Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

Copernicus Sentinels: UK industry loses out in European satellite bids

As well as the direct benefits from the contracts to build the satellites The benefits arising from Copernicus through 2030 are estimated at some €30 billion. The UK's role will lessen and it may prove harder to get the data in future.

Brexit is shaping up to be death by a thousand cuts. Some bigger than others.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

It was an option not an obligation. Since the YK had no intention to exercise it then nothing has changed.

Strange thing to thank god for.

I'm just thankful that there is an end date after so long.

Peregrinus

There's never going to be an end date. 31 December may come and go, and transition may end without an FTA, but talks for an FTW will continue, and probably intensify. And even when there's an FTA, talks with the EU about its implementation, and discourse within the UK about seeking amendments/repudiating it/moving on to an Association Agreement will continue unless and until the UK arrives at some kind of settled national consensus about its relationship with the EU. Brexiters seemt to be absolutely determined never to arrive a a settled national consensus and will do everything they can to sabotage the prospect, so basically, no, this process has no currently forseeable end point.

johnnyskeleton

maebee wrote: »

I wonder how many of the 17 million who voted for Brexit on the grounds of immigration, are feeling tonight as the UK government has today offered 2.9 million people in Hong Kong citizenship rights in the UK.

It seems that they dont want less migration per se, they want different migration. So they want people from India, Pakistan, China (inc HK) and Africa to come to the UK post Brexit, just not Europeans

ambro25

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit is shaping up to be death by a thousand cuts. Some bigger than others.

Any of you remember my old posts (e.g. 2016) about UK-based trade mark attorneys getting kicked off the EUIPO Register of Professional Representatives as an irremediable consequence of Brexit, deal or no deal?

The EU (re)confirmed it in their finalised EU 'Trademarks & Designs' Readiness Notice of 18 June 2020, paragraph 6, sub-paragraph 6.2:

6.2. Persons authorised to represent a natural or legal person before the European Union Intellectual Property Office

After the end of the transition period, the following persons will no longer meet the requirement set out by Article 120 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002:

 in the case of legal practitioners within the meaning of Article 120(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 or Article 78(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002:

o a legal practitioner qualified in the United Kingdom;
o a legal practitioner qualified in one of the Member States of the European Economic Area and having his or her place of business in the United Kingdom;

 in the case of professional representatives within the meaning of Article 120(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 or Article 78(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002:

o a national of the United Kingdom;
o a national of one of the Member States of the European Economic Area having his or her place of business or employment in the United Kingdom;
o a national of one of the Member States of the European Economic Area, having his or her place of business or employment in the European Economic Area but who currently meets the requirement of point (c) of Article 120(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 or point (c) of Article 74) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 because of his or her entitlement to represent natural or legal persons in trade mark or design matters before the central industrial property office of the United Kingdom.

£3bn UK service business, right there, gone in 6m.

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It seems that they dont want less migration per se, they want different migration. So they want people from India, Pakistan, China (inc HK) and Africa to come to the UK post Brexit, just not Europeans

I find it impossible to believe that people who voted for Brexit want more migrants from India or Pakistan. You may remember Canada, Australia and New Zealand were always invoked when Brexiters were talking about deeper links with the Commonwealth.

ambro25 wrote: »

Any of you remember my old posts (2016, 2018,...) about UK-based trade mark attorneys getting kicked off the EUIPO Register of Professional Representatives as an irremediable consequence of Brexit, deal or no deal?

I just found out the EU confirmed it in their finalised EU 'Trademarks & Designs' Notice to Stakeholders of 18 June 2020, paragraph 6, sub-paragraph 6.2.

Vaguely.

I wonder how IP will work once the UK is out of the single market. This sounds like it was always going to happen as close alignment has always been politically unfeasible.

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It seems that they dont want less migration per se, they want different migration. So they want people from India, Pakistan, China (inc HK) and Africa to come to the UK post Brexit, just not Europeans

No, they don't. They really don't.

The wheels came off their Grand Plan to get an FTA with India at an early stage, when India made it clear that its main interestin a UK FTA would improved access for Indian workers to the UK labour market. The UK lost all interest in an India FTA at that point, and you haven't heard a murmer about it since. So this has never been part of the deal.

