Brexit Referendum Superthread

murphaph · 24-04-2017 2:47pm

catbear wrote: »

It is not in our interest for us advocate for UK citizens in this matter as they voted to end freedom of movement for themselves in the EU job market.

Of course it's in our interests to advocate for UK citizens in this matter....we have lots of Irish in the UK who we hope the UK will look after. If we throw Brits in Ireland to the wolves why should the UK not revoke the Ireland Act?

To be honest it's clear that you do not like the UK but it's biting off our nose to spite our face to forget how closely intertwined we are with the UK.

ambro25 · 24-04-2017 2:51pm

murphaph wrote: »

Of course it's in our interests to advocate for UK citizens in this matter....we have lots of Irish in the UK who we hope the UK will look after. If we throw Brits in Ireland to the wolves why should the UK not revoke the Ireland Act?

To be honest it's clear that you do not like the UK but it's biting off our nose to spite our face to forget how closely intertwined we are with the UK.

How ironical is it, then, that this logic doesn't seem to have permeated Ms May and Ms Rudd much at all in the past 10 months, in respect of EU citizens resident in the UK?

Fratton Fred · 24-04-2017 2:52pm

ambro25 wrote: »

Except that no employer, even semi-sentient, would ever admit to the fact, or 'tell' you any of that, so good luck with that claim

oh I have seen it with regards women, not recently though in fairness. I actually had a colleague who had a nice shiny letter from a company telling her that in Russia, women were not respected as well as men and therefore they really needed a man to do the job.

It was a lovely letter, very complimentary, very polite and, ultimately, very expensive

Similarly, the third country guidelines would take some proving.

Zubeneschamali · 24-04-2017 2:53pm

ambro25 wrote: »

How ironical is it, then, that this logic doesn't seem to have permeated Ms May and Ms Rudd much at all in the past 10 months, in respect of EU citizens resident in the UK?

May favoured Remain, I am sure she understands the logic.

But it does not help her to beat her Tory rivals, which is all she is interested in now.

Fratton Fred · 24-04-2017 2:55pm

ambro25 wrote: »

How ironical is it, then, that this logic doesn't seem to have permeated Ms May and Ms Rudd much at all in the past 10 months, in respect of EU citizens resident in the UK?

she has made it very clear. https://www.ft.com/content/94c17af0-ec7d-11e6-930f-061b01e23655

catbear · 24-04-2017 2:55pm

murphaph wrote: »

Of course it's in our interests to advocate for UK citizens in this matter....we have lots of Irish in the UK who we hope the UK will look after. If we throw Brits in Ireland to the wolves why should the UK not revoke the Ireland Act?

To be honest it's clear that you do not like the UK but it's biting off our nose to spite our face to forget how closely intertwined we are with the UK.

Our EU/EEA market is far more important to our future than our relationship with the UK.
We went went from depending on 90% of our trade with the UK to it just being 14% of our exports.

The UKs Brexit interests is adverse to ours, they're leaving the EU, we're staying. They're the ones bringing volatility back to the border, not us. If they treat EU citizens badly then why shouldn't cower and if we don't protest then we don't deserve to called a sovereign state.

Bit cynical · 24-04-2017 2:59pm

catbear wrote: »

Don't be so silly. Leaving the EU can means at the very basic level the withdrawal from all EU treaties, including the Freedom of movement.

The simple one line question which was passed entirely redefines the UK relationship with the EU as that of an outsider.

What institutions like movement are now to be discussed between London and Brussels.

I don't think that is correct. Leaving the EU at minimum could mean retaining EEA membership. Norway or Iceland are not considered members or even partial members of the EU but are members of the EEA.

The referendum text carries a lot of political weight. No party would dare go against it. But they can decide on an outcome that retains membership of certain institutions and still leave the EU. Whether there are many votes in it we shall see, of course, but that is another issue.

Jim2007 · 24-04-2017 3:00pm

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

It is not about sticking it to the Brits or a hard-line EU etc.. There is no legal basis for your argument. The treaty of Rome included a provision for the various agreements between the UK and Ireland, the invoking of A50 brings that to an end. That is the logical consequence of their action. No one needs to lift a figure for this to happen.

Likewise any future agreement with the UK as a third country will have to be with the EU and approved by the EU parliament in the process. That is how the system works.

ambro25 · 24-04-2017 3:01pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh I have seen it with regards women, not recently though in fairness. I actually had a colleague who had a nice shiny letter from a company telling her that in Russia, women were not respected as well as men and therefore they really needed a man to do the job.

