EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[HSTEd]

Yes you can:
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citize...ormalities/registering-residence/index_en.htm

The EUR-Lex summary of the directive

"Have the right to be treated on an equal footing with nationals of the host country. However, host authorities are not obliged to grant benefits to EU citizens not working for payment during the first 3 months of their stay. "

In other words you may only compel people to apply for residence type documents if the host country makes everyone register.

Do you know of any EU country that registers immigrants but does not register local citizens?

EDIT:
This is why the abortive ID card scheme was introduced first for non-EU migrants, rather than simply for all migrants.

 

[HSTEd]

Evidence of that? I haven't seen anything that suggests the registration process has to be implemented for citizens too.

Outside of a few very tightly controlled circumstances, discrimination between local citizens and EU citizens is illegal, this is reiterated repeatedly through the acquis.

Which is what we are pretty much doing at the moment anyway with non EU immigrants isn't it, and how every single country in the world deals with people who are in the country illegally. Hell, as a country we've already passed the point of deporting people who have the right to reside here.

I'd rather not have the police resort to rounding up people that look like wrong 'uns and dragging them off to sweat them until they break and confess that they are foreigners.

I don't know why you are getting so upetty about registering immigrants and deporting them if don't continue to abide by the laws regarding immigration. Isn't that exactly what those against immigration have wanted anyway?

I have no personal problem with immigration from the EU.

 

[nidave]

Brexit White Paper not pleasing everyone and those vital Tory DUP MP’s.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...n-rebellion-against-theresa-may-37108380.html

The DUP has joined pro-Brexit Conservatives who are threatening a rebellion against Theresa May by tabling amendments in the Commons aiming to obstruct the Cabinet's Brexit proposals.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The EUR-Lex summary of the directive

"Have the right to be treated on an equal footing with nationals of the host country. However, host authorities are not obliged to grant benefits to EU citizens not working for payment during the first 3 months of their stay. "

In other words you may only compel people to apply for residence type documents if the host country makes everyone register.

Also from there:

• "EU citizens, or family members, may be expelled if they behave in a way that seriously threatens one of society’s fundamental interests."
• "Live in another EU country for longer than 3 months subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host country. Those who are employed or self-employed do not need to meet any other conditions. Students and other people not working for payment, such as those in retirement, must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family, so as not to be a burden on the host country’s social assistance system, and comprehensive sickness insurance cover."
  
• "Have to register with the relevant authorities if living in the country longer than 3 months. Their family members, if not EU nationals, require a residence card valid for 5 years."

So clearly, what you quote isn't the whole of it, and more relates to how that person is treated as part of the country, aka they can't be refused a job because of their status, outside of the initial 3 months you can't pay them less in benefits etc (granted I am not a lawyer - though I may talk to my friend I mentioned earlier about it to get the opinion of someone qualified and very knowledgeable in EU law).

Do you know of any EU country that registers immigrants but does not register local citizens?

Don't have the time to look that up, but certainly there are countries that require registration but don't have a all encompassing ID card / database system as you suggest would be required.

Outside of a few very tightly controlled circumstances, discrimination between local citizens and EU citizens is illegal, this is reiterated repeatedly through the acquis.

Indeed, but you conveniently ignore the parts where it is allowed, that do allow countries to register EU immigrants and deport them if they do not fulfill the various requirements laid out.

I'd rather not have the police resort to rounding up people that look like wrong 'uns and dragging them off to sweat them until they break and confess that they are foreigners.

I have no personal problem with immigration from the EU.

Well that is what is happening right now so.
But I agree, I don't want that either, and that isn't what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is registering EU immigrants on arrival into the UK (again, as is allowed) and then if we were to want a hard line immigration policy, then we are in the position of being able to actually implement the restrictions the EU let us. Because we'd then actually know people's status, you wouldn't have to "round up people that look like wrong uns" because the data is already at hand. If anything, what you describe is what the UK government would have to do right now exactly because we have failed to implement what we are allowed to.

