brexiters. Works both ways.
The UK citizen would do exactly the same as they would if they met a partner from, say, South Africa or Phillipines or USA. Why should a partner from an EU country be treated any better or worse?
what about, for example, a UK citizen that meets a partner in, say, Romania on holiday? Brexit and the end to FoM means that it's difficult for them to get together:
My answer is that they would have to do the same as if they met a partner on holiday in any other part of the world. Why should Romania be any different to South Africa etc...
To be honest, I don't think Brexit has gone that badly - at least, post 2020. It hasn't been a smooth ride, but it is a massive change in the UK's regulatory framework and trading/political status - arguably the biggest single change for the UK in many decades: And huge political changes never go smoothly - real life and real World problems always get in the way. Given the magnitude of the change, nothing unusually bad has happened and life is largely continuing just as normal for almost all of us. The ceiling really hasn't caved in and the country hasn't collapsed in the way that a lot of ardent Remainers seem to want to pretend it has.
Completely solved the problem of very high ongoing net EU migration - which was a serious problem that really did need to be solved. I'm particularly happy that meant we could then be much more flexible with helping people from Ukraine and Hong Kong - who arguably did need the help
The potential for the UK to develop laws and regulations in a way that suits the UK rather than going along with laws that are designed more for continental Europe (although due to inertia/politics/Government incompetence/whatever, that remains a potential that the UK Government hasn't yet really taken advantage of).
UK , if it wants to have healthy economy will be following EU rules and regulations , whether you like it or not . Simply not worth doing otherwise , especially for any business that wants to sell anything to EU, which is UK’s biggest market .
Lots of short term regulatory teething problems that caused pain to businesses as they adapted, plus similar admin burden on existing EU citizens resident in the UK who had to sort out paperwork.
Government half-paralysed between 2016 and 2020 as politicians argued about the nature of Brexit (I would say, caused by having the referendum without a clear idea upfront what Brexit meant plus politicians on both sides (Brexit and Remain) being too intransigent about what they wanted
I do think it's somewhat ironic that, after 4 years of political wrangling after 2016, we basically ended up with - broadly - the only Brexit arrangements that were ever going to be feasible given our and the EU's red lines. There was really no way we were ever going to get a Brexit deal substantially different in principle from the one we actually got - so we could've saved ourselves a huge amount of bother if MPs had just accepted what was inevitable and got on with it after the referendum.
Or you could start from an alternative view, which is that radical and risky change requires a strong mandate (and I would include things that I am more sympathetic towards, such as Scottish independence, here too) and should require an absolute majority of all the electorate to pass. In this scenario, a non-vote should be considered as a "no change" vote by default - whatever the issue.
The referendum was amongst UK citizens for an issue affecting the UK. There was no reason for including EU citizens, whether they were affected or not.
You honestly believe that? Of course there was a reason for including EU citizens living in the UK long-term, because they would be potentially affected more than anyone else.
Mere residency does not confer right of participation. UK citizens living in other EU countries did not get to vote in those countries Referendums or central Government elections, even though those decisions may affect them. Take out citizenship if you want to participate.
But no EU countries have, AFAIK, had any referenda affecting UK citizens' right to live there. Also, I don't think the "other countries don't do it, why should we?" argument is particularly strong; if other countries don't allow long-term foreign residents the vote, then they are also being unfair.
Yes, democracy can and does ignore large sections of the population. All over the world. Nothing that can be done if there is no or little consensus between large blocks of the population wanting complete opposites on a particular question. No concession could be made to the remainers on Single Market/Customs Union and therefore FoM because either a country is in, or out. The Norway arrangement is nothing - in the EU in all but name.
Many were, I suspect. I probably come across as a strong Remainer, yet I would have been happy with a Norway arrangement. And with such a tiny majority for Brexit, the only acceptable Brexit would have been a very soft one. Brexiters constantly go on about respecting the referendum result, but seem to be quite happy to justify a hard and militant Brexit on a tiny majority when arguably that, also, would not be respecting the referendum result. To me, a hard Brexit should require a two-thirds leave vote, or something of that order.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The UK citizen would do exactly the same as they would if they met a partner from, say, South Africa or Phillipines or USA. Why should a partner from an EU country be treated any better or worse?
Because they used to have that right, in some cases since 1973, and Brexit has taken it away from them. I do find that many Brexiters seem to lack the concept of "preservation of established rights".
Though I believe the rationale of @RT4038 to achieve fairness was to ban the whole world (except Ireland) equally - not open up immigration from the whole world. So Romanians are thus given equal treatment to every other country in the world outside of the UK and Ireland.
I would tend to disagree.
It's less bad for some to have rights, than for nobody to have rights.
Let's say a path passes through private land and is not available to the public, but is available to local residents. Such paths do actually exist, so this is not hypothetical. It might be an ideal solution to open it to the public, but if this is not possible, should access to local residents also be blocked in the interest of so-called 'fairness'?
Or you could start from an alternative view, which is that radical and risky change requires a strong mandate (and I would include things that I am more sympathetic towards, such as Scottish independence, here too) and should require an absolute majority of all the electorate to pass. In this scenario, a non-vote should be considered as a "no change" vote by default - whatever the issue.
Well you would say that, because you support UK EU membership and the vote went the other way by a whisker. If we had another vote soon (God forbid!) and 52% vote to rejoin the EU, with a 37% turnout, would you therefore support remaining outside the EU?
You honestly believe that? Of course there was a reason for including EU citizens living in the UK long-term, because they would be potentially affected more than anyone else.
But no EU countries have, AFAIK, had any referenda affecting UK citizens' right to live there. Also, I don't think the "other countries don't do it, why should we?" argument is particularly strong; if other countries don't allow long-term foreign residents the vote, then they are also being unfair.
Yes, I do believe it. You've got to be a member (citizen) of the club (the country) to take part in the vote. Pretty fundamental. If you are a long term guest (resident), then take out membership (citizenship). In the case of the EU membership referendum, those EU nationals already resident were not going to be affected by loss of FoM, as their status here was maintained.