The Hong Kong situation is not part of a larger plan. It's a response to China's moves in Hong Kong, but it's not an indicator of what the UK might do elsewhere.

Despite what Maebee says, the UK hasn't "offered 2.9 million people in Hong Kong citizenship rights in the UK". What they have done is much more limited but, to be fair, it is a genuine effort to do something to protect the people of Hong Kong.

The starting point here is that British Dependent Territories Citizens who were resident in Hong Kong in 1997 (when the UK left) were all allowed to register for the status of "British National (Overseas)", and many did. This is a rather curious form of fifth-rate citizenship which entitles you to consular protection from the UK government, but doesn't entitle you to work or settle in the UK itself (or indeed anywhere else in the world). The consular protection entitlement is fairly token, since you mainly need consular protection when you are in a foreign country, and most govenments do not recognise the UK government as having a right to provide consular representation to British Nationals (Overseas) because they are not British Citizens. Because they are not British Citizens they also are not (or were not, until 31 January 2020) EU Citizens.

Nobody born in Hong Kong after 1997 (or arriving there after that date) has BN(O) status. Plus, people who qualified for the status had to register for it by 31 December 1997, and many did not. The upshot of all this is that about 37% of Hong Kong citizens also hold BN(O) status, and 63% do not.

Is the status any use at all? Well, yes. A British National (Overseas) can enter the UK without a visa for a stay of up to six months. And, should they apply for and get a visa for a longer stay, or carrying the right to work, they get the same rights as Commonwealth Citizens - e.g. they can vote in UK elections. Not a lot, perhaps, but it's something. A rough indication of the utility of BN(O) status is that, though there are about 2.9 million BN(O)s, only about 350,00 of them hold a BN(O) passport, which costs 86 pounds sterling to obtain.

What is changing now? The UK government has announced that BN(O)s resident in Hong Kong (which is most of them) will be granted - if they apply for it - 5 years limited leave to remain, a status which would entitle them not only to enter the UK but to remain there for up to 5 years, and to work or study. During that five years they could apply (on the same basis as anyone else with limited leave to remain) for indefinite leave to remain and, if granted ILR, and if they remain for a furtehr 12 months with ILR, they can apply for citizenship (again, on the same terms as anyone else).

So, they haven't been granted citizenship. But what the UK government has done is to open up a realistic path to citizenship for them. Realistic, that is, if they are prepared to leave Hong Kong and live and work in the UK on the rather frosty terms available to those with limited leave to remain - no entitlement to most social security benefits, have to pay the national health surcharge, etc, etc. But if you think you might be subject to the unwelcome attention of the PRC security apparatus, the UK option might be quite an attractive one.

As it happens, many of the people who have most reason to think they might be targetted by the security services don't have the UK option, because they are university students, nearly all of whom will have been born after 1997. Still, the fact that a non-trivial number of people will have the UK option is not something that will be lost on the Chinese authorities. There are the practical problems if any signficant number of Hong Kongers leave - e.g. brain drain. And there's the loss of face. So the hope is that the UK move will put pressure on China to think twice before it gets too oppressive in Hong Kong.

Others have pointed out that this move by the UK probably puts the kibosh on the prospects of any kind of friendly FTA with China. It does but, frankly, the prospects were never very great anyway. In some ways, having a good excuse for failing to make an FTA with China might be beneficial to Brexiters.

reslfj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It seems that they dont want less migration per se, they want different migration. So they want people from India, Pakistan, China (inc HK) and Africa to come to the UK post Brexit, just not Europeans

UK politicians or Uk Brexit voters?

Immigration from non-EU countries has always been higher than migrating of EU citizens.

Regardless of Brexit migration from EU countries will or would have been reduced anyway as the economy in East-Europe has very significantly improved and unemployment is low in e.g. Poland.

Lars

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder how IP will work once the UK is out of the single market. This sounds like it was always going to happen as close alignment has always been politically unfeasible.

Earlier post now edited with a link.

