Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
I have zero doubt that Ireland is going to become a brexit punchbag in next couple of years, probably towards the end when they got nothing off the continent and need revenge.0
-
Some in Ireland will no doubt see it that way but the reality will be that when the UK leaves, and assuming they get nothing from Europe, it will be Ireland obeying EU rules that will end reciprocal arrangements - arrangements that predate the EU - between the two countries that predate the EU.I have zero doubt that Ireland is going to become a brexit punchbag in next couple of years, probably towards the end when they got nothing off the continent and need revenge.
In other words, Ireland will write to the UK saying something like
"Due to our continuing membership of the EU, regretfully we are forced to end the automatic right UK citizens to work in Ireland.
You will no doubt impose measures in response.
An Taosieach."
While it is of course the case that the UK made the first move in leaving the EU, if the EU then plays hardball with the UK, and Ireland is forced to write the above letter, then the disruption won't just be due to brexit but also due to intrangence by EU negotiators on an issue that both Britain and Ireland currently agree upon: the reciprocal right to work of Irish and British citizens in each other's countries.
So Britain has made the first move with Brexit. But Ireland will made the next move due to the EU. And it won't be a move that benefits Ireland.0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »Some in Ireland will no doubt see it that way but the reality will be that when the UK leaves, and assuming they get nothing from Europe, it will be Ireland obeying EU rules that will end reciprocal arrangements - arrangements that predate the EU - between the two countries that predate the EU.
In other words, Ireland will write to the UK saying something like
"Due to our continuing membership of the EU, regretfully we are forced to end the automatic right UK citizens to work in Ireland.
You will no doubt impose measures in response.
An Taosieach."
While it is of course the case that the UK made the first move in leaving the EU, if the EU then plays hardball with the UK, and Ireland is forced to write the above letter, then the disruption won't just be due to brexit but also due to intrangence by EU negotiators on an issue that both Britain and Ireland currently agree upon: the reciprocal right to work of Irish and British citizens in each other's countries.
So Britain has made the first move with Brexit. But Ireland will made the next move due to the EU. And it won't be a move that benefits Ireland.
The CTA only continues to exist because a protocol to the treaty of Rome allows it to do so. As per A50 once the U.K. exits, all treaty rights and obligations come to an end. British citizens will no longer have a right to live and work in Ireland from that date unless the U.K. comes to an agreement with the EU it is no longer Ireland's call.0 -
Plus the pre-eu right to work and reside in each others countries was never reciprocal and have nothing to do with the CTA.
And if there's hardball being played it will be in an appropriate proportional response that protects EU members.
Britain never ruled Ireland for our benefit.0 -
So if Ireland manages to get an agreement out of the EU, then the CTA which is essential to us can continue. Doctrinaire EU rigidity is the big danger.The CTA only continues to exist because a protocol to the treaty of Rome allows it to do so. As per A50 once the U.K. exits, all treaty rights and obligations come to an end. British citizens will no longer have a right to live and work in Ireland from that date unless the U.K. comes to an agreement with the EU it is no longer Ireland's call.0 -
Advertisement
-
The EU treaties say that member states must admit one another's citizens. They don't say that member states may not admit third-country citizens.
There isn't really a problem here. The UK, as an EU member, doesn't have any difficulty granting rights of entry/rights of abode to a slew of Commonwealth citizens who have no corresponding rights in the EU generally. So it can be done, and is being done.
It works because the UK isn't in the Schengen zone. Thus there is a right for, e.g., France to check people coming from the UK to ascertain if they were entitled to enter France (and the other Schengen countries). It's only when you joint the Schengen zone that you need to have a common visa policy with other Schengen zone members.
Ireland, of course, is also not a member of the Schengen zone. So, after Brexit, we could grant a right of entry/right of abode to UK citizens, and it wouldn't be a back door into the EU at large, since France would have - as it has now - the right to check people coming from Ireland.