It is not about fulfilling a technicality. There should not be a presumption that being in the EU is right and proper, and anyone who doesn't agree is somehow second class. Would you be happy if the UK rejoins the EU, but not be in the Single Market/Customs Union and not participating in FoM, but technically we are a member?
Because they used to have that right, in some cases since 1973, and Brexit has taken it away from them. I do find that many Brexiters seem to lack the concept of "preservation of established rights".
Preservation of existing rights is not sacrosanct. Never has been. I understand that you place a far greater priority on EU membership than I - I understand and sympathise with your position, but it is done now. Look forward, try to understand the Brexiter's position (instead of merely belittling it, which does not help) and try and find common ground and compromises of both your views and theirs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Though I believe the rationale of @RT4038 to achieve fairness was to ban the whole world (except Ireland) equally - not open up immigration from the whole world. So Romanians are thus given equal treatment to every other country in the world outside of the UK and Ireland.
I would tend to disagree.
It's less bad for some to have rights, than for nobody to have rights.
Let's say a path passes through private land and is not available to the public, but is available to local residents. Such paths do actually exist, so this is not hypothetical. It might be an ideal solution to open it to the public, but if this is not possible, should access to local residents also be blocked in the interest of so-called 'fairness'?
My point is not this at all. I know plenty of people with non EU partners. What special obstacles are there in the way of any Romanians (for instance) that may have been met, that are not faced by partners from countries that have never been in the EU?
I say once again, would slowing down the immigration not help? It does not require ending freedom of movement. Making FoM to the UK less attractive without banning it would surely achieve something? I've heard it said before that the EU does allow conditions to be attached to FoM, as long as there is not an outright ban.
And besides, to me there is something fundamentally and absolutely wrong about ending 50-year-old rights. To me it is completely unacceptable to do this.
So, because people used at one time to have the right to smoke anywhere, to own firearms, to drive without wearing a seatbelt, to employ children as chimney sweeps, etc. etc. they should keep those rights forever? I think those examples amply demonstrate the nonsense of any kind of argument that no right in law should ever be rescinded. Sometimes it becomes apparent that people having a right does too much harm to others, or to the wider community - as I believe was the case for FOM. (And don't get me wrong, as an idealistic principle I do like the idea of people being able to go anywhere. But quite simply it was causing too much harm).
Firstly to my mind Brexit has made life worse for UK citizens, on mutiple levels. Less freedom, both to movement and to trade. Life has been made more difficult. The UK is increasingly sidelined. To me, it seems obvious that the disadvantages of Brexit far, far outweigh any advantages.
Sure, I accept that's how you feel. But how does that justify your continually trying to make out that Brexiters aren't sincere in their beliefs? Do you not understand that different people can have different opinions and beliefs. For example, where you think the disadvantages of Brexit outweigh the benefits, I now think the opposite (having changed my mind since 2016). I disagree with you on that issue, but I don't doubt your sincerity in believing what you do. Can you not give people who think as I do the same consideration?
No, it's a fundamental principle. The market price (whether it be of rents, or the cost of anything else) is the price at which demand matches supply. If, because of legislation or any other means, you force the price to be below the market rate, then in normal circumstances that inevitably that means people will be trying to buy more of whatever it is than there is available to sell at that price: Because making the price lower invariably increases the number of people who want to buy and reduces the number of people willing to sell. You simply can't avoid that by any clever legislation or trickery. If you want the price to be lower, you HAVE to either increase supply (build more houses, for example) or reduce demand. For people wanting houses, it's pretty difficult to reduce demand but at least if we can reduce net migration, that'll stop demand increasing so quickly.
An example not related to Brexit: Council rents are usually deliberately set below market prices so that people can afford them. And it's no coincidence that there are always long waiting lists, where people have to wait - often for years - before they can get a council house. Those waiting lists are an inevitable result of setting rents that are below the market prices. (I'm not trying to get into an argument about council housing here: There are good reasons why councils want to charge lower rents. I'm simply pointing out that this demonstrates how supply and demand works).
In addition to the real practical problems, which I have already discussed, I think there is an attitude change, and a change in the UK's image overseas. There is thus, for those of us who preferred the old, pre-2016 UK, a loss of national pride.
The UK was once, up to and including the days of Cameron, was seen as a rational, liberal and tolerant country, and welcoming to foreigners. UK culture, especially UK music was once widely respected during the golden era starting in the mid-60s and lasting for about 50 years. Now the UK seems to me more authoritarian, more right-wing, less welcoming, more insular, and has a government obsessed with culture wars and demonising the "woke" and which is not taken especially seriously internationally (I know from direct experience that Johnson was generally seen as a bit of a buffoon, a bit of a joke, in certain continental countries).
You seem here to be conflating your own feelings with what you imagine most foreigners must think of the UK. What makes you think that most foreigners who are forming an impression of the UK think as you do? And your description of the UK doesn't at all match my perception. I'm pretty sure that if you compare the UK today with the UK in - say, the 1960s or 70s, you'll find the UK has in numerous ways become very much more liberal and less authoritarian than it used to be. Just look for example at how much tolerance for gays and other minorities has advanced!
Well you would say that, because you support UK EU membership and the vote went the other way by a whisker. If we had another vote soon (God forbid!) and 52% vote to rejoin the EU, with a 37% turnout, would you therefore support remaining outside the EU?
I did mention "radical and risky change"; examples of this would include leaving the EU, Scottish independence (which I am somewhat sympathetic towards) and legalisation of cannabis (which again I am somewhat sympathetic towards, especially given many US states have now done it). Such things I believe require a strong majority.
On the other hand it would be very marginal. So on balance, in this situation we would not actually rejoin, but move to a Norway-style agreement, in this scenario. It would be an indication that people consider Brexit too "hard" rather than an outright rejection of it.