Domestic (GB) IP will work no differently to now, from a procedural PoV (application, prosecution, grant).

Foreign IP, as viewed either from the UK, or from the EU27, will work no differently to now relative to a 3rd country (e.g. US, JP, CN, NZ...).

What will change, is that UK applicants (and/or their UK attorney) will now *have to* use an EU27 attorney for their EU trademark and design prosecution & registration work. Like they would have to use a US attorney for getting a US trademark or design patent. They won't be able to do it themselves any more.

And of course, now they'll have to apply for *both* a UK trademark (/design) *and* an EU trademark (/design), if they still need protection across the EU27+UK.

Compounding of IP costs in the UK any which way you look at it (likewise for EU27 applicants intent on protecting marks/designs in the UK, in the interest of balance...but less expensive for them overall, relative to UK applicants).

And yes, it was always going to happen once Article 50 was triggered in March 2017, as anyone who can read and understand a legal text, and consequences of the automatic operation of law, could tell you. That's in good part why I decided to brexode that year.

But then, that's "just" IP, the proverbial 5th wheel of the business carriage for most SMEs...

...Now, figure the principle of this new-costs-compounding extends to "more crucial" aspects of all those UK SMEs like...oh, I don't know: product type approval? export license? international trade finance? fret insurance? business visa? <etc>

fash

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It seems that they dont want less migration per se, they want different migration. So they want people from India, Pakistan, China (inc HK) and Africa to come to the UK post Brexit, just not Europeans

So long as they bow and tug the forelock to their superiors and don't think of themselves as equals like those nasty Europeans (the very thought!), they are of course welcome.

Enzokk

So the deadline for extension has passed, details are starting to emerge of the processes that will be added to trade to NI.

First details emerge of system for checks on goods crossing Irish Sea

The first details of the controversial Brexit checks Boris Johnson insisted would not apply to trade across the Irish Sea have emerged, with mandatory paperwork for businesses in Great Britain supplying goods to Northern Ireland from January.

An HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) document marked “sensitive”, seen by the Guardian, reveals that firms in Great Britain will be obliged to complete three rounds of customs, security and transit forms on all goods.

The electronic documents will need to be completed whether there is a Brexit trade deal or not and will apply to all suppliers.

An 11-page slide presentation from HMRC, outlining the new system, states: “To achieve customs control, we need to ensure that all goods are presented and declared to customs.”

There is an interesting picture in the article as well. Another lie from Johnson (no surprise) in that there will need for checks and paperwork on goods from NI to GB, although according to this document its not all goods.

I cannot post the image here, but it outlines the procedures that will apply on trade from NI to GB.

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

So the deadline for extension has passed, details are starting to emerge of the processes that will be added to trade to NI.

First details emerge of system for checks on goods crossing Irish Sea



There is an interesting picture in the article as well. Another lie from Johnson (no surprise) in that there will need for checks and paperwork on goods from NI to GB, although according to this document its not all goods.

I cannot post the image here, but it outlines the procedures that will apply on trade from NI to GB.

Here's that image:



---

I think that succinctly shows now how much of a disaster this entire process I'd going to be.

The article also highlights intention of HMRC to "streamline the process":

The Guardian wrote:

HMRC is planning to streamline the system so that the three elements can be collated and pre-lodged with the authorities, who will then generate a “goods movement reference” number or GMR for the haulier to present to the ferry operator.

It really does smack of them being ill-prepared for something yet again and looking to cut corners.

They also plan to start testing this entirely new system in November, just 8 weeks before it HAS TO be implemented.

It's amateur hour at every turn these days.

Leroy42

My reading of that article is that they are saying that goods travelling from Ni to GB need no paperwork, am I reading it right?

So there is no UK border with the EU through Ireland. Thus any tariffs the UK try to introduce on EU goods can be easily circumvented by simply bringing them through NI?

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

My reading of that article is that they are saying that goods travelling from Ni to GB need no paperwork, am I reading it right?

So there is no UK border with the EU through Ireland. Thus any tariffs the UK try to introduce on EU goods can be easily circumvented by simply bringing them through NI?

