Brexit Referendum Superthread

Thomas_..

Lemming wrote: »

Watching that parliament.tv video linked a few pages back yesterday, this was raised as an issue. And one of the expert-panel raised the matter that for a lot of these ex-pats, they would be unable to afford to move home and ergo possibly become stuck in limbo without additional repatriation costs. Brexit not only covers their rights to reside in those countries without reciprocal agreement but also affects pension payments and access to healthcare and other social services.

The unanimous opinion was that any decision made by the UK regards EU nationals in its borders would be met in reciprocal fashion.

That´s perfectly clear to me, but neither Farage nor Johnson gave a thought on it, they were too eager to serve their own egos.

smjm

Comedy from Labour!

https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/752477043774857216

Thomas_..

smjm wrote: »

Comedy from Labour!

https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/752477043774857216

It´s now even better:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36763208

...
Labour's election co-ordinator, Jon Trickett, said: "It is crucial, given the instability caused by the Brexit vote, that the country has a democratically elected prime minister. I am now putting the whole of the party on a general election footing."

Mr Farron, Lib Dem leader, said: "With Theresa May's coronation we need an early general election. The Tories now have no mandate. Britain deserves better than this."

Meanwhile, a Labour leadership contest has begun after Angela Eagle launched a bid to challenge Jeremy Corbyn for the job, saying she she could provide the leadership in "dark times for Labour" that Mr Corbyn could not.

When I was looking at the face of Mrs May, I somehow had the feeling that I was looking at a Vampire and I felt inconvenient in some ways.

NIMAN

Surprised she has said there will be no second referendum.

smjm

NIMAN wrote: »

Surprised she has said there will be no second referendum.

Why surprised?

Bob24

Lemming wrote: »

Watching that parliament.tv video linked a few pages back yesterday, this was raised as an issue. And one of the expert-panel raised the matter that for a lot of these ex-pats, they would be unable to afford to move home and ergo possibly become stuck in limbo without additional repatriation costs. Brexit not only covers their rights to reside in those countries without reciprocal agreement but also affects pension payments and access to healthcare and other social services.

The unanimous opinion was that any decision made by the UK regards EU nationals in its borders would be met in reciprocal fashion.

Of course, this is only fair for any restrictions applied by Britain to be reciprocally applied by partner countries.

But if this is what a majority of British citizens want, why would it be a problem?

Also, I don't see any realistic scenario whereby the UK would want to instantly expel all EU citizens living on its territory or make it very hard for them to remain (even if they regained the power to do so).

If the freedom of movement is not preserved (which is not a given) it would be in everyone's interest for the UK to make it fairly easy for EU citizens currently on its territory and employed, self-sufficient, or studying to remain there, in exchange for EU countries to do the same thing for British citizens living on their territories. And restrictions would apply to further immigration flows or in case people's personal circumstances change.

molloyjh

Bob24 wrote: »

Of course, this is only fair for any restrictions applied by Britain to be reciprocally applied by partner countries.

But if this is what a majority of British citizens want, why would it be a problem?

I would wager the problem is because a lot of those who voted Leave didn't actually fully understand what the consequences of that would be economically for the country. The problem is that the Leave vote wasn't a vote for anything in particular. Exactly what "British citizens" do want is still not entirely clear.

Bob24 wrote: »

Also, I don't see any realistic scenario whereby the UK would want to instantly expel all EU citizens living on its territory or make it very hard for them to remain (even if they regained the power to do so).

If the freedom of movement is not preserved (which is not a given) it would be in everyone's interest for the UK to make it fairly easy for EU citizens currently on its territory and employed, self-sufficient, or studying to remain there, in exchange for EU countries to do the same thing for British citizens living on their territories. And restrictions would apply to further immigration flows or in case people's personal circumstances change.

There will certainly be a deal struck that will make sorting all of that out relatively straight forward. There isn't going to be mass deportations or anything like that. However getting that all nailed down and implemented still takes time and effort. Along with all the rest of it.

Bob24

molloyjh wrote: »

I would wager the problem is because a lot of those who voted Leave didn't actually fully understand what the consequences of that would be economically for the country.

I would say if restricting free movement was to potentially have consequences on themselves or on friends and family members living/working elsewhere in the EU, people are not that stupid and would have been aware of this very direct and practical impact. So in most cases if they voted to leave in spite of these consequences it is that either they didn't feel it would affect them or that the felt the negative impact was worth other more positive impacts they could see about their choice.

Zubeneschamali

molloyjh wrote: »

There will certainly be a deal struck that will make sorting all of that out relatively straight forward.

Yes, the English will cave and allow free movement to continue.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

So in most cases if they voted to leave in spite of these consequences it is that either they didn't feel it would affect them or that the felt the negative impact was worth other more positive impacts they could see about their choice.

or they thought the UK would adopt a Swiss/Nowegian model

or they didn't think Leave would win but wanted to protest

or they fell for the NHS lies

or a lot of other possibilities.

NIMAN

smjm wrote: »

Why surprised?