This all falls over if, post-Brexit, the EU requires Ireland to enter the Schengen zone. Legally, I don't know whether the EU can insist that we enter the zone, but I think the point is moot. Given that we're not in the Schengen zone now, and the EU finds that workable, and there is I think a desire in the EU not to see Ireland disadvantaged by Brexit more than is necessary, and being outside the Schengen zone enables us to maintain the CTA, I would have thought that the prospects for this state of affairs to continue are pretty good.
The problem will be on the UK side. If the UK wants to restrict the entry of EU nationals to the UK, then it has to impose movement controls between Ireland and the UK.0 -
So what, the Brits withdrew the CTA before without asking us and life went on.Bit cynical wrote: »
So if Ireland manages to get an agreement out of the EU, then the CTA which is essential to us can continue. Doctrinaire EU rigidity is the big danger.The CTA only continues to exist because a protocol to the treaty of Rome allows it to do so. As per A50 once the U.K. exits, all treaty rights and obligations come to an end. British citizens will no longer have a right to live and work in Ireland from that date unless the U.K. comes to an agreement with the EU it is no longer Ireland's call.
This is what the Brits want, why should you care?0 -
My original post was not about the CTA but about the arrangement that allows Irish and UK citizens to live and work in each others countries which predates both countries joining the EU.So what, the Brits withdrew the CTA before without asking us and life went on.
This is what the Brits want, why should you care?
Do you think the Brits currently want to end this particular arrangement?
Is your question why should we want this to continue?0 -
There is no reciprocal agreement between Ireland and the UK about the right to reside in each others nation.Bit cynical wrote: »
My original post was not about the CTA but about the arrangement that allows Irish and UK citizens to live and work in each others countries which predates both countries joining the EU.So what, the Brits withdrew the CTA before without asking us and life went on.
This is what the Brits want, why should you care?
Do you think the Brits currently want to end this particular arrangement?
Is your question why should we want this to continue?
They separate acts of domestic law.
Brits will still be able to reside in Ireland but will only have secondary access to our EU job market but they have no reason to complain about that as they actually reject EU freedom of movement.
They have no reason to amend their domestic law to restrict Irish peoples residency unless out of petty vindictiveness which is highly unlikely as it is unrelated to brexit.0 -
You are correct that it is not the result of a formal international treaty but it is a long standing informal treaty between the two countries that both countries wish to maintain.There is no reciprocal agreement between Ireland and the UK about the right to reside in each others nation.
They separate acts of domestic law.
Brits will still be able to reside in Ireland but will only have secondary access to our EU job market but they have no reason to complain about that as they actually reject EU freedom of movement.
They have no reason to amend their domestic law to restrict Irish peoples residency unless out of petty vindictiveness which is highly unlikely as it is unrelated to brexit.
I think you are missing the point here and I think it is a result of thinking that there's still a point to opposing brexit in some way.
There might have been a point at one time. We might have at one point hoped that brexit would not occur. The Taoseach eexpressed hope before the referendum that the British people would not vote for brexit. He was acting in the national interest when he did this.
Now that brexit is definitely happening, we need to accept it. The very worst that could happen to us is that no deal whatsoever with the UK occurs. Although this is unlikely there are people here who would welcome it as sticking it to the Brits.
Of course Britain would suffer in this case. But no deal would also mean that none of the British citizens (the second largest minority in the country) working here could remain working and cumbersome to issue them on an ongoing basis. It would take years to issue visas to all of them. It is true they would suffer individually and you could say that they only have themselves to blame but what about the effect on our economy which would face massive disruption. How does blaming the Brits or brexit actually help us here now.
Likewise trade. If there's no trade deal whatsoever, then Britain falls off the map as a trading partner. They may not join the WTO straight away. Britain is still a huge trading partner for Ireland and we would suffer enormously. If they manage to join the WTO straight away we suffer less but still suffer. How does blaming the Brits help us here.
Neither us or the Brits want to end the formal and informal arrangements we currently have that predate both countries joining the EU. It is not in Ireland's interest that these arrangements end. All it takes is a hard-line from Brussels or dragging the negotiations out beyond the agreed timeline and we are in trouble along with our neighbour.