It was a lovely letter, very complimentary, very polite and, ultimately, very expensive

Similarly, the third country guidelines would take some proving.

The liability-dodging HR knee jerk (in 1st world economies

) is not limited to any of the protected and non-protected characteristics: it's the simple fact that these characteristics are legislated about, which results in refusal letters to be so generically short and unspecific, lacking wholly in constructive feedback of any sort.

Same with references (tried to obtain one, or called about one, recently? as in, in the past 10 years?) and a whole host of other employee-, would be-employee- and ex-employee communications.

Anything you write or say, positive and not, can and will be held against you by an ambulance chaser

So write the least you can get away with. Which routinely boils down to "unfortunately on this occasion you have not been successful, but we will keep your application on file and we wish you every luck in the meantime". Or, by way of a positive reference "we hereby certify that Mr/Ms has been employed by our company between the dates <...>".

No strawmen or excess cynicism were employed in this post, I am a long time employer of STEM MScs and PhDs in the UK and well-versed in HR pitfalls.

Vertical filing of spontaneous (and sometimes solicited) applications occurs several times a week, for any number of reasons, all of them objective (and I class the requirement for a working visa as an objective one, likewise the age and gender in respect of babylity factor) that are never recorded anywhere.

Topically, where I on the lookout for a recruitee qualified IP agent (for a UK position), I would dismiss anyone postulating with an Irish qualification under their belt, since they are to lose their Irish registration when staying in the UK post-Brexit (because the Irish registration is contingent on living/having a place of business in the EEA): they tick all the boxes right now, are perfectly capable of doing the job now and in the future I'm sure, and are all lovely smart presentable people...but they won't be ticking those boxes in 2 years' time, unless they also qualify in the UK by then (which I will likely have to pay for), so they're no good to me right now. Sorry peeps, blame it on the Leavers, and expect nothing more than a 'unfortunately you were not successful <...>' letter. Without any of the above rationale, of course

I will myself lose my Irish registrations for exactly that reason (if I'm still in the UK by then), so this isn't Project Fear peddling or crystal ball gazing, this is the stark reality at the coal face.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

she has made it very clear. https://www.ft.com/content/94c17af0-ec7d-11e6-930f-061b01e23655

Money talks, bullsh1t walks. She's certainly done a lot of walking in the past 10 months, I'll give you that. Much of it to'ing and fro'ing, as well

Sam Russell · 24-04-2017 3:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

a government position isn't a good example, as there are opt outs for those.

as for nationality/non-nationality isn't tomato/tomato? if someone is turned down for a role stacking shelves in Tesco because they are British, then they are being discriminated against due to their nationality which is against the Irish equality laws.

In such a situation, they would be turned down, not for their nationality, but because of their non-nationality. That is, they are turned down because they are not Irish, nor EU citizens. They could be turned down in such circumstances if they were from Brazil, Brunei, or Britain - it would be all the same, so not discrimination.

However, this will only arise if the EU divorce agreement is such as to not give rights to British citizens within the EU, which the UK Government is one party that can control this.

murphaph · 24-04-2017 3:09pm

catbear wrote: »

Our EU/EEA market is far more important to our future than our relationship with the UK.
We went went from depending on 90% of our trade with the UK to it just being 14% of our exports.

The UKs Brexit interests is adverse to ours, they're leaving the EU, we're staying. They're the ones bringing volatility back to the border, not us. If they treat EU citizens badly then why shouldn't cower and if we don't protest then we don't deserve to called a sovereign state.

14% of our exports is a huge number still.

You are now bringing the UK "treating EU citizens badly" into this from left field. We are not talking about other EU citizens, but Irish in the UK and Brits in Ireland.

Our EU partners are grown up enough to understand the special relationship that still exists between Ireland and the UK.

If we throw the Brits in Ireland under a bus where do you think the Irish in the UK are going to go to when the UK repeals the "non-aliens" clause from the 1949 Act? That's right, they'll come home, looking for work.

Jim2007 · 24-04-2017 3:11pm

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think that is correct. Leaving the EU at minimum could mean retaining EEA membership. Norway or Iceland are not considered members or even partial members of the EU but are members of the EEA.

No it could not! Read the treaties! You can not be a member of the EEA unless you are either an EU member or a member of EFTA. The reason the UK did not need to give formal notice of leaving the EEA is because it is automatic.