Yes, I do believe it. You've got to be a member (citizen) of the club (the country) to take part in the vote. Pretty fundamental. If you are a long term guest (resident), then take out membership (citizenship). In the case of the EU membership referendum, those EU nationals already resident were not going to be affected by loss of FoM, as their status here was maintained.
I think we'll have to disagree here. I believe that long term residents should have the same rights as citizens - not just in the UK, but in any country.
Given the top justification for Brexit is generally "fulfilling the referendum result", then maybe it is. Remember the whole raison-d-etre of the referendum was that Cameron was running scared of UKIP and saw the referendum as a route to a majority (in my view this was unnecessary, the main factor in 2015 was the collapse of the Lib Dem vote). So when there was a tiny majority for Leave, the government found themselves in a hole. They should have initially tried to get out of that hole by negotiating the softest Brexit possible.
But, with the EU-friendly Cameron out of the way, some in the Tory party doubtless opportunistically saw a Hard Brexit as a way of gaining votes from socially-conservative, traditionally-Labour seats - and it did work for them, at least for a while. Perhaps the threat of an early Boris leadership challenge played a part here: May's hand was forced by the Leavers circling in the background.
There should not be a presumption that being in the EU is right and proper, and anyone who doesn't agree is somehow second class. Would you be happy if the UK rejoins the EU, but not be in the Single Market/Customs Union and not participating in FoM, but technically we are a member?
Couldn't happen anyway, but the answer is no. But, as I said, the referendum did NOT ask about the single market/customs union/FoM. That was decided unilaterally by the Conservative Party, IMO for electoral gain (see above).
But perhaps, in many cases, it should be, IMO. Maintaining existing freedoms is something very important to me personally, and a lot of liberals and libertarians in general. The reason I am a strong supporter of FoM is the same fundamental reason why I am a strong supporter of public access to the countryside, to a greater extent than is currently permissible in England and Wales.
I understand that you place a far greater priority on EU membership than I - I understand and sympathise with your position, but it is done now. Look forward, try to understand the Brexiter's position (instead of merely belittling it, which does not help) and try and find common ground and compromises of both your views and theirs.
My problem is that Brexiters (in this context, the government) seem to want to find zero compromise with Remainers. No FoM, no single market, no customs union. To me that is a sign of absolute zero attempt at compromise. As a Remainer I feel I am offering substantial compromise in my own views. If we never rejoined the EU but brought back FoM I guarantee I would never complain about the issue again. Even SM/CU without FoM would be semi-acceptable.
But no, Remainers, and people of the liberal/left persuasion in general, are, IMO, ignored and belittled by many of those in power. If we are treated this way, it should only be accepted if we are a bit strident in our own positions.
Presumably those partners have special skills which have allowed them to jump the queue for entry to the UK, so to speak. It wouldn't be so easy if they were people without those special skills, I suspect.
What special obstacles are there in the way of any Romanians (for instance) that may have been met, that are not faced by partners from countries that have never been in the EU?
Nothing to be fair, but the Romanian did have the right. It has been taken away from them. This is my problem (see above). It would be even worse if we were talking about French or German people, who have had the right since 1973. A long time, think about it; the class 87s were new in that year, for example.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I suggested some things, such as inability to claim benefits until you've been working a certain number of hours per week for 12 months, or restricting NHS access to emergencies only for a certain amount of time. I had the distinct impression that many people's opposition to FoM related to people coming to the UK and claiming benefits, etc, without having any intention to work. Such conditions would reduce this kind of immigration.
So, because people used at one time to have the right to smoke anywhere, to own firearms, to drive without wearing a seatbelt, to employ children as chimney sweeps, etc. etc. they should keep those rights forever?
Completely different, as I'm sure you know. Either these examples are obviously bad, or they are not an absolute denial of rights. You can still smoke, just not in a public place.Wearing a seatbelt is scarcely an inconvenience at all and cannot be considered a denial of a right. Employing children as chimney sweeps and allowing completely unregulated ownership of firearms are obviously bad, scarcely comparable to FoM!
I think those examples amply demonstrate the nonsense of any kind of argument that no right in law should ever be rescinded. Sometimes it becomes apparent that people having a right does too much harm to others, or to the wider community - as I believe was the case for FOM. (And don't get me wrong, as an idealistic principle I do like the idea of people being able to go anywhere. But quite simply it was causing too much harm).
I really don't see that at all, if FOM really was that bad, wouldn't the EU try to shut it down? It produced a lot of benefits too. But I think we're just coming from fundamentally different viewpoints on this, so best to leave it.
I think some are, to be fair, but their justifications in many cases do not seem strong to me. I think a minority of Brexiters have good justifications (to be fair, that includes you, even though I disagree) but a lot simply roll out the "we won - get over it" or "all that matters is we left" type of arguments. It's those sorts of things that wind me up.
Do you not understand that different people can have different opinions and beliefs. For example, where you think the disadvantages of Brexit outweigh the benefits, I now think the opposite (having changed my mind since 2016). I disagree with you on that issue, but I don't doubt your sincerity in believing what you do. Can you not give people who think as I do the same consideration?
Again in my experience I find a lot of people cannot give strong justifications, that is my problem - together with the fact that the government appears to give very little consideration to remainers at all.
You seem here to be conflating your own feelings with what you imagine most foreigners must think of the UK. What makes you think that most foreigners who are forming an impression of the UK think as you do? And your description of the UK doesn't at all match my perception. I'm pretty sure that if you compare the UK today with the UK in - say, the 1960s or 70s, you'll find the UK has in numerous ways become very much more liberal and less authoritarian than it used to be.
I don't disagree up to about 2015 but I do believe just recently, particularly under Johnson and Sunak, things have gone the other way. For example the Sunak government seemingly using culture wars to obtain the social-conservative vote (referring to 'woke' as a term of abuse, slightly questionable approach to trans rights) and such things as the Policing Bill. To me, excessive state control and increasing legislation against personal freedom is a hallmark of the last few years, and the current government is probably the most authoritarian since Thatcher.