Now that Brexit is happening there are large overlaps between the interest of the two countries.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bit cynical wrote:Likewise trade. If there's no trade deal whatsoever, then Britain falls off the map as a trading partner. They may not join the WTO straight away. Britain is still a huge trading partner for Ireland and we would suffer enormously. If they manage to join the WTO straight away we suffer less but still suffer. How does blaming the Brits help us here.
No trade deal whatsoever? Are you suggesting there is a risk that trade between the UK and Ireland or the UK and the rest of the EU will stop?0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »Likewise trade. If there's no trade deal whatsoever, then Britain falls off the map as a trading partner. They may not join the WTO straight away. Britain is still a huge trading partner for Ireland and we would suffer enormously. If they manage to join the WTO straight away we suffer less but still suffer. How does blaming the Brits help us here.
The UK is already a member of the WTO. All EU members states are, as is the Union itself. The Union speaks for its member states at the WTO on matters which are within the scope of EU trade policy (which is nearly all, but not quite all, trade-related matters), so there is very limited scope for independent action by EU member states at the WTO.No trade deal whatsoever? Are you suggesting there is a risk that trade between the UK and Ireland or the UK and the rest of the EU will stop?
When Brexit happens, the UK will cease being represented by the EU and will speak and act for itself. However it's already a member, and already bound by (and entitled to the benefit of) all the relevant treaties and agreements that constitute the WTO and confer functions on it. There is no possibility of a "gap" during which the UK is not represented by the EU but also not able to participate in its own right.0 -
I was assuming (incorrectly, as Perigrinus points out above) that the UK and other member states are members only as EU states but not individually.No trade deal whatsoever? Are you suggesting there is a risk that trade between the UK and Ireland or the UK and the rest of the EU will stop?
However, I also said that even if the UK is a WTO member, Ireland will still suffer as the UK is still a large trading partner and reduction from free trade to trade between Ireland and the UK to WTO rules will have an impact that we would seek to avoid. Therefore the point remains.
I'm glad for the correction as I think some here were suggesting that perhaps Spain or other countries might object to the UK's entry to the WTO based on other disputes they may have.0 -
This is correct.Bit cynical wrote: »I was assuming (incorrectly, as Perigrinus points out above) that the UK and other member states are members only as EU states but not individually.
However, I also said that even if the UK is a WTO member, Ireland will still suffer as the UK is still a large trading partner and reduction to trade between Ireland and the UK to WTO rules will have an impact that we would seek to avoid.
But of course exactly the same is true to a greater or lesser extent for every other member state; it's not as though Ireland has interests here which are opposed to those of other member states. They all have an interest in the EU concluding an agreement with the UK which maximises EU-UK trade. It's the UK, remember, that's seeking to erect barriers here, by leaving the Union, by leaving the single market, by leaving the customs union; not the EU or any of its other member states.
So, in pressing for an EU/UK trade deal, Ireland will be pressing at an open door, on the EU side.
The limitations on what's possible here are largely set by UK intransigence, not an EU "desire to punish". The limitations on the EU side are that they won't want to destablise the Union, by giving the UK a deal which is better than membership, since that would create an incentive for other countries to leave, and would destabilise the Union, and no country will want to preserve its trade with the UK at the cost of jeopardising its trade with the 27 other member states.
But that's more of a theoretical limitation, since the limitations imposed by the UK's position will "bite" much earlier. I agree with you that we cannot avert Brexit but, short of that, what could happen that would benefit us? The biggest benefits would be acheived by (a) persuading the UK to remain in the customs union, or better still (b) persuading the UK to remain in the single market. Frankly, neither of these is likely to be achievable either.0 -
The open door could equally be said about the UK. If our Taosieach were to express a desire for free trade with the UK to Theresa May, she would no doubt say that she wishes it too, subject to the mandate set out for her by the British people.Peregrinus wrote: »The limitations on what's possible here are largely set by UK intransigence, not an EU "desire to punish". The limitations on the EU side are that they won't want to destablise the Union, by giving the UK a deal which is better than membership, since that would create an incentive for other countries to leave, and would destabilise the Union, and no country will want to preserve its trade with the UK at the cost of jeopardising its trade with the 27 other member states.
