Irish citizenry rights in UK post Brexit

realitykeeper · 29-12-2016 9:52pm #1

It has been suggested that the Irish may not be able the travel and work in Britain in the event of a hard Brexit and even Irish citizens in the UK may find their status compromised.

After independence, the UK did allow the Irish to live and work in their country and Ireland reciprocated by allowing those who remained loyal to the crown to keep vast estates which had been taken and kept from the Irish since Cromwellian times.

If the status of the Irish in the UK is diminished post Brexit, should the issue of ownership over properties "belonging" to British peers in this country be revisited? These properties are not just large estates but things like river beds and the like.

This is all wildly hypothetical of course but should it happen many families, (by virtue of their surname) should be entitled to shares in certain estates if tolerance of British peerages in this country ends. Such an eventuality could well be bolstered by more recent phenomena such as bank bailouts and evictions. Throw in a catastrophic recession following the eventual and inevitable failure of the ECB quantitative easing program and anything could happen.

paul71 · 29-12-2016 10:41pm

Are you suggesting that the Irish State can grab the private property of Irish Citizens. You will need a referendum to realise your fantasy.

road_high · 29-12-2016 10:50pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

It has been suggested that the Irish may not be able the travel and work in Britain in the event of a hard Brexit and even Irish citizens in the UK may find their status compromised.

After independence, the UK did allow the Irish to live and work in their country and Ireland reciprocated by allowing those who remained loyal to the crown to keep vast estates which had been taken and kept from the Irish since Cromwellian times.

If the status of the Irish in the UK is diminished post Brexit, should the issue of ownership over properties "belonging" to British peers in this country be revisited? These properties are not just large estates but things like river beds and the like.

This is all wildly hypothetical of course but should it happen many families, (by virtue of their surname) should be entitled to shares in certain estates if tolerance of British peerages in this country ends. Such an eventuality could well be bolstered by more recent phenomena such as bank bailouts and evictions. Throw in a catastrophic recession following the eventual and inevitable failure of the ECB quantitative easing program and anything could happen.

Who are these people?! Any I can possibly think of are assimilated into Irish society and I consider them Irish.

oscarBravo · 29-12-2016 11:47pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

It has been suggested that the Irish may not be able the travel and work in Britain in the event of a hard Brexit and even Irish citizens in the UK may find their status compromised.

Who has suggested this?

The Irish in the UK are not considered foreigners. To change this would require repeal of the 1949 Ireland Act. I haven't seen any indication that such a repeal is planned.

dresden8 · 29-12-2016 11:49pm

I think the point is nobody knows what Brexit means.

The Brits want full membership without all the nasty side effects, Europe is saying no.

This is a clusterfnck of epic proportions and absolutely nobody knows what anything means until article 50 is triggered and the EU start playing hardball.

Everything else is just rubbish.

realitykeeper · 30-12-2016 12:05am

road_high wrote: »

Who are these people?! Any I can possibly think of are assimilated into Irish society and I consider them Irish.

I will not mention specific individuals but I can tell you it is laughable to suggest they are assimilated in Irish society, they don`t even live here. Indeed I suspect some of them would be highly insulted at that suggestion.

realitykeeper · 30-12-2016 12:11am

paul71 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the Irish State can grab the private property of Irish Citizens. You will need a referendum to realise your fantasy.

Give it a little time. You may find yourself baying loudest for such measures. The economy will implode in 2017 and then we will see just how civilized this country really is.

30-12-2016 12:22am

The OP is deluded concerning estates but the issue of Irish/UK residence rights is not as simple as it seems.

Negotiations will be EU/UK and side deals will not be permitted. What the Irish and British PMs have said about cross residence rights are their intentions, but bringing it about will require the agreement of the other EU countries, especially if we want an open border. While there is a lot of good will from the other member states towards the Irish situation, the pitch could get queered by other issues; for example Gibralter/Spain... which could create an almighty mess.

paul71 · 30-12-2016 5:33pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Give it a little time. You may find yourself baying loudest for such measures. The economy will implode in 2017 and then we will see just how civilized this country really is.