Yes, the solution does require ending Freedom of Movement.
It is blindingly obvious that the number of people around the World who would want to move to and live in the UK is massively, massively, greater than the number of people that we can plausibly accommodate. In that situation, we have little option but to 'ration' how many people can come here, and the least bad way of doing that is to impose rules that ensure the people who can come are those people who have the most compelling reasons to do so, or those who for other reasons we really want to have in the UK. That is what our visa and asylum systems attempt (imperfectly but approximately) to do. We simply can't afford to also maintain a system in which anyone from lots of European countries can come to the UK with very little reason to do so and almost no ability for the UK Government to control those numbers: Not least because it's totally not fair on people from outside the EU who do have compelling/humanitarian reasons why they need come to the UK if they get blocked from coming because the UK migration numbers have been so swollen from people from - say - Romania or Hungary with no UK connection - coming here on little more than a whim.
Once again you're doing this thing where you refuse to accept that those of us on the Brexit side are actually arguing for what we genuinely believe. I really don't understand why you (and other Remainers) keep doing that?
The housing crisis IS partly caused by EU migration. Not entirely - there are several other factors behind the crisis too (including, as you rightly imply, the Government's failure to build enough houses), but EU migration is certainly one of the causes. Again, I do not understand why you (and other Remainers) refuse to accept reality.
You seem here to imagine that how markets work is some kind of arbitrary doctrine to be believed in not not to be believed in. It isn't that at all: It's simply how markets work and an inevitable consequence of human behaviour. Prices, left to their own devices, will normally naturally tend to a level that approximately matches supply and demand - as countless Governments around the World have discovered to their cost when they've tried to regulate prices (or rents) - usually to disastrous consequences.
It would certainly be great to make the rental market more affordable. But the ONLY sustainable way you can do that is to create conditions in which lower rent levels become the price that matches supply and demand - and that requires either increasing the supply of houses to rent, or reducing the numbers of people looking for houses to rent, or both.
I agree sufficiently for my point of view to have changed from that of a strong Remainer to a very soft Stay-Outsider.
There are merits in being in the EU but it would need to be on suitable terms economically but practically too.
Where we are at a disadvantage is having our language one of the most widely spoken in the world and so much open coastline. This makes us look like an easy country to emigrate to.
Whether they want it or not, that's what they had with EU membership. Furthermore, it was completely unfair. People from non-EU countries wishing to settle here have to make an application which would be considered on its merits. EU citizens simply turned up unannounced.
It is not true that being in the EU meant that 450million people had limitless and unfettered access to the UK. There obviously were restrictions, especially those with a criminal record. And why would 450million EU residents want to move to the UK anyway?
Well, if we're into pedantry, let's be generous and say 1% of the 450m had criminal records serious enough so that they could (but not necessarily would) be denied settlement. So that knocks it down to "only" about 445m. And no, they would not all want to settle here. But the point is not what they would do, but what they could do.
Ah, the famous "Dublin Agreement". That is designed to determine which EU country should process an individual's claim for asylum. It is often touted as the panacea for all the UK's immigration problems. Quite simply, it's not. In recent years far more people were transferred to the UK under the Agreement than were transferred out under it. This report gives some detail:
"For many years the number of people transferred out of the UK under the Regulation was greater than the number of people sent to the UK. Since 2016, the opposite has been the case: the UK received more people than it successfully transferred to other participating states. Most transfers to the UK were due to the family reunion articles. Recent immigration statistics (July 2020) give figures for incoming and outgoing transfer requests in 2019:
• The UK received 2,236 requests from EU member states to accept transfers of individuals to the UK, and 714 transfers took place. (32%)
• The UK made 3,259 transfer requests to EU member states, and 263 transfers took place. (8%)"
Similar disparities are evident from 2016 onwards. Apart from those disparities, the numbers involved are trivial compared to the overall number of asylum claims the UK receives and the effect of the Agreement is inconsequential.
Did 17,410,742 really care that strongly about it though? And did that many want to leave the EU in 2006 or in 1996 (and that was my point, that the fashion for blaming the EU for everything was very much a 2010s thing)? Or did a lot of people just put a cross against one of the options without having a strong view either way? Or did a lot of people just vote Leave to spite Cameron? Or did a lot of people vote Leave because they believed the nonsense that the NHS would miraculously get better (ROFL) if they did?
I've no idea why people voted the way that they did. I can only speak for myself and make the general comment that anybody casting their vote based on what politicians had told them was foolish.
Yes. I take no pleasure in that. It's the result of the UK continuing its membership of an organisation which began with good intentions but which unfortunately became a bette noir which, in my opinion, has the ultimate aim of destroying, completely, the autonomy of individual European nation states.
I say once again, would slowing down the immigration not help? It does not require ending freedom of movement. Making FoM to the UK less attractive without banning it would surely achieve something? I've heard it said before that the EU does allow conditions to be attached to FoM, as long as there is not an outright ban.
You can't have "partial" freedom of movement. You either have it or you don't. The EU only allows restrictions in very exceptional circumstances and then only for a temporary period.
Think about it. 63% of UK citizens did not vote for Brexit. 63% of us didn't dislike the existing setup enough to vote Leave. So it's a complete untruth to say "the British people voted for it", because 63% of us didn't.
Or....Think about it. 65% of UK citizens did not vote to remain in the EU. 65% of us were so dissatisfied with the existing setup we wanted to vote Leave. So it's a complete untruth to say "the British people voted to Remain", because 65% of us didn't.
Or is that "different". If your going to assume a stance by non-voters (i.e. the four-fifths of five-eighths of ****-all argument), you have to consider that they might just not have voted the way you assume. There is no more valid reason to assume that non-voters were happy with the status quo (as far as the EU provides a "status quo", that is) than there is to assume they were not.