But that's more of a theoretical limitation, since the limitations imposed by the UK's position will "bite" much earlier. I agree with you that we cannot avert Brexit but, short of that, what could happen that would benefit us? The biggest benefits would be acheived by (a) persuading the UK to remain in the customs union, or better still (b) persuading the UK to remain in the single market. Frankly, neither of these is likely to be achievable either.
Likewise, there is no reason why a free trade agreement can't be done with a country that is not in the single market or customs union. This is not against EU rules and is better for Ireland than the UK under WTO rules. But if the EU adopts a hardline approach in order to send a message to other member states believing it would stabilise the union, then this is against Ireland's interest.
As you say, each member state has a greater or lesser economic interest in avoiding WTO rules with the UK, but in Ireland's case it is very much the greater. Some countries have little trade (or have trade deficits) with Britain and therefore have only the stability of the union to think of. The balance is reversed in our case, so in that sense we have opposing positions with other member states.
We can't rely on any one approach. Failing (which is likely, as you say) in persuading the UK into a customs union or the single market means we rely on the EU adopting a pro-trade approach with the UK. This does not violate their rules.
Likewise if the UK are seeking a means of easing movement of people between the two countries and the right to work, arrangements which have been acknowledged in the treaties, then we must support them in that.
It is quite likely that the UK will not accept general movement between the EU as a whole and the UK but wants to retain pre-existing (informal or otherwise) arrangements with other countries and our interests therefore overlap in that respect. This will be a harder one to achieve with the UK as without such a deal, Ireland will be required under EU law to prevent non-EU citizens working in Ireland without a visa. Nevertheless it can be achieved with agreement of the member states. It is not impossible.
None of it is easy but relying only on trying to persuade the UK to do this or that is not the safest approach. Sure, try it. But at the same time we need to look at the other possible solutions that would also minimise damage to Ireland. If we try to lobby purely with the UK and fail, we will have only ourselves to blame if a good trade deal is not achieved.0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »
Likewise, there is no reason why a free trade agreement can't be done with a country that is not in the single market or customs union. This is not against EU rules and is better for Ireland than the UK under WTO rules.
This will be a harder one to achieve with the UK as without such a deal, Ireland will be required under EU law to prevent non-EU citizens working in Ireland without a visa. Nevertheless it can be achieved with agreement of the member states. It is not impossible.
Factually incorrect on both points.
The EU operates a common external tariff. The UK's terms of trade with Ireland will be the same as with all EU member states. There may be a derogation within the island of Ireland but there cannot be an FTA between Ireland and the UK.
The EU has no say in Ireland's policies concerning non-EU citizens.0 -
Yes, it is. Participants in the single market can't do their own independent trade deals with third countries. The single market applies to external trade as much as to internal trade.Bit cynical wrote: »The open door could equally be said about the UK. If our Taosieach were to express a desire for free trade with the UK to Theresa May, she would no doubt say that she wishes it too, subject to the mandate set out for her by the British people.
Likewise, there is no reason why a free trade agreement can't be done with a country that is not in the single market or customs union. This is not against EU rules and is better for Ireland than the UK under WTO rules . . .
But if the EU adopts a hardline approach in order to send a message to other member states believing it would stabilise the union, then this is against Ireland's interest.
As you say, each member state has a greater or lesser economic interest in avoiding WTO rules with the UK, but in Ireland's case it is very much the greater.
We can't rely on any one approach. Failing (which is likely, as you say) in persuading the UK into a customs union or the single market means we rely on the EU adopting a pro-trade approach with the UK. This does not violate their rules.
Likewise if the UK are seeking a means of easing movement of people between the two countries and the right to work, arrangements which have been acknowledged in the treaties, then we must support them in that.