The article is about the procedures of moving good from GB to NI, but the picture does talk about good moving from NI to GB. That is why I find it interesting and while the article does mention the following,

The procedures will not apply on goods going from Northern Ireland to GB.

HMRC said it would “ensure” the new processes would be “light touch via electronic submission” and would “impose the minimum possible burden” on traders.

A government spokesman said: “Our approach, welcomed by businesses, ensures that Northern Ireland will benefit from unfettered access to the whole UK market and that there will be no tariffs for internal UK trade in any circumstances”.

Now a couple of things on this reply, there will not be tariffs but it doesn't say anything about new procedures or paperwork. That is what Johnson was talking about. The picture mentions the following procedures for goods moving from NI to the rest of the UK,

• Trade going directly from NI to the rest of the UK should continue to take place as it does now
  
• NI businesses will retain unfettered access to the rest of the UK market
  
• This means in the majority of cases, there should be no additional processes or paperwork and there will be no change to how NI goods arrive in GB ports compared to today
  
• The exceptions to these arrangements will be good falling within the very limited number of procedures relating to specific international obligations binding on the UK or the EU (for example, obligations on the movement of endangered species and where traders want to use special procedures like duty suspense)
  
• In the limited circumstances set out above, export declarations may be required.
  
• Traders may also choose to use Transit when moving goods through NI ports.
  
• HMG is carrying out further work on the detail of unfettered access and how NI businesses will be able to benefit from it.

So this does contradict Johnson about no paperwork, even if it is only a small amount. And even within this document it lists only one example of goods who will need to complete paperwork. How many other goods will need to complete export declarations as this is not clarified?

Leroy42

my issue is how are the UK customs possibly going to control their borders when they have a massive gaping hole through NI?

It completely undermines any attempt to impose tariffs, particularly on EU but also on other countries that have FTA with the EU. Why bother giving anything to the UK when you can make a deal with the EU (bigger market) and simply bring you goods in via NI?

It ins't even a question about loss of tariffs, it is more that they have nothing to offer in a trade negotiation.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

my issue is how are the UK customs possibly going to control their borders when they have a massive gaping hole through NI?

It completely undermines any attempt to impose tariffs, particularly on EU but also on other countries that have FTA with the EU. Why bother giving anything to the UK when you can make a deal with the EU (bigger market) and simply bring you goods in via NI?

It ins't even a question about loss of tariffs, it is more that they have nothing to offer in a trade negotiation.

I don't think there will be a hole though. I think everyone is aware there will be checks at ports, but the UK government is denying this now with careful language whenever they are in front of the public. They will be aware from other countries already that, as you say, if there is this loophole for goods from NI to the UK not having checks and there will be no checks on this island, then there is very little incentive to offer them anything in regards to a trade deal.

So in the end we will have a border in the Irish Sea with a fudge for some goods from NI going to the UK only, but if there is a sniff that the goods are from Ireland/EU, the UK will do their checks and need their paperwork.

Nody

For those who've not seen it I highly recommend the "UK couple in France who voted for Brexit" twitter thread. In short summary; elderly couple own a house in France were they expect to retire in five years and both voted for Brexit. When told the realities of Brexit by their neighbor who's dual citizen (UK & France) go into a rage over how unfair it is that he gets to keep his EU rights and they don't and demand "compensation" for it all involving their son coming down to "sort it out with the mayor" because it's somehow EU's fault...

quokula

Nody wrote: »

For those who've not seen it I highly recommend the "UK couple in France who voted for Brexit" twitter thread. In short summary; elderly couple own a house in France were they expect to retire in five years and both voted for Brexit. When told the realities of Brexit by their neighbor who's dual citizen (UK & France) go into a rage over how unfair it is that he gets to keep his EU rights and they don't and demand "compensation" for it all involving their son coming down to "sort it out with the mayor" because it's somehow EU's fault...

The first tweet or two may have been true but the rest of it with the constant escalation is pure spoofing. Looks like the account has been deleted now too.

serfboard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It seems that they dont want less migration per se, they want different migration. So they want people from India, Pakistan, China (inc HK) and Africa to come to the UK post Brexit, just not Europeans

And if you believe that, I've got a non-existant bridge to sell you - going cheap at just 50 million quid!