As a REMAINER, I would have thought she might have been more coy about it, not tying herself to a decision right now.

After all, there is a letter coming to Cameron from some of the countrys top barristers to say that the referendum may not be legally binding and doesn't have to be adopted.

Thomas_..

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

or they thought the UK would adopt a Swiss/Nowegian model

or they didn't think Leave would win but wanted to protest

or they fell for the NHS lies

or a lot of other possibilities.

All things you mentioned put together and probably many more reasons that made them vote for leave.

Thomas_..

NIMAN wrote: »

As a REMAINER, I would have thought she might have been more coy about it, not tying herself to a decision right now.

After all, there is a letter coming to Cameron from some of the countrys top barristers to say that the referendum may not be legally binding and doesn't have to be adopted.

Power corrupts. The old saying often proves itself right.

smjm

NIMAN wrote: »

As a REMAINER, I would have thought she might have been more coy about it, not tying herself to a decision right now.

After all, there is a letter coming to Cameron from some of the countrys top barristers to say that the referendum may not be legally binding and doesn't have to be adopted.

No, she needs to be seen to be decisive. The last thing the UK (and the markets) needs now is a new, wobbly PM.

The letter from the lawyers is worthless. No one doubts that, technically, the referendum was non-binding; but that doesn't really mean that the government can back out after committing to implement the result.

smjm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the English will cave and allow free movement to continue.

I doubt it. Both sides will, I believe, ensure that those who are already living abroad can remain so. Many, if not most, will probably be covered by the Citizens Rights Directive anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Rights_Directive

The negotiations will be about future immigration, and the UK government won't allow the current EU situation to continue.

imitation

smjm wrote: »

No, she needs to be seen to be decisive. The last thing the UK (and the markets) needs now is a new, wobbly PM.

The letter from the lawyers is worthless. No one doubts that, technically, the referendum was non-binding; but that doesn't really mean that the government can back out after committing to implement the result.

Yup, its like kicking in the door at christmas dinner and announcing you want to divorce the wife, you can't back out of that one easily, at least not immediately. Its not like the Nice fiasco, it was all there and black and white UK wants out, you can't make it seen like people were unhappy about one or two clauses and re-pose the question.

Thomas_..

smjm wrote: »

I doubt it. Both sides will, I believe, ensure that those who are already living abroad can remain so. Many, if not most, will probably be covered by the Citizens Rights Directive anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Rights_Directive

The negotiations will be about future immigration, and the UK government won't allow the current EU situation to continue.

Every British citizen living in any EU member state will be obliged to get a non-EU residence permission by the very state he or she resides in. That is going to happen after the UK is out of the EU. After that, the British are under foreigner law like any other non-EU national, whether from Europe or any other continent. That is a fact and I expect EU citizens residing in the UK to have to apply for residence permission as well. That was the procedure before the EU came into being and other countries joined it, and it will get back to that.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

After all, there is a letter coming to Cameron from some of the countrys top barristers to say that the referendum may not be legally binding and doesn't have to be adopted.

The referendum was advisory and has never been pretended to be legally binding.

The barristers' letter concerns the act of Parliament that they argue is needed to invoke the Article 50 proceedings. They are warning that a PM cannot unilaterally begin those proceedings, and instead that the Parliament must pass a bill to authorise it. (The Parliament is Sovereign)

I have no doubt that some within Parliament will vote against passing that bill (the one that would enable the PM to invoke Article 50) but I imagine that most will dutifully, if reluctantly cede that they must pass it when it comes to that time.

People hoping that there will be some safety net or back door or some 'soft' option that doesn't really result in the UK leaving the EU will be disappointed. The reality of the situation is that the UK is leaving the EU, and now all parties must work to complete that detachment without too much disturbance and disruption.

smjm

Thomas_.. wrote: »

Every British citizen living in any EU member state will be obliged to get a non-EU residence permission by the very state he or she resides in. That is going to happen after the UK is out of the EU. After that, the British are under foreigner law like any other non-EU national, whether from Europe or any other continent. That is a fact and I expect EU citizens residing in the UK to have to apply for residence permission as well. That was the procedure before the EU came into being and other countries joined it, and it will get back to that.

Whichever way they do it, I think they'll play nice on existing residents.

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

Every British citizen living in any EU member state will be obliged to get a non-EU residence permission by the very state he or she resides in. That is going to happen after the UK is out of the EU. After that, the British are under foreigner law like any other non-EU national, whether from Europe or any other continent. That is a fact and I expect EU citizens residing in the UK to have to apply for residence permission as well. That was the procedure before the EU came into being and other countries joined it, and it will get back to that.

Yes, they would probably need a residence card. But it will be both in the UK and other EU countries' interest to issue one to those who are currently residing in the country.

I would expect some kind of bilateral agreement whereby the UK commits to issuing a residence card automatically to all EU citizens who have been residing there from more than x months before Brexit is effective and are currently self-sufficient, studying, or working. And in exchange all EU countries would commit to do the same for UK citizens who fulfil the same conditions.