No, it won't. The UK currently permits non-EU citizens to live and work in the UK without a visa. Certain classes of Commonwealth citizen have this right. It's only the Schengen countries that have to have a common visa policy.Bit cynical wrote: »It is quite likely that the UK will not accept general movement between the EU as a whole and the UK but wants to retain pre-existing (informal or otherwise) arrangements with other countries and our interests therefore overlap in that respect. This will be a harder one to achieve with the UK as without such a deal, Ireland will be required under EU law to prevent non-EU citizens working in Ireland without a visa . . .
Ireland currently isn't a Schengen country and what we need from the EU is an acceptance that we can continue not being a Schengen country. I think we'll get that fairly readily, if the result is that it will enable us to maintain the Common Travel Area with the UK.
The problem - again - will be at the UK end. The UK can't (a) control entry by EU nationals, and (b) have free movement between the UK and the RoI, since EU national could then enter the UK without restriction simply by travelling via Ireland. What we need, I think, is for the UK to decide that what they need to control is not the entry of EU nationals into the UK, but EU nationals working] in the UK, and that they can do that through regulating employers, and through the tax and national insurance systems, so they don't need border controls to keep out EU nationals. So, again, what we mainly need here is for the UK to arrive at a particular position.
Obviously, the UK will want reciprocity - EU nationals will only have a right of entry to the UK if UK nationals are given a right of entry to the EU. So we do want the EU to adopt that position, and we'll press for it at EU level if we need to. But, again, I think the obstacles here will come more from the UK side than from the EU side; there's no anti-British-migrant sentiment in the EU comparable to the anti-EU-migrant sentiment that fed into the Brexit vote.0 -
No, I meant a free trade deal between the EU and the UK, not between the UK and Ireland specifically. It is within the rules of the EU to have a trade deal between the EU and the UK and very much in Ireland's interest.Peregrinus wrote: »Yes, it is. Participants in the single market can't do their own independent trade deals with third countries. The single market applies to external trade as much as to internal trade.
Thank you for the correction. I thought Ireland was restricted by EU law in granting EU visa free working rights to specific non-EU countries in a blanket fashion.No, it won't. The UK currently permits non-EU citizens to live and work in the UK without a visa. Certain classes of Commonwealth citizen have this right. It's only the Schengen countries that have to have a common visa policy.
Ireland currently isn't a Schengen country and what we need from the EU is an acceptance that we can continue not being a Schengen country. I think we'll get that fairly readily, if the result is that it will enable us to maintain the Common Travel Area with the UK.
The problem - again - will be at the UK end. The UK can't (a) control entry by EU nationals, and (b) have free movement between the UK and the RoI, since EU national could then enter the UK without restriction simply by travelling via Ireland. What we need, I think, is for the UK to decide that what they need to control is not the entry of EU nationals into the UK, but EU nationals working] in the UK, and that they can do that through regulating employers, and through the tax and national insurance systems, so they don't need border controls to keep out EU nationals. So, again, what we mainly need here is for the UK to arrive at a particular position.
I agree (given what you say about Ireland's ability to grant visa free working to the UK) that the UK should control working and this is achievable. Both Ireland and the UK agree on common working rights for the two countries or agree to retain the pre-EU informal arrangement. The UK then implements tax or other measures to prevent EU other migrants working if they so wish but allows free travel as tourists or business travellers. This solves the problem of Northern Irish residing in the North but working south of the border and vice versa. The hard border is, of course, another issue.Obviously, the UK will want reciprocity - EU nationals will only have a right of entry to the UK if UK nationals are given a right of entry to the EU. So we do want the EU to adopt that position, and we'll press for it at EU level if we need to. But, again, I think the obstacles here will come more from the UK side than from the EU side; there's no anti-British-migrant sentiment in the EU comparable to the anti-EU-migrant sentiment that fed into the Brexit vote.