Headshot

Nody wrote: »

For those who've not seen it I highly recommend the "UK couple in France who voted for Brexit" twitter thread. In short summary; elderly couple own a house in France were they expect to retire in five years and both voted for Brexit. When told the realities of Brexit by their neighbor who's dual citizen (UK & France) go into a rage over how unfair it is that he gets to keep his EU rights and they don't and demand "compensation" for it all involving their son coming down to "sort it out with the mayor" because it's somehow EU's fault...

That's the best laugh I had in ages

Igotadose

quokula wrote: »

The first tweet or two may have been true but the rest of it with the constant escalation is pure spoofing. Looks like the account has been deleted now too.

Sextator indeed bears this out, however, it's never been disproved.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they don't. They really don't.

The wheels came off their Grand Plan to get an FTA with India at an early stage, when India made it clear that its main interestin a UK FTA would improved access for Indian workers to the UK labour market. The UK lost all interest in an India FTA at that point, and you haven't heard a murmer about it since. So this has never been part of the deal.

The Hong Kong situation is not part of a larger plan. It's a response to China's moves in Hong Kong, but it's not an indicator of what the UK might do elsewhere.

Despite what Maebee says, the UK hasn't "offered 2.9 million people in Hong Kong citizenship rights in the UK". What they have done is much more limited but, to be fair, it is a genuine effort to do something to protect the people of Hong Kong.

The starting point here is that British Dependent Territories Citizens who were resident in Hong Kong in 1997 (when the UK left) were all allowed to register for the status of "British National (Overseas)", and many did. This is a rather curious form of fifth-rate citizenship which entitles you to consular protection from the UK government, but doesn't entitle you to work or settle in the UK itself (or indeed anywhere else in the world). The consular protection entitlement is fairly token, since you mainly need consular protection when you are in a foreign country, and most govenments do not recognise the UK government as having a right to provide consular representation to British Nationals (Overseas) because they are not British Citizens. Because they are not British Citizens they also are not (or were not, until 31 January 2020) EU Citizens.

Nobody born in Hong Kong after 1997 (or arriving there after that date) has BN(O) status. Plus, people who qualified for the status had to register for it by 31 December 1997, and many did not. The upshot of all this is that about 37% of Hong Kong citizens also hold BN(O) status, and 63% do not.

Is the status any use at all? Well, yes. A British National (Overseas) can enter the UK without a visa for a stay of up to six months. And, should they apply for and get a visa for a longer stay, or carrying the right to work, they get the same rights as Commonwealth Citizens - e.g. they can vote in UK elections. Not a lot, perhaps, but it's something. A rough indication of the utility of BN(O) status is that, though there are about 2.9 million BN(O)s, only about 350,00 of them hold a BN(O) passport, which costs 86 pounds sterling to obtain.

What is changing now? The UK government has announced that BN(O)s resident in Hong Kong (which is most of them) will be granted - if they apply for it - 5 years limited leave to remain, a status which would entitle them not only to enter the UK but to remain there for up to 5 years, and to work or study. During that five years they could apply (on the same basis as anyone else with limited leave to remain) for indefinite leave to remain and, if granted ILR, and if they remain for a furtehr 12 months with ILR, they can apply for citizenship (again, on the same terms as anyone else).

So, they haven't been granted citizenship. But what the UK government has done is to open up a realistic path to citizenship for them. Realistic, that is, if they are prepared to leave Hong Kong and live and work in the UK on the rather frosty terms available to those with limited leave to remain - no entitlement to most social security benefits, have to pay the national health surcharge, etc, etc. But if you think you might be subject to the unwelcome attention of the PRC security apparatus, the UK option might be quite an attractive one.

As it happens, many of the people who have most reason to think they might be targetted by the security services don't have the UK option, because they are university students, nearly all of whom will have been born after 1997. Still, the fact that a non-trivial number of people will have the UK option is not something that will be lost on the Chinese authorities. There are the practical problems if any signficant number of Hong Kongers leave - e.g. brain drain. And there's the loss of face. So the hope is that the UK move will put pressure on China to think twice before it gets too oppressive in Hong Kong.