What is weak about that argument? I disapprove of the EU as an institution and would prefer it didn't exist. It is obvious, then, that I would disapprove of the UK's membership of it. The arguments of the pros and cons are immaterial to me. I cannot do anything about the existence of the EU but I was asked a question about the EU's continued membership, so I gave my answer.
And as for the casual dismissal of "trivial" reasons for migrating, what about, for example, a UK citizen that meets a partner in, say, Romania on holiday? Brexit and the end to FoM means that it's difficult for them to get together: the only reliable solution is for both to live in Ireland,
That isn't the only solution as I'm sure you are aware. One or other of them could apply to settle in the other's country. They would have to make an application, but that's what hundreds of thousands of people from normal (i.e. non-EU) countries do every year. I don't know about Romania, but they shouldn't have too much difficulty with an application to settle in the UK as more than 1.2 million people received leave to remain last year alone. The notion that "nobody can enter or leave" the UK is utter nonsense.
And so I will ask again (as I do whenever this idea is mentioned and have not, thus far, received an sensible answer): if the result had been 52:48 to remain, what "compromises" do you suppose would have been suggested to placate the disappointed leavers?
My problem is that Brexiters (in this context, the government) seem to want to find zero compromise with Remainers. No FoM, no single market, no customs union. To me that is a sign of absolute zero attempt at compromise.
But those institutions are at the very heart of EU membership. Yes, some outliers adopt them as a convenience. But the reasons people voted to leave are may and various, and almost certainly included the dislike of one or more of those requirements of membership.
How are the adversely affected? They could apply for settled status and (assuming they retained the passport issued by their country of origin) have all the rights of a citizen of that country.
Whether they want it or not, that's what they had with EU membership. Furthermore, it was completely unfair. People from non-EU countries wishing to settle here have to make an application which would be considered on its merits. EU citizens simply turned up unannounced.
Well, if we're into pedantry, let's be generous and say 1% of the 450m had criminal records serious enough so that they could (but not necessarily would) be denied settlement. So that knocks it down to "only" about 445m. And no, they would not all want to settle here. But the point is not what they would do, but what they could do.
Ah, the famous "Dublin Agreement". That is designed to determine which EU country should process an individual's claim for asylum. It is often touted as the panacea for all the UK's immigration problems. Quite simply, it's not. In recent years far more people were transferred to the UK under the Agreement than were transferred out under it. This report gives some detail:
"For many years the number of people transferred out of the UK under the Regulation was greater than the number of people sent to the UK. Since 2016, the opposite has been the case: the UK received more people than it successfully transferred to other participating states. Most transfers to the UK were due to the family reunion articles. Recent immigration statistics (July 2020) give figures for incoming and outgoing transfer requests in 2019:
• The UK received 2,236 requests from EU member states to accept transfers of individuals to the UK, and 714 transfers took place. (32%)
• The UK made 3,259 transfer requests to EU member states, and 263 transfers took place. (8%)"
Similar disparities are evident from 2016 onwards. Apart from those disparities, the numbers involved are trivial compared to the overall number of asylum claims the UK receives and the effect of the Agreement is inconsequential.
I've no idea why people voted the way that they did. I can only speak for myself and make the general comment that anybody casting their vote based on what politicians had told them was foolish.
Yes. I take no pleasure in that. It's the result of the UK continuing its membership of an organisation which began with good intentions but which unfortunately became a bette noir which, in my opinion, has the ultimate aim of destroying, completely, the autonomy of individual European nation states.
You can't have "partial" freedom of movement. You either have it or you don't. The EU only allows restrictions in very exceptional circumstances and then only for a temporary period.
Or....Think about it. 65% of UK citizens did not vote to remain in the EU. 65% of us were so dissatisfied with the existing setup we wanted to vote Leave. So it's a complete untruth to say "the British people voted to Remain", because 65% of us didn't.
Or is that "different". If your going to assume a stance by non-voters (i.e. the four-fifths of five-eighths of ****-all argument), you have to consider that they might just not have voted the way you assume. There is no more valid reason to assume that non-voters were happy with the status quo (as far as the EU provides a "status quo", that is) than there is to assume they were not.
Ah but I believe that, in the case of risky change (as I have discussed above), the status quo should have an inherent advantage and there needs to be really convincing public opinion (not 37%) to change things. I would say the same about other risky change that I have more sympathy towards, such as Scottish independence or cannabis legalisation.
What is weak about that argument? I disapprove of the EU as an institution and would prefer it didn't exist. It is obvious, then, that I would disapprove of the UK's membership of it. The arguments of the pros and cons are immaterial to me. I cannot do anything about the existence of the EU but I was asked a question about the EU's continued membership, so I gave my answer.
But surely you should consider the pros and cons? Would the pros of remaining make your life significantly worse? Would removing the cons of remaining make your life better? How has your life materially improved as a result of leaving the EU?
That isn't the only solution as I'm sure you are aware. One or other of them could apply to settle in the other's country. They would have to make an application, but that's what hundreds of thousands of people from normal (i.e. non-EU) countries do every year. I don't know about Romania, but they shouldn't have too much difficulty with an application to settle in the UK as more than 1.2 million people received leave to remain last year alone. The notion that "nobody can enter or leave" the UK is utter nonsense.
Hence "reliable" solution. Applying to settle in another country is a lottery with no reliable chance of success. Ireland is the only country where both UK and EU citizens have a right to live.
And so I will ask again (as I do whenever this idea is mentioned and have not, thus far, received an sensible answer): if the result had been 52:48 to remain, what "compromises" do you suppose would have been suggested to placate the disappointed leavers?
See above: inherent advantage of the status quo in the case of risky change, and below: consider attaching additional conditions.
I suspect a second referendum: "What sort of Brexit do you want?", would have had an overwhelming lead for a soft one (i.e. some or all of SM, CU and FoM). Almost all the Remainers would vote for a soft one, and a good few of the Leavers too.