Thank you for the correction on the visa-free work issue. Out of interest can you give me some examples of non-EU countries who's citizens are allowed to work visa-free in the united Kingdom. I was looking through the UK immigration website and could not find any. See link below:
https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/0 -
What are you barking about?Bit cynical wrote: »
I think you are missing the point here and I think it is a result of thinking that there's still a point to opposing brexit in some way.
We can't stop the UK from leaving and where have I said I wish to interfere with their sovereignty?0 -
Bit cynical wrote: »But no deal would also mean that none of the British citizens (the second largest minority in the country) working here could remain working and cumbersome to issue them on an ongoing basis.
This is completely untrue.
Ireland is perfectly free to allow UK citizens to continue to live and work in Ireland, the EU has no say on this, just as the UK today has its own rules for Commonwealth countries which no-one else in the EU applies.
See here.0 -
Advertisement
-
The UK don't want reciprocity, they want to keep out EU nationals but have free access to the EU as it suits them.Peregrinus wrote: »
Obviously, the UK will want reciprocity - EU nationals will only have a right of entry to the UK if UK nationals are given a right of entry to the EU. So we do want the EU to adopt that position, and we'll press for it at EU level if we need to. But, again, I think the obstacles here will come more from the UK side than from the EU side; there's no anti-British-migrant sentiment in the EU comparable to the anti-EU-migrant sentiment that fed into the Brexit vote.
That's the logic of Brits Leave voters in Spain.
You're misstating their position in thinking they're following any logic or rationality in this.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Just to rewrite your post a little - Brits wanting to live in Australia, don't understand when they are English, christian and english speaking that they shouldn't get priority.
I think that being English is the standout point. I think English nationalism is behind much of Brexit. They do not like foreigners, particularly their neighbours - France, Ireland, and Scotland. They have not liked the Irish for a very long time - see Victorian Punch cartoons.
There was a primary school teacher on Question that complained about hearing mothers speaking different languages in the playground. Some people in the UK seem to have reached an idea that immigrants are the cause of problems with the NHS, wages and education. I don't remember a debate on this and I certainly don't remember a consensus being reached. Billy Bragg says it better than I could:I was somewhat troubled by the male primary school teacher on BBC Question Time this week who, in the course of defending Brexit voters like himself from accusations of racism, complained about the problem he has with the different languages spoken at his school. If that wasn’t disturbing enough, he went on to implicitly link that situation with the difficulties people have when trying to get a doctor’s appointment or treatment at the local A&E.
I understand that people have genuine concerns about immigration and I don’t think everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist – I only mentioned it above to give a context to his comments. However, I do think there is a propensity among those who voted for Brexit and Trump to seek scapegoats rather than recognise who is really responsible for the difficult situation they find themselves in.
The problems in the NHS are down to lack of proper funding, not just in hospitals and surgeries, but in the crucial area of social care.
This comes out of local council budgets, which have been cut by 30% in real terms since 2011. As these cutbacks begin to bite, hospitals find themselves under huge pressure during the winter months, when old people – the vast majority of them white and British - are much more likely to become ill or injure themselves in a fall.
Once they’ve been hospitalised, a lack of local provision of social care makes it hard for hospitals to discharge them, leading to a lack of beds. That in turn makes it difficult to treat new patients coming in to A&E that need hospital treatment. The knock-on effect sees ambulances unable to maintain their call times because they’re stuck in a queue outside A&E waiting to discharge their patients.
Of course it’s not only about beds. According to the General Medical Council, 80% of A&E doctors describe their workload as unmanageable. 7/10 junior doctors work on a rota with permanent gaps and 50% of junior doctors believe these pressures are putting patient safety at risk.
It is frankly ludicrous for the teacher to blame immigrants for this nest of problems. Wakefield, where the programme came from and where presumably he works and lives, has a population that identifies as 92.8% White British according to the 2011 census figures. The vast majority of people seeking treatment in the town will be from that group. Furthermore, the ability of the NHS to do its job would be severely undermined without the contribution of thousands of immigrants who work in our hospitals and care centres.