 

[radamfi]

The UK wouldnt be forced into doing anything, but it may choose to do so, and the public can give a verdict on that at the ballot box.

As for third-world immigration, do we not already have this from countries like Romania? If not third-world it's certainly close.

Where I am virtually every mechanised car wash has closed, being replaced by groups of Europeans hand washing cars in car parks. It strikes me as odd that this is one area where technology has retrenched. I'm not sure it's worth having to provide housing and services just to facilitate some people having their car washed not particularly well for a couple of pounds less.

The point is that the option of EU citizens will be lost (because EU citizens have better options), so the choice will be non-EU or no immigration.

Hand washing gives a better job than a drive-through car wash.

 

[EM2]

The EUR-Lex summary of the directive

"Have the right to be treated on an equal footing with nationals of the host country. However, host authorities are not obliged to grant benefits to EU citizens not working for payment during the first 3 months of their stay. "

But everyone that is a local citizen does register (in the UK, at least). That's why you can be fined for not registering a birth, and also why you are issued a National Insurance number.

 

[HSTEd]

But everyone that is a local citizen does register (in the UK, at least). That's why you can be fined for not registering a birth.

The birth certificate does not give any information as to the baby's place of residence though, and certainly not into the future.
Trying to state that it is comparable to registering EU migrants and making them carry ID documents is rather silly.

 

[HSTEd]

Also from there:

• "EU citizens, or family members, may be expelled if they behave in a way that seriously threatens one of society’s fundamental interests."
• "Live in another EU country for longer than 3 months subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host country. Those who are employed or self-employed do not need to meet any other conditions. Students and other people not working for payment, such as those in retirement, must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family, so as not to be a burden on the host country’s social assistance system, and comprehensive sickness insurance cover."
  
• "Have to register with the relevant authorities if living in the country longer than 3 months. Their family members, if not EU nationals, require a residence card valid for 5 years."

So clearly, what you quote isn't the whole of it, and more relates to how that person is treated as part of the country, aka they can't be refused a job because of their status, outside of the initial 3 months you can't pay them less in benefits etc (granted I am not a lawyer - though I may talk to my friend I mentioned earlier about it to get the opinion of someone qualified and very knowledgeable in EU law).



Indeed, but you conveniently ignore the parts where it is allowed, that do allow countries to register EU immigrants and deport them if they do not fulfill the various requirements laid out.

The problem is the UK political and economic system produces all sorts of horrifying conflicts because it is fundamentally different to how thigns work on the vast majority of the continent.
For example, as far as I know it is generally believed that the NHS cannot turn away an EU citizen who is resident in the UK - at which point the idea of requiring "sickness insurance cover" seems somewhat pointless and meaningless.

The directive is clearly written on the assumption that registration of all residents is commonly practiced in the country in question.

The way in which these multiple directives clash with each other in this and other areas is not clear annd probably would not be clear until someone tries to take someone to court.
The UK government has generally assumed that is unable to discriminate on these and other matters (indeed EU citizens were not to be subject to compulsory ID cards prior to UK citizens being subject) and I think there is a substantial amoutn that supports that position.

What we are talking about is registering EU immigrants on arrival into the UK (again, as is allowed) and then if we were to want a hard line immigration policy, then we are in the position of being able to actually implement the restrictions the EU let us. Because we'd then actually know people's status, you wouldn't have to "round up people that look like wrong uns" because the data is already at hand. If anything, what you describe is what the UK government would have to do right now exactly because we have failed to implement what we are allowed to.

If they are allowed to, and what happens when they go around to the registered address and discover he's not there, if he was ever there? If the address even exists as a residential building.

 

[EM2]

The birth certificate does not give any information as to the baby's place of residence though, and certainly not into the future.
Trying to state that it is comparable to registering EU migrants and making them carry ID documents is rather silly.

It proves that that person is registered. That's all that the EU citizen would have to do. No-one has mentioned making anyone carry ID documents.