Sorry to disappoint you but my tinfoil hat is purely a Halloween costume.

solodeogloria · 30-12-2016 5:49pm

Good afternoon,

realitykeeper wrote: »

It has been suggested that the Irish may not be able the travel and work in Britain in the event of a hard Brexit and even Irish citizens in the UK may find their status compromised.

If the status of the Irish in the UK is diminished post Brexit, should the issue of ownership over properties "belonging" to British peers in this country be revisited? These properties are not just large estates but things like river beds and the like.

The key question is who by? From the perspective of Britain I can't see them rescinding rights to Irish people. It would cause a constitutional issue in Northern Ireland where people have been afforded the right to choose their citizenship for a start.

The reason I ask is who by is that it is conceivable that the EU could put pressure on Ireland to revoke rights on British citizens and insist that the border should be policed. Michel Barnier on the EU Commission side has stated that he's aware of the issues in respect to Ireland, but the Article 50 negotiations will be a real test of this.

Another reason why asking who by is significant is that if it is the European Commission that cause issues with the Irish border and as a result the privileges afforded to us by Britain since the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949 how can British landowners be held responsible for it?

That's without saying it's a bit Stalinesque to insist on seizing properties in the 21st century.

realitykeeper wrote: »

After independence, the UK did allow the Irish to live and work in their country and Ireland reciprocated by allowing those who remained loyal to the crown to keep vast estates which had been taken and kept from the Irish since Cromwellian times.

Ireland also reciprocated in terms of entitling British citizens the same right in Ireland.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

realitykeeper · 30-12-2016 11:41pm

It is also possible that the EU could break up following the failure of the QE program in 2017. The med countries are in a different situation to the Nordic countries and this will hasten the demise of the union. As for Ireland, it has been very irresponsible in managing its economy. I think that will change though. By summertime Ireland will be sacking many thousands of state employees and not because they want a pay rise. I think Irish politicians will suddenly realize the economy is about to hit a wall at breakneck speed and mass redundancies before impact may make it a survivable event.

PopePalpatine · 31-12-2016 12:38am

So what you're saying is that private property should be seized by the State? That reminds me of some much-maligned political ideology, I just can't recall it right now...;)

realitykeeper · 31-12-2016 11:56am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So what you're saying is that private property should be seized by the State? That reminds me of some much-maligned political ideology, I just can't recall it right now...;)

I am suggesting nothing of the kind. Property must be earned or legitimately inherited. Taking something by conquest does not make it yours.

31-12-2016 12:54pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Taking something by conquest does not make it yours.

It was perfectly legal at the time. The 'Irish', if such a concept existed then, did it to each other all the time.

Timberrrrrrrr · 31-12-2016 1:09pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is also possible that the EU could break up following the failure of the QE program in 2017. The med countries are in a different situation to the Nordic countries and this will hasten the demise of the union. As for Ireland, it has been very irresponsible in managing its economy. I think that will change though. By summertime Ireland will be sacking many thousands of state employees and not because they want a pay rise. I think Irish politicians will suddenly realize the economy is about to hit a wall at breakneck speed and mass redundancies before impact may make it a survivable event.

Ah stop man

You have been predicting this waffle for years and constantly "revisiting " the dates (years) that it will happen :rolleyes:

paul71 · 31-12-2016 4:46pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ah stop man

You have been predicting this waffle for years and constantly "revisiting " the dates (years) that it will happen :rolleyes:

Yeap 3 years 8 months ago was the first time he predicted here. Must be terrible to be disappointed so often in the failed doomsday prediction cult.

myshirt · 31-12-2016 4:54pm

This is exactly like feminism.

They want all the good stuff, and no way to the bad stuff.

Equal pay - yeah we'll take some of that.

Pay for the meal at the restaurant - no way, you can keep that.

Somehow we seem to have engendered a culture of fantasy and fairytale within our millennials when it comes to economic and societal issues. Plainly, it is a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Many need to come to terms with that.

Del2005 · 31-12-2016 5:03pm

myshirt wrote: »

This is exactly like feminism.

They want all the good stuff, and no way to the bad stuff.

Equal pay - yeah we'll take some of that.