Also a whole lot of those people will qualify for citizenship of the country they reside in and will have plenty of time to initiate the process during the article 50 negotiation period if they wish to do so.

smjm

smjm wrote: »

Whichever way they do it, I think they'll play nice on existing residents.

Reciprocal deals will be done, no doubt.

Certainly worth listening to the legal experts answering questions from that Parliamentary panel last week though. You can see that there is some seriously naive people commanding an awful lot of authority on the matter without really being able to understand let alone wield it.

Thomas_..

smjm wrote: »

Whichever way they do it, I think they'll play nice on existing residents.

I´m not so sure about that. It´ll certainly be something that will put the individual into the centre, ie how long he/she already lives in the country, whether there was already a permanent residence permission issued in the past (by people who already lived there for decades), whether they can afford their living without being on social welfare or support etc.. It´s bureaucracy of the Immigration Offices that will kick in.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes, they would probably need a residence card. But it will be both in the UK and other EU countries' interest to issue one to those who are currently residing in the country.

I would expect some kind of bilateral agreement whereby the UK commits to issuing a residence card automatically to all EU citizens who have been residing there from more than x months before Brexit is effective and are currently self-sufficient, studying, or working. And in exchange all EU countries would commit to do the same for UK citizens who fulfil the same conditions.

Also a whole lot of those people will qualify for citizenship of the country they reside in and will have plenty of time to initiate the process during the article 50 negotiation period if they wish to do so.

Yes, that is all possible.

smjm

Thomas_.. wrote: »

I´m not so sure about that. It´ll certainly be something that will put the individual into the centre, ie how long he/she already lives in the country, whether there was already a permanent residence permission issued in the past (by people who already lived there for decades), whether they can afford their living without being on social welfare or support etc.. It´s bureaucracy of the Immigration Offices that will kick in.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see. I think most people in the UK who were against mass immigration, would be happy just to have ongoing control of it. Only real hot-heads would be thinking they could start deporting EU citizens already in the country.

Bob24

Cameron just announced May will become prime minister on Wednesday.

smjm

Bob24 wrote: »

Cameron just announced May will become prime minister on Wednesday.

Funny how things work out; this is from November 2015:

'Theresa May gets Nigel Farage backing to lead EU out campaign'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/theresa-may-leadership-eu-out-campaign

molloyjh

Bob24 wrote: »

I would say if restricting free movement was to potentially have consequences on themselves or on friends and family members living/working elsewhere in the EU, people are not that stupid and would have been aware of this very direct and practical impact. So in most cases if they voted to leave in spite of these consequences it is that either they didn't feel it would affect them or that the felt the negative impact was worth other more positive impacts they could see about their choice.

But what about all of the other impacts that come with that? And what about those people who don't know anyone who is living elsewhere in the EU? There was so much misinformation out there and so little real analysis done by those shouting the loudest that many Leavers would not have understood the full and complete impact of the decision to leave. And the margin of victory was very small as well after all. So to say it is what they, as an entire group of people, wanted isn't exactly bullet-proof. We may find out in time that the package as a whole actually isn't what they wanted at all.

Bob24

molloyjh wrote: »

But what about all of the other impacts that come with that? And what about those people who don't know anyone who is living elsewhere in the EU? There was so much misinformation out there and so little real analysis done by those shouting the loudest that many Leavers would not have understood the full and complete impact of the decision to leave. And the margin of victory was very small as well after all. So to say it is what they, as an entire group of people, wanted isn't exactly bullet-proof. We may find out in time that the package as a whole actually isn't what they wanted at all.

Not bullet proof but good enough, as with all votes.

I think it is fair to say restricting immigration was one of the key demand though, and that a majority of voters are not stupid enough to think that if you withdraw from a partnership and other party will keep behaving as if nothing happened. If you assume voters are stupid or misinformed, there is no point in organising votes and the concerns you raise can be extended to most referendums.

molloyjh

Bob24 wrote: »

Not bullet proof but good enough, as with all votes.

I think it is fair to say restricting immigration was one of the key demand though, and that a majority of voters are not stupid enough to think that if you withdraw from a partnership and other party will keep behaving as if nothing happened. If you assume voters are stupid or misinformed, there is no point in organising votes and the concerns you raise can be extended to most referendums.

Well I don't assume stupid at all. Misinformed though, definitely. It was a very prominent and common theme to the entire debate. The £350m figure jumps out for starters. What I would say is that there very much is a point to referendums, but they should only be run in areas that the public can add real value rather than areas that they simply don't fully understand. Social decisions for example can be done by referendum, economic and international relations less so. Also there needs to be standards set and adhered to regarding the debate. Anything that is pure lies (of which there was a lot in this campaign) should be banned immediately. It's easy to win people over when you can say whatever the hell you like. When you have to stick to the truth it is a lot harder.

LiamoSail

smjm wrote: »

Whichever way they do it, I think they'll play nice on existing residents.

I hope Spain punts the lot of the over 60's English back to England. With that extra €340m, the NHS should have no problem with the added financial burden of them