 

[HSTEd]

It proves that that person is registered. That's all that the EU citizen would have to do. No-one has mentioned making anyone carry ID documents.

It proves that someone was registered in that the state knows that a person with that name was born, but the full birth certificate gives no information about where the child, or even the parents are living, or even where more than one of the parents was living at the time.

And this would only hold as comparable to EU citizens being forced to register a birth of themselves in the UK, which is clearly not what we are suggesting.

 

[NSEFAN]

The directive is clearly written on the assumption that registration of all residents is commonly practiced in the country in question.

I know this has been discussed before, but why would it be unacceptable to give everyone an ID card? Not necessarily have to carry it 24/7, but just own one. The UK government must surely know already who is supposed to be here or not, if at least by having someone manually research a presence over various databases. Then again, there is the Windrush scandal...

I don't get why it is authoritarian to have a standard document that determines if someone is a citizen, it'd be like giving every eligible person a passport for free. We appear to be a country that is deeply concerned about immigration but won't take what is in my eyes an obvious step to making it easier to kick out undesirables.

 

[HSTEd]

I know this has been discussed before, but why would it be unacceptable to give everyone an ID card? Not necessarily have to carry it 24/7, but just own one. The UK government must surely know already who is supposed to be here or not, if at least by having someone manually research a presence over various databases. Then again, there is the Windrush scandal...

I don't get why it is authoritarian to have a standard document that determines if someone is a citizen, it'd be like giving every eligible person a passport for free. We appear to be a country that is deeply concerned about immigration but won't take what is in my eyes an obvious step to making it easier to kick out undesirables.

Because such things are considered by the general population to be the sort of thing that police states have.
And if they don't compel people to carry them at all times then people will simply destroy their card and claim to be freshly arrived when someone challenges them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The birth certificate does not give any information as to the baby's place of residence though, and certainly not into the future.
Trying to state that it is comparable to registering EU migrants and making them carry ID documents is rather silly.

But we aren't talking about making people carry ID documents at all times.

The problem is the UK political and economic system produces all sorts of horrifying conflicts because it is fundamentally different to how thigns work on the vast majority of the continent.
For example, as far as I know it is generally believed that the NHS cannot turn away an EU citizen who is resident in the UK - at which point the idea of requiring "sickness insurance cover" seems somewhat pointless and meaningless.

But that is up to each individual country to manage. The basic principle is that if you live in a country, you should be able to access the same services as a "native" and not be asked to pay if they aren't.
That has literally nothing to do with the restrictions that countries are able to put on the use of freedom of movement.

The directive is clearly written on the assumption that registration of all residents is commonly practiced in the country in question.

Not sure where you got that idea from because it certainly doesn't seem to be like that.

The way in which these multiple directives clash with each other in this and other areas is not clear annd probably would not be clear until someone tries to take someone to court.
The UK government has generally assumed that is unable to discriminate on these and other matters (indeed EU citizens were not to be subject to compulsory ID cards prior to UK citizens being subject) and I think there is a substantial amoutn that supports that position.

But again, the UK government has pretty much always taken a stance of implementing optional regulations, ignoring workarounds / exemptions and "gold plating" EU laws. That is nothing limited to freedom of movement and is purely on the UK government.

If they are allowed to, and what happens when they go around to the registered address and discover he's not there, if he was ever there? If the address even exists as a residential building.

Then you make providing false details illegal (just as it is for every other government issued document).

Because such things are considered by the general population to be the sort of thing that police states have.

And yet in more recent polls, the majority of people do support ID cards. Not necessarily an ID that you have to carry with you all the time, but certainly there is support for a single government issued ID. Indeed why would it "be the sort of thing that police states have" when it would be essentially no more than a driving license without the authority to drive as part of it?

 

[HSTEd]

But we aren't talking about making people carry ID documents at all times.

If you don't then you gain essentially nothing?
If you can't charge someone with a crime for not presenting an identity document on demand then you don't gain any benefit from it.