But those institutions are at the very heart of EU membership. Yes, some outliers adopt them as a convenience. But the reasons people voted to leave are may and various, and almost certainly included the dislike of one or more of those requirements of membership.
Attaching additional conditions, as I have discussed above? I'm sure it's been discussed on this forum in the past that certain EU countries had a more bureaucratic process if a national of another EU country wished to stay long term, and we chose not to do that, for whatever reason.
How are the adversely affected? They could apply for settled status and (assuming they retained the passport issued by their country of origin) have all the rights of a citizen of that country.
UK citizens living in other EU countries did not get to vote in those countries Referendums or central Government elections, even though those decisions may affect them.
Or you could start from an alternative view, which is that radical and risky change requires a strong mandate (and I would include things that I am more sympathetic towards, such as Scottish independence, here too) and should require an absolute majority of all the electorate to pass. In this scenario, a non-vote should be considered as a "no change" vote by default - whatever the issue.
You honestly believe that? Of course there was a reason for including EU citizens living in the UK long-term, because they would be potentially affected more than anyone else.
But no EU countries have, AFAIK, had any referenda affecting UK citizens' right to live there. Also, I don't think the "other countries don't do it, why should we?" argument is particularly strong; if other countries don't allow long-term foreign residents the vote, then they are also being unfair.
Except it could still be claimed that the referendum result has been acted on because the Norway arrangement would, technically, be leaving the EU.
Many were, I suspect. I probably come across as a strong Remainer, yet I would have been happy with a Norway arrangement. And with such a tiny majority for Brexit, the only acceptable Brexit would have been a very soft one. Brexiters constantly go on about respecting the referendum result, but seem to be quite happy to justify a hard and militant Brexit on a tiny majority when arguably that, also, would not be respecting the referendum result. To me, a hard Brexit should require a two-thirds leave vote, or something of that order.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Because they used to have that right, in some cases since 1973, and Brexit has taken it away from them. I do find that many Brexiters seem to lack the concept of "preservation of established rights".
Other than Ireland which allows UK citizens to vote in national elections, I can’t find any other EU country allowing non citizens voting in anything other than local/EU elections. That’s pretty much universal.
No it's not. If it's one of the Western democracies, then you check what residence visas that country offers and what the requirements for each one is, work out how you might satisfy the requirements for a visa, and if you are able to meet those requirements, you apply with a very high likelihood of succeeding. That typically means you either need a job offer in the country, or are going to study there or intend to marry or are already married to a citizen of that country, but that will vary a bit from country to country. The main thing that can go wrong is if there is something about your situation that could make the staff assessing your application think you're not genuine or are lying to them - in which case they're likely to reject your application. If it's an authoritarian country with high corruption/poor rule of law then things may be different, but Brexit wouldn't have impacted going to those countries.
There are some issues: Fees can be very high, the documentary requirements onerous and the waiting times long - which is certainly a problem in the UK affecting people coming here. So it's often not an easy process. But it's not really fair to describe it as a lottery.
No it's not. If it's one of the Western democracies, then you check what residence visas that country offers and what the requirements for each one is, work out how you might satisfy the requirements for a visa, and if you are able to meet those requirements, you apply with a very high likelihood of succeeding. That typically means you either need a job offer in the country, or are going to study there or intend to marry or are already married to a citizen of that country, but that will vary a bit from country to country. The main thing that can go wrong is if there is something about your situation that could make the staff assessing your application think you're not genuine or are lying to them - in which case they're likely to reject your application. If it's an authoritarian country with high corruption/poor rule of law then things may be different, but Brexit wouldn't have impacted going to those countries.
There are some issues: Fees can be very high, the documentary requirements onerous and the waiting times long - which is certainly a problem in the UK affecting people coming here. So it's often not an easy process. But it's not really fair to describe it as a lottery.
My comments were partially based on a real example I have come across suggesting achieving residency is difficult even if you are in a supposedly strong situation (married to a national of the country you wish to move to).
I have met a couple where the man was a national of an EU country, but was living long-term in the USA (presumably he had satisfied the US's own entry requirements some time ago). His wife - they are actually married - is an American, by birth. They are now retired, live in the USA, and own a house in the EU.
In his words, they cannot freely move between the US and EU (e.g. 6 months in US, 6 months in EU) even if they did the paperwork and his wife applied for residence; they can only live in the US and come to the EU for 3 months at a time, like regular tourists. (He can of course stay as long as he wants, but his wife would have problems).
Possible what he's saying isn't the whole truth, of course.
My comments were partially based on a real example I have come across suggesting achieving residency is difficult even if you are in a supposedly strong situation (married to a national of the country you wish to move to).
I have met a couple where the man was a national of an EU country, but was living long-term in the USA (presumably he had satisfied the US's own entry requirements some time ago). His wife - they are actually married - is an American, by birth. They are now retired, live in the USA, and own a house in the EU.
In his words, they cannot freely move between the US and EU (e.g. 6 months in US, 6 months in EU) even if they did the paperwork and his wife applied for residence; they can only live in the US and come to the EU for 3 months at a time, like regular tourists. (He can of course stay as long as he wants, but his wife would have problems).
Possible what he's saying isn't the whole truth, of course.
That sounds very sad. Hard to comment on individual cases, but it would seem very odd for an EU country to refuse residency to the spouse of a citizen. It's possible they have some unusual circumstance which has caused them to fall through the cracks in the rules for whatever country he comes from, but my suspicion is he's missed something out of his story.
Making a wild guess, if his wife is from the US, I wonder if the problems are more to do with finance than visa rules: The US is awful for wanting by default to tax its citizens even when they live abroad and already pay taxes abroad: That's something that I don't think any other country does and I know that does sometimes cause huge problems for Americans who want to live abroad. I could also make a pure speculative guess and wonder whether living abroad might cause problems with his wife's pension - that's just a wild guess though as I don't know how the pension system in the US works.