Others have pointed out that this move by the UK probably puts the kibosh on the prospects of any kind of friendly FTA with China. It does but, frankly, the prospects were never very great anyway. In some ways, having a good excuse for failing to make an FTA with China might be beneficial to Brexiters.

It used to be that HK nationals had right of residency in the UK by default, but that was taken away as part of the 1997 deal so that China didn't loose the entirety of the population. This is kind of restoring their previous rights, but they have also now extended it to their dependants as well.

fash

Nody wrote: »

For those who've not seen it I highly recommend the "UK couple in France who voted for Brexit" twitter thread. In short summary; elderly couple own a house in France were they expect to retire in five years and both voted for Brexit. When told the realities of Brexit by their neighbor who's dual citizen (UK & France) go into a rage over how unfair it is that he gets to keep his EU rights and they don't and demand "compensation" for it all involving their son coming down to "sort it out with the mayor" because it's somehow EU's fault...

Seems to be fake btw:
.

Nody

fash wrote: »

Seems to be fake btw:
.

Already covered by him:

One last tweet.

To all the people saying I use a stock photo in my bio. Yes of course I bloody do, I write under a nom de plume so I'm hardly likely to use a real photo of me am I ?

Twats.

Fr Tod Umptious

Headshot wrote: »

That's the best laugh I had in ages

Yes it's a great read.

But I'd say most of it is fake, he might have jumped the shark with the dog bite at the railway station story.

Professor Moriarty

Brexit trade negotiations have finished early due to serious disagreements with Barnier complaining of a lack of respect and a lack of engagement from the UK. Got to endure waffle and pretend bonhomie ad nauseam from Johnson until December. Then bye bye.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Brexit trade negotiations have finished early due to serious disagreements with Barnier complaining of a lack of respect and a lack of engagement from the UK. Got to endure waffle and pretend bonhomie ad nauseam from Johnson until December. Then bye bye.

Here is a story to confirm that they have stopped early this week,

EU-UK trade talks break up early over 'serious' disagreements

The latest negotiations in Brussels on an EU-UK trade and security deal have broken up early, with the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, complaining of a lack of respect and engagement by the British government.

The two sides ended the week’s talks – the first held in person since February – a day ahead of the jointly agreed schedule amid evident frustration at the lack of progress in bridging what both Barnier and his UK counterpart, David Frost, described as “serious” disagreements.

“Our goal was to get negotiations successfully and quickly on a trajectory to reach an agreement,” Barnier said in a statement. “However, after four days of discussions, serious divergences remain.”

I would not be too concerned, but if the talks scheduled for next week only lasts a couple of days and they call off future talks, then we will know it is serious. But this could just be posturing from both sides. The weekend wrap up from Tony Connelly will be interesting to read this weekend.

johnnyskeleton

serfboard wrote: »

And if you believe that, I've got a non-existant bridge to sell you - going cheap at just 50 million quid!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-52752656

Non EU migration into the UK is at its peak to date. According to the article, it is mostly driven by an increase in Chinese and Indian students.

So yeah, the UK wants more non EU citizens coming in. Its harder to say re EU citizens because they cant control that, so its more a matter of opinion than fact, but my opinion is that the UK is less enthusiastic about EU citizens living in the country than ever before bases on the rhetoric coming from mostly Brexiteers, whom I accept dont speak for all of the UK, but also the more or less silence from the remain voters who, with a few exceptions, prefer to ignore the issue of EU inward migration in favour of championing the other benefits of the EU.

Hence (again in my opinion) lots of them are leaving and less are moving to the UK, and that latter is backed up by statistics.

So it is unquestionably UK govt policy to encourage more non EU immigration becauae theyre issuing visas and giving more permission to remain than ever before, and it seems fairly clear to me that they want to discourage EU immigration, admittedly based on opinion rather than on statistics

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

It used to be that HK nationals had right of residency in the UK by default, but that was taken away as part of the 1997 deal so that China didn't loose the entirety of the population. This is kind of restoring their previous rights, but they have also now extended it to their dependants as well.