Pay for the meal at the restaurant - no way, you can keep that.

Somehow we seem to have engendered a culture of fantasy and fairytale within our millennials when it comes to economic and societal issues. Plainly, it is a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Many need to come to terms with that.

The millennials voted to stay though, it's the elderly who voted out. So it looks like your culture of fantasy and fairytale is the Baby Boomers not the Millennials.

Plainly it's that no one has a clue what sort of Brexit there will be, which isn't good for anyone. Not being helped by the rethoric coming out of the UK.

InTheTrees · 31-12-2016 5:05pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

and Ireland reciprocated by allowing those who remained loyal to the crown to keep vast estates which had been taken and kept from the Irish since Cromwellian times.

Cromwellian times??

The british invaded in the 1100's why not confiscate all those lands that were taken then as well while you're at it?

InTheTrees · 31-12-2016 5:12pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is all wildly hypothetical of course but should it happen many families, (by virtue of their surname) should be entitled to shares in certain estates if tolerance of British peerages in this country ends.

What about the old irish chieftans who had to drop their celtic titles and accept english peerages to avoid having all their properties seized by the crown?

realitykeeper · 01-01-2017 11:11am

Deleted User wrote: »

It was perfectly legal at the time. The 'Irish', if such a concept existed then, did it to each other all the time.

Aha! So what you are saying is that because the English steal from each other, Russia is entitled to invade and conquer. I don`t think so. Russia acts on principle not greed.

realitykeeper · 01-01-2017 11:12am

InTheTrees wrote: »

Cromwellian times??

The british invaded in the 1100's why not confiscate all those lands that were taken then as well while you're at it?

Certainly

realitykeeper · 01-01-2017 11:15am

InTheTrees wrote: »

What about the old irish chieftans who had to drop their celtic titles and accept english peerages to avoid having all their properties seized by the crown?

The Irish chieftains were given 30 days to leave or they would lose everything. They left.

realitykeeper · 01-01-2017 11:17am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ah stop man

You have been predicting this waffle for years and constantly "revisiting " the dates (years) that it will happen :rolleyes:

Ah but until now, I have never said it will happen this year. It will happen this year.

PopePalpatine · 01-01-2017 6:22pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Aha! So what you are saying is that because the English steal from each other, Russia is entitled to invade and conquer. I don`t think so. Russia acts on principle not greed.

Yep, Lebensraum is a totally un-greedy principle. :rolleyes:

realitykeeper · 02-01-2017 11:37am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, Lebensraum is a totally un-greedy principle. :rolleyes:

That is an old fashioned German concept, it has nothing to do with Russia.

02-01-2017 11:49am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Aha! So what you are saying is that because the English steal from each other, Russia is entitled to invade and conquer. I don`t think so. Russia acts on principle not greed.

Nobody mentioned Russia. My point is that Irish tribes in the middle ages were at constant war with each other. Weaker tribes were forced to comply with the strongers wishes. The norman conquest and the later 'surrender and regrant' policies (which was also used in England) were welcomed by many of the weaker Irish clans. To revise history into an Irish vs English story in the middle ages is just wishful thinking.

InTheTrees · 02-01-2017 1:40pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Irish chieftains were given 30 days to leave or they would lose everything. They left.

No idea what that means. Where did they go?

realitykeeper · 02-01-2017 11:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody mentioned Russia. My point is that Irish tribes in the middle ages were at constant war with each other. Weaker tribes were forced to comply with the strongers wishes. The norman conquest and the later 'surrender and regrant' policies (which was also used in England) were welcomed by many of the weaker Irish clans. To revise history into an Irish vs English story in the middle ages is just wishful thinking.

I mentioned Russia. My point is if we extend the same reasoning to the present day and apply it to England, then a larger and more powerful country such as Russia could subjugate the English.

realitykeeper · 03-01-2017 12:00am

InTheTrees wrote: »

No idea what that means. Where did they go?

A lot of them went to France. Hugh O`Neill went to Rome and died there shortly after.

realitykeeper · 03-01-2017 12:09am

myshirt wrote: »

This is exactly like feminism.

They want all the good stuff, and no way to the bad stuff.