But that is up to each individual country to manage. The basic principle is that if you live in a country, you should be able to access the same services as a "native" and not be asked to pay if they aren't.
That has literally nothing to do with the restrictions that countries are able to put on the use of freedom of movement.

It does have to do with it though, in shows that document is written with certain assumptions that don't apply.

Not sure where you got that idea from because it certainly doesn't seem to be like that.

Because it is the only way to deconflict statements like the requirement for insurance cover and no-discrimination clause is to assume that everyone else has those things as well.

But again, the UK government has pretty much always taken a stance of implementing optional regulations, ignoring workarounds / exemptions and "gold plating" EU laws. That is nothing limited to freedom of movement and is purely on the UK government.

So its the UK's government's fault for actually trying to carry out it's treaty obligations?
There are no workarounds here, the UK government would likely lose a court case if it went to the ECJ.

Then you make providing false details illegal (just as it is for every other government issued document).

By then the guy is in the wind and you will never see him again.

And yet in more recent polls, the majority of people do support ID cards. Not necessarily an ID that you have to carry with you all the time, but certainly there is support for a single government issued ID. Indeed why would it "be the sort of thing that police states have" when it would be essentially no more than a driving license without the authority to drive as part of it?

Because non compulsory carry doesn't help here at all?

 

[EM2]

It proves that someone was registered in that the state knows that a person with that name was born, but the full birth certificate gives no information about where the child, or even the parents are living, or even where more than one of the parents was living at the time.

And this would only hold as comparable to EU citizens being forced to register a birth of themselves in the UK, which is clearly not what we are suggesting.

There's nothing that says any registration of an EU citizen has to include where they are living or anything else.
What is different from registering John Smith, born 3rd April 1970, in Maidenhead, to registering Johan Schmidt, born 3rd April 1970, in Mannheim?
Herr Schmidt presents his passport, and lo, he is registered.

 

[HSTEd]

There's nothing that says any registration of an EU citizen has to include where they are living or anything else.
What is different from registering John Smith, born 3rd April 1970, in Maidenhead, to registering Johan Schmidt, born 3rd April 1970, in Mannheim?
Herr Schmidt presents his passport, and lo, he is registered.

So how does this help with the problem at hand, which is allowing EU citizens to be easily deported if they don't have a job?

EDIT:
You are registering the birth, not the person.
So these aren't comparable at all.

 

[fowler9]

Well apparently we don't want any way of tracking who anyone is but want control of our borders back. So we intensify checks at the border which will massively slow down border crossings, or of course we could go North Korea. Next to no one gets in.

 

[NSEFAN]

Because such things are considered by the general population to be the sort of thing that police states have.
And if they don't compel people to carry them at all times then people will simply destroy their card and claim to be freshly arrived when someone challenges them.

I remember the opposition to ID cards, so would agree there, even though I think it's a misplaced fear. The question is if people fear the "oppressive" EU more than their own country becoming a police state...

I disagree that a lack of compulsory ID carry would encourage people to destroy documents, as they are often needed for getting a job or renting property, so there's no incentive to trash them on purpose.

 

[HSTEd]

I remember the opposition to ID cards, so would agree there, even though I think it's a misplaced fear. The question is if people fear the "oppressive" EU more than their own country becoming a police state...

I disagree that a lack of compulsory ID carry would encourage people to destroy documents, as they are often needed for getting a job or renting property, so there's no incentive to trash them on purpose.

Yes there is.
"Hello, I am newly arrived from Poland, I have no documents"
And the clock is reset.

 

[EM2]

So how does this help with the problem at hand, which is allowing EU citizens to be easily deported if they don't have a job?

EDIT:
You are registering the birth, not the person.
So these aren't comparable at all.

Registering John Smith at birth registers that he exists, doesn't it? And doesn't registering Johan Schmidt also do that?
Someone that doesn't have a job (or an independent income) is likely to either be claiming benefits, or living rough, or both. So when they come into contact with Government agencies like DWP, or the police, they can check the register. If they cannot be found on the register, then you deport them. It's not difficult.