It was taken away long before 1997.

From 1948, people born in Hong Kong (and other colonies) acquired the status of "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" (which had the slightly unfortunate acronym of CUKC). This was the same status as people born in the UK itself. All CUKCs has a right of abode in the UK but non-whites were, ahem, discouraged by various official and unofficial devices from exercising that right. In those unenlightened days the UK government was quite open about its policy of limiting non-white immigration to the UK.

By the early 1960s policies and administrative measures were not enough to limit non-white immigration to the degree desired, plus the openly racist nature of the policy was becoming more and more embarrassing. The response was a legal change, introducing the concept of "patriality". If you were a CUKC who was born in the UK, or whose father was born in the UK, or whose paternal grandfather was born in the UK, you had an automatic right of abode in the UK; otherwise not. Most ethnically Chinese Hong Kong-born CUKCs lost the right of abode at that point.

As colonies transitioned to independence in the 1960s and 70s, their populations lost CUKC status and instead became citizens of the newly-independent country. But an exception was usually made for those of them who were British patrials; they retained their CUKC status.

There were various tinkerings with that system, but it remained in place until about 1980, when they rejigged the whole thing, and abolished the status of CUKC. All existing CUKCs were reclassified into various citizenship grades based on their birth and ancestry. CUKCs who had a right of abode in the UK or who had other close connections with the UK or Ireland became "British Citizens"; most of the rest became "British Dependent Territories Citizens", with a right of abode in the particular colony or colonies to which they were connected by birth/ancestry. Such a CUKC was said to "belong" to the colony there were connected with, or to have "belonger status" in that Colony. Thus someone of Chinese ancestry born in Hong Kong would be a BDTC with belonger status in Hong Kong, and would have no automatic right of abode either in the UK or in colonies other than Hong Kong.

The system was tweaked over the years, e.g to elminate sexism (you can now get British Citizen status from your mother) or to recognise non-marital descent. But basically it's still in place.

When Hong Kong was ceded to China, BDTCs with belonger status in Hong Kong lost that status, instead becoming citizens of the Peoples Republic of China with the right of residence in Hong Kong. This reduced the total number of BDTCs worlwide by something like 85%, since most of the UKs remaining colonies were sparsely populated. Hong Kongers losing BDTC status were given the opportunity to register as British Nationals (Overseas) (as well as, not instead of, becoming PRC citizens).

About 5 years later, ini 2002, BDTC status was renamed "British Overseas Territories Citizenship" (BOTC), and most BOTCs then living were given British Citizensip (which means they got a right of abode in the UK). This did not extend to British Nationals (Overseas).

People born in UK colonies since 2002 still get BOTC status, and they do not have automatic British Citizen status. But they do have a right to register as British Citizens, so anyone now born in a UK colony does have automatic access to a right of abode in the UK.

Nody

Oh Brexiters please never change...

Products from Japan or South Korea would be stamped “Made in Britain”, under Boris Johnson’s plan to save the domestic car industry after Brexit.

The proposal is an attempt to prevent punishing tariffs driving away the likes of Nissan and Toyota, but will sound “ridiculous” to voters promised huge benefits from leaving the EU, one trade expert said.

It has been uncovered in London’s proposals for an EU trade deal, which remain in trouble after face-to-face talks which broke up a day early despite the looming December deadline.

Goods made solely from foreign parts, but assembled in the UK – most notably vehicles, but also prepared foods and other manufactured goods – would be granted the same exemptions from tariffs as those from UK components.

The study, by the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) at the University of Sussex, has identified other areas where the government is seeking “deeper integration” than in other EU trade deals – despite its rhetoric.

These include financial services and the recognition of professional qualifications – where it warned of disputes which would hit skilled specialists seeking to work on the continent.

The UK was after recognition of professional qualifications as “the default option”, unless there are specific reasons why this was impossible

Once again cherry picking at it's finest from the UK; for some reason I'm not surprised while I'm sure when EU says no it will be the usual "EU bullies UK" headlines again.