Equal pay - yeah we'll take some of that.

Pay for the meal at the restaurant - no way, you can keep that.

Somehow we seem to have engendered a culture of fantasy and fairytale within our millennials when it comes to economic and societal issues. Plainly, it is a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Many need to come to terms with that.

I saw an advert today, I forget the name but it was an insurance company established by a woman specializing in motor insurance for women. I had to laugh, fair play to her. I am a man but of course I can appreciate how unfair it is on women having to pay the same insurance as men when they have fewer accidents and smaller claims. By specializing in motor insurance for women, that woman can offer other women cheaper motor insurance without having to factor in higher costs caused by male drivers because the product she is selling is exclusively for the female market.

The judiciary can put that in their pipes and smoke it.

InTheTrees · 03-01-2017 1:01am

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Irish chieftains were given 30 days to leave or they would lose everything. They left.

realitykeeper wrote: »

A lot of them went to France. Hugh O`Neill went to Rome and died there shortly after.

The Flight of the Earls was just a few o'neills from Ulster with some followers wasnt it? And it was a flight of "earls" not chiefs, they'd already converted to english hereditary titles at that point, the o'neills were the last holdouts.

The process of anglicizing the Irish chiefs with English titles started with Henry II didnt it?

realitykeeper · 03-01-2017 5:49pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Flight of the Earls was just a few o'neills from Ulster with some followers wasnt it? And it was a flight of "earls" not chiefs, they'd already converted to english hereditary titles at that point, the o'neills were the last holdouts.

The process of anglicizing the Irish chiefs with English titles started with Henry II didnt it?

You may be right but I thought it extended to all the Chieftains (or earls to use titles they took to appease foreign aggressors). The penal laws were also introduced giving Catholic clergy 30 days to leave the country. Not sure if the Chieftains and clergy were given this ultimatum at the same time or if they were separate events.

Jawgap · 05-01-2017 9:22am

InTheTrees wrote: »

Cromwellian times??

The british invaded in the 1100's why not confiscate all those lands that were taken then as well while you're at it?

Screw that, using the logic of the OP we can grab the church's lands too.....Catholicism is only a 'recent' introduction

Point of order.....it wasn't the British, it was the Cambro-Normans who invaded.

Jawgap · 05-01-2017 9:32am

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Flight of the Earls was just a few o'neills from Ulster with some followers wasnt it? And it was a flight of "earls" not chiefs, they'd already converted to english hereditary titles at that point, the o'neills were the last holdouts.

The process of anglicizing the Irish chiefs with English titles started with Henry II didnt it?

Actually, it was the other way around - the Irish 'hibernicised' the incomers which eventually led to the Statutes of Kilkenny (which banned inter-marriage, Gaelic dress etc among the nominal English) when that didn't work we had Tudor re-conquest of Ireland, followed by the Elizabethan invasions, both of which applied a policy of 'surrender and regrant' - a lord surrendered his lands to the crown and was immediately granted them back on a freehold basis with an appropriate title.

And yes, the Earls had already 'converted' before their flight.....which followed the conclusion of the Nine Years War which was, ostensibly, about resisting tighter control from Dublin.

realitykeeper · 05-01-2017 1:04pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Point of order..... it was the Cambro-Normans who invaded.

In other words, the Brits invaded.

The Catholic Church in Ireland was once supported financially by 98% of the Irish populace and it benefited from the work of many thousands of volunteers. To take from the Catholic Church is to steal from our ancestors and it is an affront to God.

Jawgap · 05-01-2017 2:59pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

In other words, the Brits invaded.

The Catholic Church in Ireland was once supported financially by 98% of the Irish populace and it benefited from the work of many thousands of volunteers. To take from the Catholic Church is to steal from our ancestors and it is an affront to God.

No, the Cambro-Normans were the Normans who settled in South Wales - they most definitely didn't see themselves as 'British' or as "Britons' - in fact given that their heritage and the fact the island was essentially being annexed to the Angevin Empire, the bulk of which, in 1169, lay in the western half of France, it would be more correct - if one wishes to deal in the pejorative - to describe them as French.