50.3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

The article says 'The Treaties', there is no cherry picking.

And in any case EEA would have the UK end up back in more or less the same position as it is now except without a seat the decision table and no access to the services market.

Fratton Fred · 24-04-2017 3:11pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

In such a situation, they would be turned down, not for their nationality, but because of their non-nationality. That is, they are turned down because they are not Irish, nor EU citizens. They could be turned down in such circumstances if they were from Brazil, Brunei, or Britain - it would be all the same, so not discrimination.

again, tomato/tomato. its like saying that we aren't turning you down because you're black, it's because you're not white. It isn't your colour, its your non colour (or vice versa

). A decision is being made, unnecessarily, based on nationality.

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, this will only arise if the EU divorce agreement is such as to not give rights to British citizens within the EU, which the UK Government is one party that can control this.

no, it won't. You try turning down a Nigerian for a job because he isn't an EU national and see where it gets you.

Jim2007 · 24-04-2017 3:22pm

ambro25 wrote: »

Topically, where I on the lookout for a recruitee qualified IP agent (for a UK position), I would dismiss anyone postulating with an Irish qualification under their belt, since they are to lose their Irish registration upon Brexiting if they stay in the UK (because the Irish registration is contingent on living/having a place of business in the EEA): they tick all the boxes right now, are perfectly capable of doing the job now and in the future I'm sure, and are all lovely smart presentable people...but they won't be ticking those boxes in 2 years' time, unless they also qualify in the UK by then (which I will likely have to pay for), so they're no good to me right now. Sorry peeps, blame it on the Leavers...and expect nothing more than a 'unfortunately you were not successful <...>' letter without any of the above details (hey, if you're qualified, you're supposed to work all that out for yourself anyway...and if you can't, then you ain't good enough! ):D

This is the case for many professions including solicitors, accountants etc... and I can tell you here in Switzerland it is a consider as well - do we employ a Brit who's qualifications may not be recognised in two years time or someone from an Other EU country...

It is actually more widespread. If you read some of the mutual recognition rules for various college degrees from EU countries, you'll find that they are only recognised if the holder is also EU citizen.

johnnyskeleton · 24-04-2017 3:24pm

Mod note:

To keep the thread moving (and civil) I'm going to ask everyone to move on from the discussion of employment on the basis of nationality for now.

If someone has any concrete evidence of Brexit's impact on employment then by all means post it, but the back and forth is getting nowhere.

catbear · 24-04-2017 3:25pm

murphaph wrote: »

catbear wrote: »

Our EU/EEA market is far more important to our future than our relationship with the UK.
We went went from depending on 90% of our trade with the UK to it just being 14% of our exports.

The UKs Brexit interests is adverse to ours, they're leaving the EU, we're staying. They're the ones bringing volatility back to the border, not us. If they treat EU citizens badly then why shouldn't cower and if we don't protest then we don't deserve to called a sovereign state.

14% of our exports is a huge number still.

You are now bringing the UK "treating EU citizens badly" into this from left field. We are not talking about other EU citizens, but Irish in the UK and Brits in Ireland.

Our EU partners are grown up enough to understand the special relationship that still exists between Ireland and the UK.

If we throw the Brits in Ireland under a bus where do you think the Irish in the UK are going to go to when the UK repeals the "non-aliens" clause from the 1949 Act? That's right, they'll come home, looking for work.

The vast majority of Irish in the UK are eligible for UK passports so they're sorted.

All Brits I know in ireland who are eligible have started their Irish citizenship.

This is a divorce and helping our businesses grow elsewhere is far more important than trying to accommodate an undefined political process in the UK.

To protect our future is not anti-british.

Jim2007 · 24-04-2017 3:29pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

again, tomato/tomato. its like saying that we aren't turning you down because you're black, it's because you're not white. It isn't your colour, its your non colour (or vice versa). A decision is being made, unnecessarily, based on nationality.

no, it won't. You try turning down a Nigerian for a job because he isn't an EU national and see where it gets you.

Regardless of what you think. If you employ some that does not have the right to work in an EU/EEA/CH member state you will be the one with the problem, end of.

People who normally have the right include:
- EU citizens
- EEA citizens
- CH citizens
- Blue card holders
- Spouses of the above upon permission
- Occasionally refugees in the country where they are resident

And that is about it. All others need to apply in the normal manner after priority have been given to the above.

catbear · 24-04-2017 3:41pm

Its overlooked that the UK could bring in a broad emigration regime that would supersede pre-eu Irish residency rights and make what advocacy we make pointless.