 

[EM2]

Yes there is.
"Hello, I am newly arrived from Poland, I have no documents"
And the clock is reset.

How did you get here without a passport?

 

[HSTEd]

Registering John Smith at birth registers that he exists, doesn't it? And doesn't registering Johan Schmidt also do that?
Someone that doesn't have a job (or an independent income) is likely to either be claiming benefits, or living rough, or both. So when they come into contact with Government agencies like DWP, or the police, they can check the register. If they cannot be found on the register, then you deport them. It's not difficult.

Deport them to where?

How did you get here without a passport?

"My passport was stolen, and I have not been able to get a replacement from the consulate"

 

[NSEFAN]

Yes there is.
"Hello, I am newly arrived from Poland, I have no documents"
And the clock is reset.

Again, that's hardly useful if you can't rent or get a job, though. A standard ID system could be used for both these things to check eligibility.

Foreign nationals visiting must have some form of ID anyway to even get in. If the government isn't even tracking official entries and exits at airports and sea ports where people have to have ID, then it's no wonder we have an immigration problem!

Edit: if someone has lost their passport in a foreign country then the first thing they do is get their backsides to an embassy etc. Heck, if the border security are suspicious they could even escort them there for free!

 

[fowler9]

Deport them to where?



"My passport was stolen, and I have not been able to get a replacement from the consulate"

Back where they came from. What is your answer exactly by the way? What is it you want to see happen? We hear very little of that from the Brexiteers. You know people say that when you want things differently to everyone else it is normally you that is wrong.

 

[EM2]

Deport them to where?

Well, where do you deport non-EU citizens to when necessary?

"My passport was stolen, and I have not been able to get a replacement from the consulate"

'We'll just contact the consulate to check.'
'Hello, we have a Mr. Zdzislaw Wirkowski here, who says his passport has been stolen, but has not been able to get a replacement. What reason might there be for that?'

 

[HSTEd]

Back where they came from. What is your answer exactly by the way? What is it you want to see happen? We hear very little of that from the Brexiteers.

If they have no documents, how do you determine where "back where they came from" is?

I personally have no problem with current freedom of movement, my problems with the EU (and I have not told anyone how I voted! It's a secret ballot after all) are all on the single market side of things.

Well, where do you deport non-EU citizens to when necessary?

With great difficulty!
It takes weeks or months.

 

[fowler9]

If they have no documents, how do you determine where "back where they came from" is?

I personally have no problem with current freedom of movement, by problems with the EU (and I have not told anyone how I voted! It's a secret ballot after all) are all on the single market side of things.



With great difficulty!
It takes weeks or months.

So why are you even arguing about something you don't have a problem with?

 

[EM2]

If you don't then you gain essentially nothing?
If you can't charge someone with a crime for not presenting an identity document on demand then you don't gain any benefit from it.

From the link posted earlier:

In many countries, you will need to carry your registration certificate and national identity card or passport at all times. If you leave them at home, you may be fined but cannot be expelled just for this.

So again, there is no requirement in EU law for non-native citizens to carry documents.

 

[HSTEd]

From the link posted earlier:
So again, there is no requirement in EU law for non-native citizens to carry documents.

Again, if we believe this directive is not subject to the no-discrimination requirement, then perhaps, but I (and apparently the UK government) believes it is subject

So why are you even arguing about something you don't have a problem with?

Because I believe, and the UK Government apparently does too, that EU law would not permit the steps being recommended here unless they were extended to all citizens, which is not at all acceptable to the British public.

 

[EM2]

Again, if we believe this directive is not subject to the no-discrimination requirement, then perhaps, but I (and apparently the UK government) believes it is subject

How can it be, when the directive states 'in many countries', not 'in all countries'? Surely the UK can adopt whatever principle it likes in relation to the carrying of ID, since it is not a requirement in all member states?