As regards your original idea, given that free movement, the right to work and the right to establish oneself in the UK wasn't suspended when a few of our countryfolk (who would probably also have described the Cambro-Normans as 'Brits') were doing violence in the country, I can't see it happening now just because of Brexit.

When we 'voted' for Irexit from the British Empire, then again from the Commonwealth we still didn't lose the courtesies extended to us.

realitykeeper · 06-01-2017 4:33pm

OSI wrote: »

Except same said company quotes for and provides policies to men as well as women. A target market does not an exclusive customer base make.

I guess that would be deemed illegal in this over regulated anti capitalist economy which will fail later this year.

realitykeeper · 06-01-2017 4:39pm

Jawgap wrote: »

No, the Cambro-Normans were the Normans who settled in South Wales - they most definitely didn't see themselves as 'British' or as "Britons' - in fact given that their heritage and the fact the island was essentially being annexed to the Angevin Empire, the bulk of which, in 1169, lay in the western half of France, it would be more correct - if one wishes to deal in the pejorative - to describe them as French.

As regards your original idea, given that free movement, the right to work and the right to establish oneself in the UK wasn't suspended when a few of our countryfolk (who would probably also have described the Cambro-Normans as 'Brits') were doing violence in the country, I can't see it happening now just because of Brexit.

When we 'voted' for Irexit from the British Empire, then again from the Commonwealth we still didn't lose the courtesies extended to us.

Except the English did invade, again and again down through the centuries. After the war it suited them to avail of Irish labour.

Jawgap · 06-01-2017 4:48pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Except the English did invade, again and again down through the centuries. After the war it suited them to avail of Irish labour.

Yes, they did - but the initial incursion was by Cambro Normans

.....and yes it suited us to work there after which ever war you are referring to....it's not like lads were working for free.....

.....it also suited us to sell our beef and butter to them.....remain in a monetary union......park our gold reserves there.....avail of the protection of the RN....buy coal from them.....fill out their armies......lead their army, navy and air forces ....and insinuate ourselves into their culture.....

.....so yes, I can deffo see them cutting back on our rights to reside, work and establish there because of a row they might be having with the French and Germans.

FreudianSlippers · 06-01-2017 4:48pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

I guess that would be deemed illegal in this over regulated anti capitalist economy which will fail later this year.

Is that your educated opinion based on your experience in economics or is this a Nostradamus situation?

Either way, someone bookmark this post so that later in the year we can hear the wrangling of the definition of "fail" "later" "year" (etc.)

solodeogloria · 14-01-2017 12:26pm

Good morning,

Just on a practical level. The UK Government have made an online form for permanent residence available for EEA residents.

It costs £65 for application with the correct documentation, but it will give you clarity about your status post-Brexit if that does change (I'm doubtful it will). Also, after 12 months of holding it you can apply for citizenship if that's what you'd like to do.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

paul71 · 14-01-2017 9:07pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is that your educated opinion based on your experience in economics or is this a Nostradamus situation?

Either way, someone bookmark this post so that later in the year we can hear the wrangling of the definition of "fail" "later" "year" (etc.)

Why bother? All you have to do is look at the countless similar posts already made by the same poster with similar failed predictions.

Peregrinus · 17-01-2017 6:33am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Just on a practical level. The UK Government have made an online form for permanent residence available for EEA residents.

It costs £65 for application with the correct documentation, but it will give you clarity about your status post-Brexit if that does change (I'm doubtful it will) . . .

Actually, no, it won't. The "permanent residence card" doesn't do what it says on the tin.

Under current UK law, EEA and Swiss nationals have a right of residence in the UK. You don't need to hold a permanent residence card in order to exercise this right, but you can get one if you think it would be useful. Permanent residence cards are already avaiable; the only recent change is the introduction of an online facility for applying for them, to supplement the existing paper-based application system.

The issue of a permanent residence card is not a guarantee that the law will never change. If UK law is changed so that EEA and/or Swiss nationals no longer have a right of residence in the UK, any "permanent" residence cards issued to affected people can simply be cancelled.