Though that is against forecasts - such forecasts have, of course, in the past stated that Britain's economy would enter recession, when it didn't, would grow more slowly than France or Germany, when it didn't etc etc.
This "GDP is lower than it would have been" is a red herring, because the only way we'd know what our GDP would have been was to remain in the EU. And had we done that and the forecasts had been wrong, would Remainers have accepted that their claims about staying in the EU were wrong ?
Though that is against forecasts - such forecasts have, of course, in the past stated that Britain's economy would enter recession, when it didn't, would grow more slowly than France or Germany, when it didn't etc etc.
This "GDP is lower than it would have been" is a red herring, because the only way we'd know what our GDP would have been was to remain in the EU. And had we done that and the forecasts had been wrong, would Remainers have accepted that their claims about staying in the EU were wrong ?
The GDP might have been higher if we'd stayed in the E.U. because of an increase in the population (continuing F.O.M.).
A question I have is; if G.D.P. increases, but at a rate less than the population increase (i.e., the per capita GDP goes down or stays the same) is the individual better off? And that's not a rhetorical question, I really don't know.
I have met a couple where the man was a national of an EU country, but was living long-term in the USA (presumably he had satisfied the US's own onerous entry requirements some time ago). His wife - they are actually married - is an American, by birth. They are now retired and own a house in the EU.
In his words, they cannot freely move between the US and EU (e.g. 6 months in US, 6 months in EU) even if they did the paperwork and his wife applied for residence;
it would seem very odd for an EU country to refuse residency to the spouse of a citizen. It's possible they have some unusual circumstance which has caused them to fall through the cracks in the rules for whatever country he comes from, but my suspicion is he's missed something out of his story.
Making a wild guess, if his wife is from the US, I wonder if the problems are more to do with finance than visa rules: The US is awful for wanting by default to tax its citizens even when they live abroad and already pay taxes abroad: That's something that I don't think any other country does and I know that does sometimes cause huge problems for Americans who want to live abroad. I could also make a pure speculative guess and wonder whether living abroad might cause problems with his wife's pension - that's just a wild guess though as I don't know how the pension system in the US works.
@DynamicSpirit was saying that in Western democracies, if you meet the requirements for a visa then you will generally get it. That is certainly the case for the UK. While there are stories in the media about refusals for people who "deserve" visa approval, it almost always turns out that they missed something silly / overzealous that they didn't think they needed to do.
In authoritarian countries the requirements are opaque or there are "hidden" criteria, and getting visas tends to be at the whim of a bureaucrat or requires a "facilitator".
Some EU countries will grant a spouse visa to non-EU spouses with just proof of the relationship (incidentally, the same is true for the US, it's not particularly onerous or expensive to get a US spouse visa if you can easily prove your relationship is genuine, but some couples may find it harder to prove e.g. if they live separately, only met a few times in person, don't share bills/finances and so on). But it can take a long time.
However, EU countries are not obliged to allow their citizens' non-EU spouses to live there. Case in point, the UK (when we were in the EU) made it quite difficult and expensive, and still does - but getting a UK spouse visa is more of a tick box exercise. If you can show the required income / savings and the necessary documents addressed jointly, you will get the visa - in as little as one working day if you pay a higher fee.
So in the case of @nw1's couple, it may be that there is a financial requirement for the EU citizen to bring their spouse to live in that country, and they may not meet it as they are retired.
On the other hand, an EU citizen can bring their spouse to live with them in any other EU country with minimal requirements and no fees.
A British citizen with a Pakistani spouse would have to meet the rigorous UK criteria to live in the UK together. But when we were in the EU, they could have gone to live in Romania easily. as Romania was obliged to allow EU citizens to move there and bring their family.
Conversely, a Romanian with a Pakistani spouse might face obstacles to living in Romania together, I don't know. But when we were in the EU such a couple could have come to live in the UK with no obstacles. I use these nationalities because I recall reading about Pakistani men marrying Romanian women in the UK to qualify for this free visa - although they were eventually unsuccessful because the UK authorities showed that the relationships were not genuine (I think they could not even remember basic details about their "spouses" when interviewed separately).
Furthermore, EU free movement is really about free movement of labour. EU (actually EEA) citizens have the right to live in other EEA countries in order to work or seek work. If you are retired, you need to already be self-sufficient and have health insurance before you can exercise your EU free movement rights - so maybe @nw1 's couple is falling afoul of something to do with this.
(I'm not 100% sure but I believe it was ruled that being able to access the NHS did not count towards the health insurance requirement - so it was found that some EU citizens who had never worked in the UK, but lived here as homemaker spouses of British citizens, were not actually in the UK lawfully and had trouble with their post-Brexit residency status).
That sounds very sad. Hard to comment on individual cases, but it would seem very odd for an EU country to refuse residency to the spouse of a citizen. It's possible they have some unusual circumstance which has caused them to fall through the cracks in the rules for whatever country he comes from, but my suspicion is he's missed something out of his story.
Making a wild guess, if his wife is from the US, I wonder if the problems are more to do with finance than visa rules: The US is awful for wanting by default to tax its citizens even when they live abroad and already pay taxes abroad: That's something that I don't think any other country does and I know that does sometimes cause huge problems for Americans who want to live abroad. I could also make a pure speculative guess and wonder whether living abroad might cause problems with his wife's pension - that's just a wild guess though as I don't know how the pension system in the US works.
I do hope that is the case; this was a central part of my pessimism regarding attempting to emigrate without FoM. The other factor was a member of the government (Priti Patel I think, correct me if I've got the wrong person) saying that post-Brexit, the UK would want to attract "elite" immigrants with special skills, making if difficult to move to the UK if you lack said skills.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
@DynamicSpirit was saying that in Western democracies, if you meet the requirements for a visa then you will generally get it. That is certainly the case for the UK. While there are stories in the media about refusals for people who "deserve" visa approval, it almost always turns out that they missed something silly / overzealous that they didn't think they needed to do.