Fratton Fred · 24-04-2017 3:44pm

catbear wrote: »

Its overlooked that the UK could bring in a broad emigration regime that would supersede pre-eu Irish residency rights and make what advocacy we make pointless.

any immigration regime would be reciprocated. every one knows that, so whatever happens will be done pragmatically.

catbear · 24-04-2017 4:01pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

any immigration regime would be reciprocated. every one knows that, so whatever happens will be done pragmatically.

The leave voters in Spain may disagree with that.

murphaph · 24-04-2017 4:03pm

catbear wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish in the UK are eligible for UK passports so they're sorted.

All Brits I know in ireland who are eligible have started their Irish citizenship.

This is a divorce and helping our businesses grow elsewhere is far more important than trying to accommodate an undefined political process in the UK.

To protect our future is not anti-british.

Sorry catbear but this just sounds like rhetoric to me. You seem to want a hard Brexit more than your average Daily Express reader, but I think it's fair to say you are hoping Brexit turns into an unmitigated disaster for the UK, correct? (It probably will, but I still hope it doesn't).

How is it protecting our future to work against mutual recognition of residency rights for British and Irish citizens in each others jurisdictions?

Nody · 24-04-2017 4:15pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

any immigration regime would be reciprocated. every one knows that, so whatever happens will be done pragmatically.

Except UK does not want pragmatic; they want to have the right to emigrate to Europe but be able to set limits to the Europeans coming to the UK. That's the ideal UK idea which simply is a no go as far as EU is concerned which is the major foundation of Brexit in the first place; so either a lot of Brexiteers will be crying foul (free EU immigration) or UK will not have free emigration rights in Europe after Brexit.

Fratton Fred · 24-04-2017 4:17pm

catbear wrote: »

The leave voters in Spain may disagree with that.

please explain?

are Spain having a referendum?

ambro25 · 24-04-2017 4:20pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

any immigration regime would be reciprocated. every one knows that, so whatever happens will be done pragmatically.

Where qualifications and professions are concerned, subject to any local corporatism, pre-existing or newly promoted, and of course jurisdictional compatibility.

It is an incontrovertible and inescapable fact that the UK exiting the EU jurisdiction will de facto take the UK out of any properly EUropean mechanisms, systems and other constructs, and those national mechanisms, systems and other constructs harmonised/hinged upon EU membership since: it is certainly the case for what intellectual property types are properly European (within the Unitary sense of the adjective): EU Trade Marks; Community Designs, registered and unregistered flavours; European patent (the new one brought about with the UPC, not the ages-old "bundle" one).

In that specialist context alone, whilst things shall remain wholly unchanged for the EU27, the UK itself faces the stark choice of:

either "going global" and staying pretty much as it is, wherein any Tom, Dick and Harry of everywhere in the EU/EEA can self-represent (or represent local EU27 clients) at the UKIPO, in direct competition with UK service providers (who shall however be deprived of reciprocal access to the EU27 and the EU itself post-Brexit, because jurisdictional incompatibility for rights of audience);

or "going insular" and reverting back to national preference type, wherein only any UK and/or UK-based Tom, Dick and Harry can self-represent, but any Tom, Dick and Harry of everywhere in the EU/EEA must appoint a UK service provider for access to the UK system (the US system since the year dot, the UK system and national systems across the EU until the trademark and design Directives some decades ago);

That choice is not for the UK profession to make, it's for the UK government.

Emigration-wise, a UK-qualified attorney's qualification would cease to be recognisable in most of the EU27 countries irrespective of which course (global/insular) is followed, and the capacity of that UK-qualified attorney to continue practice before the UKIPO 'from afar' (-somewhere in the EU27) would depend on which model is followed: global = no problem, insular = no dice.

Immigration-wise, the recognition of an EU-qualified attorney's qualification in the UK would depend on which model is followed: global = no problem, insular = no dice. But then, the EU-qualified attorney's emigration to the UK, outside the EU/EEA, may result in cancelling their aptitude to practice before their national office (-of old), per the Irish qualification/EEA requirement I explained earlier.

So, far less multinational and professional intermingling to expect, and UK practitioners had better start sharpen their foreign language skills quick.

Expect the brunt of corporatist braking (-against the interests of the UK profession) to come from the Club meds amongst the EU27. They're the reason the London Agreement (about translation requirements for European patents) has 3 tiers, why the EUIPO main office ended up in Alicante, and why the (scheduled) London branch of the UPC may be aborted and relocated to Milan or elsewhere in Italy if May won't sign back up to the ECJ on at least that tiny little specialist aspect of international legal practice.