I think it's highly likely that, when the Brexit terms are finally hammered out, the current rights of EEA and Swiss nationals already settled in the UK will be retained, with probably some guarantee that there will be no change to that position for some years into the future. But applying for a permanent residence card doesn't make that any more likely to happen.

People who want reassurance that they can remain in the UK forever need to apply for naturalisation as British Citizens. (Even that could be reversed, if Parliament so decided, but that's almost unthinkable.)

solodeogloria · 17-01-2017 7:30am

Good morning!

Firstly although in theory the UK could revoke PR it's highly unlikely. Non-EU people who have it are perfectly entitled to stay.

Secondly - you can't apply for naturalisation without PR even if you are an EEA national. So if you want a quick option for doing that it's best to get this.

It also seems that this process is also the preferred option for determining if an EEA migrant has been in the country for 5 years.

In any case it is an option for some here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 17-01-2017 8:27am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Firstly although in theory the UK could revoke PR it's highly unlikely. Non-EU people who have it are perfectly entitled to stay.

Secondly - you can't apply for naturalisation without PR even if you are an EEA national. So if you want a quick option for doing that it's best to get this.

It also seems that this process is also the preferred option for determining if an EEA migrant has been in the country for 5 years.

In any case it is an option for some here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Applying for the PR card doesn't give you PR. You only get the PR card if in fact you are already entitled to PR, and if you're already entitled to PR then you're entitled to it, even if you never apply for the card. The card is, or may be, handy evidence of what your rights are, but it doesn't in itself give you any rights that you didn't already hav. Applying for and getting the card doesn't make you any more entitled to PR than you already are.

If you are afraid that post-Brexit changes in UK law may deprive you of your entitlement to PR, well, applying for and getting the card doesn't change that. The issue of a PR card does not amount to a guarantee that UK law entitling you to PR will not change in the future.

solodeogloria · 17-01-2017 11:01am

Good morning!

The reason why it could be beneficial is simply that you can prove that you have lived in the UK for 5 years in the event of Brexit. You're right to say that you automatically qualify for permanent residence after 5 years but the PR card offers proof of that right. That could be useful if they impose a threshold.

It's also beneficial because you need a PR card before you can get citizenship if that's what you want.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LordSutch · 17-01-2017 12:20pm

Re Irish citizenry rights in UK post Brexit.

There can't and won't be any negative issues, and I say this in light of the fact that nearly half a million Irish citizens live in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) so how could Irish citizens in other parts of the UK have their rights deminished unless it affected Irish citizens in NI too?

It just couldn't happen, unless all Irish citizens across the whole of the UK had their citizenry rights changed, this would obviously contravene the Belfast agreement, so the whole argument is invalid IMO.

murphaph · 17-01-2017 12:57pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Re Irish citizenry rights in UK post Brexit.

There can't and won't be any negative issues, and I say this in light of the fact that nearly half a million Irish citizens live in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) so how could Irish citizens in other parts of the UK have their rights deminished unless it affected Irish citizens in NI too?

It just couldn't happen, unless all Irish citizens across the whole of the UK had their citizenry rights changed, this would obviously contravene the Belfast agreement, so the whole argument is invalid IMO.

Not sure about that. Those NI Irish are also legally British citizens (whether they like it or not). Just because they get their passport from Dublin and not London (or wherever UK passports issue from) does not mean they are not British citizens. Plenty of brits living in England have no British passport either.

LordSutch · 17-01-2017 1:52pm

murphaph wrote: »

Not sure about that. Those NI Irish are also legally British citizens (whether they like it or not). Just because they get their passport from Dublin and not London (or wherever UK passports issue from) does not mean they are not British citizens. Plenty of brits living in England have no British passport either.

Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness British citizens?

In which case how do you distinguish between an Irish passport holder who is an Irish citizen, and an Irish passport holder who is a British citizen?

InTheTrees · 17-01-2017 2:11pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness British citizens?

In which case how do you distinguish between an Irish passport holder who is an Irish citizen, and an Irish passport holder who is a British citizen?

The possession of a passport is proof of citizenship.

Dual passport holders are dual citizens.

I could be wrong...

Irish citizenry rights in UK post Brexit

Comments