So whose fault is it that we have to wait to be seen at A&E or get a doctors appointment? The obvious culprits are our politicians who have promised us that we can have both low taxes and the best health service in the world. In truth, they have given tax cuts to the well-off while cutting sweetheart deals under the Private Finance Initiative, giving corporations the incentive to make profits from health care.
Nobody likes paying tax, but it is the price we pay for living in a civilised society, one where we provide enough carers to give our elderly citizens a decent quality of life. We know that if taxes are lowered, cuts to social provision and infrastructure will follow, yet many people vote for such policies, hoping against hope that we will be able to have our cake and eat it this time.
And when there aren’t enough doctors, nurses, carers or teachers, we understandably get angry. Admitting that we’re complicit in this miserable state of affairs is difficult. When Granny can’t get proper social care and is in tears because she’s frightened about the future, it’s hard to take responsibility for her situation, to recognise that you chose to vote for lower personal taxes rather than proper provision for the elderly.
It’s simpler and more comforting to blame someone else, to tell yourself that Granny is in this situation because an immigrant has taken her place in a well-regulated care home, that she has been robbed of her right to a decent quality of life. It feeds into the narrative of powerlessness and betrayal that has created Brexit and elected Donald Trump, campaigns that both relied on stirring up an animus against outsiders.
Rather than face the fact that they are complicit in the way that society is organised, voters would much rather hear that their problems are down to minorities or external powers. That’s why those who peddle such simplicities are called populists. They cleverly direct anger about the economy away from those at the top who benefit hugely from the current arrangements onto those most exploited by it down at the bottom.
And while voters are blaming someone else for their predicament, politicians exploit these sentiments to win majorities for the self same tax cutting policies that will do nothing but prolong the hardship faced by those whose elders are unable to get proper care and whose children struggle to find affordable housing. This cycle of self harm will continue to blight our society until we stop blaming others for our problems and take responsibility for creating an economy that works for everyone0 -
I don't believe this to be the case but I am not a lawyer.The CTA only continues to exist because a protocol to the treaty of Rome allows it to do so. As per A50 once the U.K. exits, all treaty rights and obligations come to an end. British citizens will no longer have a right to live and work in Ireland from that date unless the U.K. comes to an agreement with the EU it is no longer Ireland's call.
The UK will be a third country like Turkey. Germany often discusses allowing Turks to hold dual citizenship with German and the EU is never part of the debate.
Germany and France used to allow dual citizenship only between themselves (at least on the German side) but the EU did rule against Germany and it was given the option to allow all EU citizens to hold dual citizenship should they naturalise in Germany or stop offering this privilege to French nationals. Germany (reluctantly) chose to extend it to all EU citizens. But this was because France is an EU member.
If Ireland wants to offer the citizens of some third country special rights, then so long as they don't exceed those of other EU citizens, I don't believe the EU is involved. We may have to stop allowing Brits to vote in Ireland, for example.
That's my layman's interpretation of things anyway. Personally I believe our EU partners recognise the special circumstances Brexit places Ireland in and will ensure that the current arrangements (with some tweaking) will more or less continue.0 -
You are correct. UK citizens have a right to residency in Ireland under a Free State act in 1935.I don't believe this to be the case but I am not a lawyer.
However when it comes to accessing Irelands job market EU citizens have to have first refusal.
An employer could find themselves in the labour court if they hire a UK citizen when an equally qualified EU citizen was turned down.
Employers won't want to deal with that risk and probably just ignore UK applicants who don't have access to an EU passport.
I use to work in infrastructure and hadn't checked my linked-in in a long time but I had a good few inquiries from UK citizens in the month after the vote, interestingly all prefaced their enquiries with their eligibility for Irish citizenship!0 -
Can you give an example of a country where the UK allows all of its citizens to work visa free in the UK for an indefinite period of time and who are not UK citizens or nationals. I was looking through the gov.uk site:Zubeneschamali wrote: »This is completely untrue.
Ireland is perfectly free to allow UK citizens to continue to live and work in Ireland, the EU has no say on this, just as the UK today has its own rules for Commonwealth countries which no-one else in the EU applies.