In authoritarian countries the requirements are opaque or there are "hidden" criteria, and getting visas tends to be at the whim of a bureaucrat or requires a "facilitator".
Some EU countries will grant a spouse visa to non-EU spouses with just proof of the relationship (incidentally, the same is true for the US, it's not particularly onerous or expensive to get a US spouse visa if you can easily prove your relationship is genuine, but some couples may find it harder to prove e.g. if they live separately, only met a few times in person, don't share bills/finances and so on). But it can take a long time.
However, EU countries are not obliged to allow their citizens' non-EU spouses to live there. Case in point, the UK (when we were in the EU) made it quite difficult and expensive, and still does - but getting a UK spouse visa is more of a tick box exercise. If you can show the required income / savings and the necessary documents addressed jointly, you will get the visa - in as little as one working day if you pay a higher fee.
So in the case of @nw1's couple, it may be that there is a financial requirement for the EU citizen to bring their spouse to live in that country, and they may not meet it as they are retired.
On the other hand, an EU citizen can bring their spouse to live with them in any other EU country with minimal requirements and no fees.
A British citizen with a Pakistani spouse would have to meet the rigorous UK criteria to live in the UK together. But when we were in the EU, they could have gone to live in Romania easily. as Romania was obliged to allow EU citizens to move there and bring their family.
Conversely, a Romanian with a Pakistani spouse might face obstacles to living in Romania together, I don't know. But when we were in the EU such a couple could have come to live in the UK with no obstacles. I use these nationalities because I recall reading about Pakistani men marrying Romanian women in the UK to qualify for this free visa - although they were eventually unsuccessful because the UK authorities showed that the relationships were not genuine (I think they could not even remember basic details about their "spouses" when interviewed separately).
Furthermore, EU free movement is really about free movement of labour. EU (actually EEA) citizens have the right to live in other EEA countries in order to work or seek work. If you are retired, you need to already be self-sufficient and have health insurance before you can exercise your EU free movement rights - so maybe @nw1 's couple is falling afoul of something to do with this.
(I'm not 100% sure but I believe it was ruled that being able to access the NHS did not count towards the health insurance requirement - so it was found that some EU citizens who had never worked in the UK, but lived here as homemaker spouses of British citizens, were not actually in the UK lawfully and had trouble with their post-Brexit residency status).
The whole thing does sound rather unfortunate if the case.
There is something inhuman, in my view, about not permitting a genuine and long-term married couple to live together in the same country just because they maybe aren't affluent and well-off. And I'm not specifically talking about the EU here, but any pair of countries which do not have freedom of movement with each other.
Ironically, given its reputation for being tough on immigration, it sounds like the US might be one of the easier countries in this context if what you say is correct: "it's not particularly onerous or expensive to get a US spouse visa if you can easily prove your relationship is genuine".
Labour leader tells FT his government would put closer trading relationship with Brussels at heart of growth policy
www.ft.com
I know , Labour said no Custom Union or Single Market ( not to mention FoM), but I am sure UK will be very happy to sign to our own :
Great British Custom Union with EU , Great British Single Market with EU , and for the FoM , that will be replaced by Great British Flexibility of Motion …
Labour leader tells FT his government would put closer trading relationship with Brussels at heart of growth policy
www.ft.com
I know , Labour said no Custom Union or Single Market ( not to mention FoM), but I am sure UK will be very happy to sign to our own :
Great British Custom Union with EU , Great British Single Market with EU , and for the FoM , that will be replaced by Great British Flexibility of Motion …
R4 World at One had an academic on for analysis on Starmer's plan. Her view, which I'd share, is that anything short of signing up to those big ticket items (suitably wrapped in the flag if need be) will barely nudge the dial in terms of mending the damage done to the economy.
The longer it takes to get to that conversation, the more damage will be done.
(1) But surely you should consider the pros and cons? (2) Would the pros of remaining make your life significantly worse? (3) Would removing the cons of remaining make your life better? (4)How has your life materially improved as a result of leaving the EU?
(1) No I shouldn't. I have an ideological dislike of the EU and its philosophy. The pros and cons of membership are irrelevant.
(2) I doubt it. Except that I would be living in a country that is a member of an organisation that I am opposed to.
(3) See (2)
(4) It hasn't and I never expected it to. Nor has it deteriorated - and I never expected that either.
R4 World at One had an academic on for analysis on Starmer's plan. Her view, which I'd share, is that anything short of signing up to those big ticket items (suitably wrapped in the flag if need be) will barely nudge the dial in terms of mending the damage done to the economy.
The longer it takes to get to that conversation, the more damage will be done.
On the other hand Starmer is wise not to give any hint of being supportive of SM/CU in the lead up to the election, it will turn too many small-c conservatives off and risks the Tories holding some of the more conservative Red Wall seats.
Sad (from a Remainer POV) but better than the Tories winning yet another election, for now, and validating Sunak's culture-war government. If that happens there will be absolutely zero movement until almost 2030, I suspect.
I agree that he probably "wants" to fix things with the EU in some way but he has to be very careful what he says right now. Once in power I believe he will take a much more EU-friendly line and make some significant progress, even if he doesn't sign up for the SM/CU in the initial term.
It's already too late for that. You can almost hear the election campaign drums in the distance from certain quarters of the Tory party. "Labour will sneak us back into the EU via the back door" etc etc.
It's already too late for that. You can almost hear the election campaign drums in the distance from certain quarters of the Tory party. "Labour will sneak us back into the EU via the back door" etc etc.
Even if that line is being peddled, one would hope that most aren't so strongly supportive of Brexit for it to make too much difference. After all, all he's said is he might rewrite the deal. Nothing more than that.
Still best for him to keep quiet, but as long as he doesn't continue with the line too much, I think he can get away with it, given the Sunak government is very unpopular.
Being less hostile to the EU than the Tories is unlikely to be enough for the Tories to get a surprise victory, I think he'd actually have to actively promise to rejoin the SM/CU for there to be a real risk.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