Fratton Fred · 24-04-2017 4:20pm

Nody wrote: »

Except UK does not want pragmatic; they want to have the right to emigrate to Europe but be able to set limits to the Europeans coming to the UK. That's the ideal UK idea which simply is a no go as far as EU is concerned which is the major foundation of Brexit in the first place; so either a lot of Brexiteers will be crying foul (free EU immigration) or UK will not have free emigration rights in Europe after Brexit.

could you provide some evidence of this, or a link to support this claim.

catbear · 24-04-2017 4:26pm

@murphaph
What I'm saying is we should plan for the worst.

We're ten months on from the vote and all we know is that brexit means brexit and that it will be red, white and blue.

There's a brexit minister who twice thought the Irish republic was an internal part of the UK and that the CTA was a legal agreement!

I won't ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence but in the current uncertainty our priority has to be to reduce exposure to such a volatile situation.

catbear · 24-04-2017 4:28pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

catbear wrote: »

The leave voters in Spain may disagree with that.

please explain?

are Spain having a referendum?

You're trolling again.

Fratton Fred · 24-04-2017 4:29pm

ambro25 wrote: »

Where qualifications and professions are concerned, subject to any local corporatism, pre-existing or newly promoted, and of course jurisdictional compatibility.

It is an incontrovertible and inescapable fact that the UK exiting the EU jurisdiction will de facto take the UK out of any properly EUropean mechanisms, systems and other constructs, and those national mechanisms, systems and other constructs harmonised/hinged upon EU membership since: it is certainly the case for what intellectual property types are properly European (within the Unitary sense of the adjective): EU Trade Marks; Community Designs, registered and unregistered flavours; European patent (the new one brought about with the UPC, not the ages-old "bundle" one.

In that specialist context alone, whilst things shall remain wholly unchanged for the EU27, the UK itself faces the stark choice of:

either "going global" and staying pretty much as it is, wherein any Tom, Dick and Harry of everywhere in the EU/EEA can self-represent (or represent local EU27 clients) at the UKIPO, in direct competition with UK service providers (who shall however be deprived of reciprocal access to the EU27 and the EU itself post-Brexit, because jurisdictional incompatibility for rights of audience);

or "going insular" and reverting back to national preference type, wherein only any UK and/or UK-based Tom, Dick and Harry can self-represent, but any Tom, Dick and Harry of everywhere in the EU/EEA must appoint a UK service provider for access to the UK system (the US system since the year dot, the UK system and national systems across the EU until the trademark and design Directives some decades ago);

That choice is not for the UK profession to make, it's for the UK government.

Emigration-wise, a UK-qualified attorney's qualification would cease to be recognisable in most of the EU27 countries irrespective of which course (global/insular) is followed, and the capacity of that UK-qualified attorney to continue practice before the UKIPO 'from afar' (-somewhere in the EU27) would depend on which model is followed: global = no problem, insular = no dice.

Immigration-wise, the recognition of an EU-qualified attorney's qualification in the UK would depend on which model is followed: global = no problem, insular = no dice. But then, the EU-qualified attorney's emigration to the UK, outside the EU/EEA, may result in cancelling their aptitude to practice before their national office (-of old), per the Irish qualification/EEA requirement I explained earlier.

Expect the brunt of corporatist braking (-against the interests of the UK profession) to come from the Club meds amongst the EU27. They're the reason the London Agreement (about translation requirements for European patents) has 3 tiers and why the EUIPO main office ended up in Alicante.

I believe talk of going "Insular" is just scare mongering.

This Tory government is no different to any other, whatever is best for London will be given priority and going insular is not best for London

http://londonisopen.com/

catbear · 24-04-2017 4:29pm

catbear wrote: »

The leave voters in Spain may disagree with that.

please explain?

are Spain having a referendum?[/quote]
You're trolling again.[/quote]

Nody · 24-04-2017 4:37pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

could you provide some evidence of this, or a link to support this claim.

Which part? That Brexit was about limiting immigration or that British people want to travel freely and move to the EU but not vice versa? Second you can find for example on this thread recently about the B&B owner who wanted to move to Spain but was for Brexit; the first you can find a ton of articles going through in detail and how it was one of the key reasons for Brexit.

Brexit Referendum Superthread

Comments