See here.
https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y
This allows you to select countries including commonwealth ones. All the ones I've checked require a visa to work longer than six months.
I'm inclined to believe Perigrinus as he is knowledgable on these matters (and I said so in response to his post) but out of interest I would like to see examples. Because this is what we're talking about: Ireland issuing a blanket right to work without to all UK citizens while Ireland remains in the EU and the UK is outside it. Are there any examples of this being done without specific provisions in the accession treaty or any other agreement with the EU?0 -
I expect EU law allows any employer to prioritise domestic residents (regardless of nationality) above non-resident EU citizens.You are correct. UK citizens have a right to residency in Ireland under a Free State act in 1935.
However when it comes to accessing Irelands job market EU citizens have to have first refusal.
An employer could find themselves in the labour court if they hire a UK citizen when an equally qualified EU citizen was turned down.
Employers won't want to deal with that risk and probably just ignore UK applicants who don't have access to an EU passport.
Which would give rise to the odd behaviour where UK citizens will be advised to move to Ireland without a job, in order to obtain a job.
Maybe even an unofficial system where employers/recruiters line up UK citizens for their jobs, but "wait" for them to move to Ireland before making the formal offer.0 -
You are correct. UK citizens have a right to residency in Ireland under a Free State act in 1935.
However when it comes to accessing Irelands job market EU citizens have to have first refusal.
An employer could find themselves in the labour court if they hire a UK citizen when an equally qualified EU citizen was turned down.
Employers won't want to deal with that risk and probably just ignore UK applicants who don't have access to an EU passport.
I use to work in infrastructure and hadn't checked my linked-in in a long time but I had a good few inquiries from UK citizens in the month after the vote, interestingly all prefaced their enquiries with their eligibility for Irish citizenship!
so you are saying that an employer can turn down someone for a job because they are British?0 -
But that goes against Freedom of Movement. If we restrict that then employers in the EU can knock us back. It's the UK who's giving up the level playing field and we should hoover up as much of their EU business as we can.I expect EU law allows any employer to prioritise domestic residents (regardless of nationality) above non-resident EU citizens.
Which would give rise to the odd behaviour where UK citizens will be advised to move to Ireland without a job, in order to obtain a job.
Maybe even an unofficial system where employers/recruiters line up UK citizens for their jobs, but "wait" for them to move to Ireland before making the formal offer.
It's ridiculous for us to fight for UK citizens freedom of movement when it is something they democratically voted against.
I seriously don't understand some peoples concern for the UK, expecting us to bend over for the ones who are openly blaming us for all their problems.
British democracy is not our circus and its voters are not our monkeys.0 -
This is the key issue. Ireland, for a variety of reasons, most likely wants to retain the pre-existing reciprocal working rights between the two countries or as much of it as possible.If Ireland wants to offer the citizens of some third country special rights, then so long as they don't exceed those of other EU citizens, I don't believe the EU is involved. We may have to stop allowing Brits to vote in Ireland, for example.
That's my layman's interpretation of things anyway. Personally I believe our EU partners recognise the special circumstances Brexit places Ireland in and will ensure that the current arrangements (with some tweaking) will more or less continue.
Assuming the UK leaves the single market, to what extent will these rights remain and what can Ireland do about it within the EU?
Perigrinus is probably the most knowledgable on this forum and believes (if I understand him correctly) that we should have no problem with the EU and that the problem will mainly be on the UK side. However others believe that the informal arrangements and legislation governing these rights can't be maintained with one country in the single market and the other out.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well strictly speaking they only voted for leaving the EU. There are options within that that allow for free movement of people. Opinion polls, however, suggest that uncontrolled immigration from the EU was a factor. But even so, I don't believe there was much desire to end various formal and informal arrangements with particular countries such as Ireland that pre-existed the joining of the EU by both countries.It's ridiculous for us to fight for UK citizens freedom of movement when it is something they democratically voted against.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement