nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace what is going on in Britain. The Home Office has run amok and are treating people like animals. Hostile environment indeed.

Seems that this will not just be limited to the Windrush generation. I think more stories will come out that this will be for all immigrants to the UK. What guarantee will there be for the EU that UK agencies won't just destroy their documents as well?

Would anyone trust this government to do anything right? They have tried to pass the blame for this scandal to previous governments. You have had people trying to claim that Theresa May was not responsible for any of this, while her fingerprints are all over this. For years they invited this hostility towards their own citizens (these are people who can claim citizenship, they just haven't or when they came over they were citizens) and we should trust them to ensure a welcoming environment to our citizens?

Then we have the government who didn't want to investigate a company on request from France. The emails explaining why doesn't read well from the HMRC.

The UK Refused To Raid A Company Suspected Of Money Laundering, Citing Its Tory Donations

When BuzzFeed News first approached HMRC to ask about its response to the French request, the agency’s senior press officer strongly denied that Lycamobile’s donations would ever be cited as a reason not to conduct criminal raids. “No HMRC official would ever write such a letter,” he said. “This is the United Kingdom for God’s sake, not some third world banana republic where the organs of state are in hock to some sort of kleptocracy.”

However, after verifying the contents of the email seen by BuzzFeed News, another HMRC spokesman said that it was “regrettable”.

This is the UK envisaged by Brexiteers though. Low tax, low regulation. This will be a UK where corporations will be allowed to run over their employees without any concerns for laws or regulations. This will be a UK where political donations will ensure that a blind eye will be shown if you donate to the right people. This is the UK waiting is hard Brexit is allowed.

EdgeCase

Of course it's not a banana republic! It's more likely to be a constitutional banana monarchy!

I think we are finally starting to see some of the more toxic aspects of the UK political system coming to the fore. It's probably been rated as far less corrupt than it actually is.

Remember, a lot of the "corruption indices" we use are actually "corruption PERCEPTION indices" that are often more about how a country perceives itself and how it's perceived by the business community members who were interviewed. They are not usually scientific measurements, but are highly subjective and based on opinions. It's quite difficult to gather accurate information on corruption, particularly softer forms and more complex forms. Also, one person's lobbying and business-friendly environment is another person's rotten corruption. There's a perceptual issue there too. I think the UK may have been rating itself as a lot more squeaky clean than reality would seem to suggest.

Enzokk

And in other news, Jacob-Rees Mogg has chipped in on the customs proposals from the UK government so far. He has been less than pleased about the talk of the UK staying in the customs union, to prevent a border that is.

Theresa May’s plan for a post-Brexit customs deal has been labelled ‘completely cretinous’ by Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The leading backbench Brexiteer ridiculed the Prime Minister’s proposal to collect tariffs on behalf of the EU as pressure grew in Cabinet for her to dump the idea.

Rees-Mogg also lashed out at the House of Lords for trying to keep the UK in a customs union, warning that they were ‘playing with fire’ as unelected peers and risked ‘burning down an historic House’.

Theresa May Post-Brexit Customs Plan Is ‘Completely Cretinous’, Jacob Rees-Mogg Says

But he is all talk once again without giving a solution. Other than threatening Ireland with a 70% tariff on beef that is.

Rees-Mogg also ramped up his warning that if the Republic of Ireland and Brussels failed to sort a good deal for the UK, London could slap tariffs of up to 70% on the Irish beef industry and ‘bankrupt’ it.

“If we were to apply the common external tariff on Irish beef, the Irish agricultural industry is in serious trouble,” he said.

Earlier this week, the EU’s Agriculture Commissioner and former Irish politician Phil Hogan said: “That’s why we’re very pleased in the European Union that we’re dealing with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, not with Mr. Rees-Mogg.”

ambro25

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's an absolute disgrace what is going on in Britain. The Home Office has run amok and are treating people like animals. Hostile environment indeed.

Said it before, and I might be rambling but...there's nothing new about this latest one, or the Windrush lot before her for that matter.

This lady's situation, and the Windrush situation of the past week or so, are just the latest, and most high-profile, in what is actually a very long litany of similar cases since 2010 and May's hostile environment.

And it certainly won't be the last either, mark my words.

Out of 3m EU immigrants, considering (i) the thousands of mistakes already made to date, (ii) the timescale to Brexit and (iii) the governements' track record on IT projects (spend/delivery date/fitness for purpose), tens of thousands at least of settled EU immigrants have got the same coming their way (when they're not on the receiving end already).

A sad, very sad state of affairs, and that particular issue weighed non-trivially in my decision to leave the UK.

Sand

I've said it before, I don't understand the media fixation with a customs union as regards the Irish border. Unless Northern Ireland, or the UK as a whole, commits to retaining membership of the single market with all that entails then there will be a border that has to be enforced. The UK fixation with a customs union reminds me of their fixation in late 2017 with the amount of the 'divorce' bill. Anything to avoid recognising the real issue: the Irish border. It was the problem in 2017, its the problem in 2018.

ambro25 wrote: »

A sad, very sad state of affairs, and that particular issue weighed non-trivially in my decision to leave the UK.

The purpose of the hostile environment is to weight on the minds of undocumented migrants in the UK and encourage them to leave. If you were considering them, then its reasonable to presume those who are being targeted by them are also considering them. They are the sort of measures the UK government could have taken decades ago without any EU objection. They deliberately chose not to. The UK government is in its own way demonstrating that the EU is not an impediment to having a policy on migration.

ambro25

Sand wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

A sad, very sad state of affairs, and that particular issue weighed non-trivially in my decision to leave the UK.

The purpose of the hostile environment is to weight on the minds of undocumented migrants in the UK and encourage them to leave. If you were considering them, then its reasonable to presume those who are being targeted by them are also considering them. They are the sort of measures the UK government could have taken decades ago without any EU objection. They deliberately chose not to. The UK government is in its own way demonstrating that the EU is not an impediment to having a policy on migration.

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...and now it's getting 100% of nothing from me and still 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted. Now extrapolate to the portion of fellow 'fleeing brains' amongst the 3m EU immigrants.

I suppose May and Rudd might call that a result. Not so sure about Hammond, though :pac:

Sand

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xxxxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...and now it's getting 100% of nothing from me and still 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted.

I suppose May and Rudd might call that a result. Not so sure about Hammond, though :pac:

Perhaps, but lets face it you left because you saw the prospects for your field of work being particularly grim within the UK, and you've probably secured a pay rise out of it too, in real terms if nothing else given the GBPs decline. Your departure is a product of the economic prospects of the UK, not a causal factor in them.

The hostile environment is aimed at undocumented migrants who are a drain on the UK economy, not a boon despite the propaganda. And lets face it, the UK is country, not a corporation or an anarcho-capitalist economic zone. So it will do things that make little economic sense, like fight wars, care for the elderly and protect its borders. And its a country which could, and should, have implemented a migration policy long before 2010.

Leroy42

It really is quite staggering that the likes of JRM are able to make such a mockery of May and face zero consequences.

She is so unbelievably weak.

listermint

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...and now it's getting 100% of nothing from me and still 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted. Now extrapolate to the portion of fellow 'fleeing brains' amongst the 3m EU immigrants.

I suppose May and Rudd might call that a result. Not so sure about Hammond, though :pac:

Indeed hostile environments are welcomed by the educated and mobile. They just love it.

Sand

Leroy42 wrote: »

It really is quite staggering that the likes of JRM are able to make such a mockery of May and face zero consequences.

She is so unbelievably weak.

The most damning indictment of her rivals is that none of them have been able or willing to remove her yet. There simply isnt anything better for rebels to rally around. It is a generation of political pygmies in the UK.

LeinsterDub

A spokeswoman for the Britain's Department for Exiting the European Union said of the lack of notification: "This was an administrative oversight for which we are happy to apologise."

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0424/956901-david-davis/

Brexit in a nutshell?

The department for planning Brexit and as such the Irish border couldn't even organise a trip to it let alone a frictionless border. Perhaps they'll administratively forgot to leave the customs union and accidentally solve their own problemm

ambro25

Sand wrote: »

Perhaps, but lets face it you left because you saw the prospects for your field of work being particularly grim within the UK, and you've probably secured a pay rise out of it too, in real terms if nothing else given the GBPs decline. Your departure is a product of the economic prospects of the UK, not a causal factor in them.

On a timescale and replicated at scale, it is both: mine and the departures of enough others pre-, during and post-Brexit, eventually turn those currently-perceived economic prospects into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sand wrote: »

And lets face it, the UK is country, not a corporation or an anarcho-capitalist economic zone. So it will do things that make little economic sense, like fight wars, care for the elderly and protect its borders.

I prefer logic: how shall the UK continue to do all those things at their current (slowly falling/failing) level, with a falling balance sheet?

Sand wrote: »

And its a country which could, and should, have implemented a migration policy long before 2010.

It's had plenty of those since before 2010: the PBS applicable to non-EU immigrants was introduced by Labour in 2008, and I'd argue that the UK's laissez-faire approach to EU immigration (evidenced e.g. by the absence of brake on accession states' migrants, amongst so many other manifestations) was policy.

Thargor

Enzokk wrote: »

And in other news, Jacob-Rees Mogg has chipped in on the customs proposals from the UK government so far. He has been less than pleased about the talk of the UK staying in the customs union, to prevent a border that is.

Theresa May Post-Brexit Customs Plan Is ‘Completely Cretinous’, Jacob Rees-Mogg Says

But he is all talk once again without giving a solution. Other than threatening Ireland with a 70% tariff on beef that is.

I seem to remember way back in the good old days up to 2016 if any member of any party used the word "Cretinous" within 100 miles of the party leader then that would be the end of their career but obviously Theresa May feels so secure in her position that she can ignore these little humiliations

Lemming

Sand wrote: »

The hostile environment is aimed at undocumented migrants who are a drain on the UK economy, not a boon despite the propaganda.

What the hostile environment policy is "aimed at" and what it has thus far "hit" are two wildly different beasts. You don't drop a nuke on a car in the middle of a city to kill one person and say "oops, it clearly works because we got x, honest guvna!" with any degree of credibility. The hostile environment policy has shown itself unfit for purpose and long may it cause the Tories a lot of very sticky mud. Labour wont be escaping that either as I intend to remind my local MP on her party's vote count on the subject.

To be perfectly frank Sand, there's a voice at the back of my mind saying "will this be me in 30/40 years?" because when I moved to the UK there was no proof of anything required. So how do I prove anything in a reliable manner? Times that by 3 million and you have the potential for an utter and total hairy sh1t show of epic proportions. And that's just for the legal migrants who don't have this travesty "aimed" at them.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

What the hostile environment policy is "aimed at" and what it has thus far "hit" are two wildly different beasts. You don't drop a nuke on a car in the middle of a city to kill one person and say "oops, it clearly works because we got x, honest guvna!" with any degree of credibility. The hostile environment policy has shown itself unfit for purpose and long may it cause the Tories a lot of very sticky mud. Labour wont be escaping that either as I intend to remind my local MP on her party's vote count on the subject.

To be perfectly frank Sand, there's a voice at the back of my mind saying "will this be me in 30/40 years?" because when I moved to the UK there was no proof of anything required. So how do I prove anything in a reliable manner? Times that by 3 million and you have the potential for an utter and total hairy sh1t show of epic proportions. And that's just for the legal migrants who don't have this travesty "aimed" at them.

Yep. This. I remember moving to the UK on March 2011. Wave of the passport to an officer at Birmingham International was the height of it. Even registering for NHS services has been easy save for when they've been snippy about online statements.

Meanwhile, the pro-Brexit wing of the Conservative party continues to grow ever more feral which sets a dangerous precedent as I believe some sort of Eurosceptic opinion is necessary to scrutinise the EU, especially the Commission and legislation. Instead of measured criticism, we got Nigel Farage, Daniel Hannan & Jacob Rees-Mogg, the gift that keeps on giving:

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/988756522162425856

Capt'n Midnight

There have been challenges to this bill, but like the snoopers charter it doesn't inspire confidence in the governments attitude.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/uk_government_legal_challenge_immigration_exemption_data_protection_bill/

Campaign groups have increased pressure on the UK government to remove a section of the Data Protection Bill that could effectively prevent people gaining access to immigration data held on them.

Blowfish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There have been challenges to this bill, but like the snoopers charter it doesn't inspire confidence in the governments attitude.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/uk_government_legal_challenge_immigration_exemption_data_protection_bill/

They seem absolutely clueless about the potential consequences to stuff like this. It moves them further away from being aligned with GDPR and if the European Commission finds it's too far away from it, the UK won't qualify for an 'adequacy' decision which will cause chaos for a huge amount of businesses when it comes to cross border data transfer.

EdgeCase

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yep. This. I remember moving to the UK on March 2011. Wave of the passport to an officer at Birmingham International was the height of it. Even registering for NHS services has been easy save for when they've been snippy about online statements.

From an Irish perspective, that's what worries me about this whole thing. The Windrush people and the Canadian woman who received deportation orders all arrived under pretty similar circumstances to an Irish person entering with the CTA. They were entitled to permanent residency without any issues due to their then status under older arrangements.

What's to stop the UK Government in a future fit of jingoism turning around and saying that Irish people in the UK are no longer welcome? The CTA is only based in acts of parliament, custom and precedent. It isn't even a bilateral treaty.

They could change residency requirements at a whim just like they change everything else at a whim and without any roadmap, warning or anything else.

It's a totally unpredictable place, whether you're a resident from another country or a business trying to operate out of it. They're behaving like some kind of crack pot authoritarian state that seems to be operating on the basis of "l'etat c'est moi" rather than any kind of sane rule of law when it comes to just chopping and changing policies on external affairs, immigration and trade.

The way rules are being changed without any kind of predictability reminds me more of something you'd see in Russia than a developed and stable western democracy where sane policy and fairness is seen as rather important. What's been going on with the Home Office is like some kind of weird politicised bureaucratic bullying you'd see in an authoritarian state.

It is shocking to see this kind of thing in the UK in 2018 and I am really appalled at just how low the Tories have dragged what is, in normal circumstances, a very sane country.

"Creating a hostile environment" could equally mean "instilling, facilitating and supporting a culture of institutional xenophobia"

[Deleted User]

As above when I moved to the UK the only proof the state had of my residence was my natiinal insurance and tax details. Nothing formal about my status. Being a young lad and not planning on staying for long I wasn't bothered but a colleague who was active in the Labour party recommended that I formalize my position if I wanted to settle there. Looking back he was right and I would recommend that any Irish person living in the UK establish their right to do so formally.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...

No. Those targeted were paying tax on exactly the same basis as you.

J Mysterio

UK among worst in Western Europe for freedom of press after 'staggering decline', Reporters Without Borders index claims

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

But crucially for the UK in a post-Brexit world and all who sail in her, the difference is that the UK was getting 40+% of my £xx,xxx salary (besides VAT and local economy spend and...) and 0% of the cash-in-hand salary of those targeted...

No. Those targeted were paying tax on exactly the same basis as you.

Do you therefore believe that most illegal immigrants in the U.K. (those ‘targeted’ in the context posited by Sand) are declared as employees by their employers and pay income tax and NI contributions?

Or was your post rethorical (unusually for you, whence I missed it) - alternatively, in need of a bit of caveating?

Sam Russell

I heard on Ch 4 News last night a comment that the fees for the various paperwork to get the Right to Remain certification was 'many thousands'. Is that the case?

Edit: Just checked - yes the fees are in the thousands - see here.

Will these fees apply after Brexit for UK citizens that are currently in the EU ? I can see some outrage if they do.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Do you therefore believe that most illegal immigrants in the U.K. (those ‘targeted’ in the context posited by Sand) are declared as employees by their employers and pay income tax and NI contributions?

Or was your post rethorical (unusually for you, whence I missed it) - alternatively, in need of a bit of caveating?

No caveating needed. The "hostile environment" policy targets not illegal immigrants but - as Sand correctly says - undocumented immigrants. The distinction is crucial. The Windrush generation are not illegal immigrants - in many cases they are British Citizens, in other cases they are Commonwealth citizens with settled status, or indefinite leave to remain. But they don't have the documentation to prove it; they are undocumented. Hence their problems.

And, regardless of whether we are discussing illegal or undocumented migrants, do I think that most of them are in "legit" jobs, paying tax and social insurance? Absolutely, yes, I do, and so does the British government. A policy which depends on employers verifying migration status obviously assumes those employers are legit; employers who don't deduct tax or national insurance are also not going to do migration checks. This policy makes obtaining or keeping a legitimate, taxpaying, insurance-paying job conditional on demonstrating your immigration status. It is absolutely aimed at people in, or seeking, legitimate jobs.

And why wouldn't illegal immigrants be in legitimate jobs? If you assume they have come to the UK seeking economic advantage, legitimate jobs generally pay far better, and offer better prospects of training, advancement, career progression, etc, plus of course they qualify you for benefits and a pension. Obviously if you want to improve your economic situation you will prefer a legitimate job to a black market job. And if employers aren't required to verify immigration status (as they weren't, before the "hostile environment" policy) then what would deter an illegal immigrant from seeking one?

Lookit, many of the Windrush generation lost their legitimate jobs because they couldn't verify their immigration status. Doesn't that fact along tell you that this policy was targetted at people in legitimate jobs?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

As above when I moved to the UK the only proof the state had of my residence was my natiinal insurance and tax details. Nothing formal about my status. Being a young lad and not planning on staying for long I wasn't bothered but a colleague who was active in the Labour party recommended that I formalize my position if I wanted to settle there. Looking back he was right and I would recommend that any Irish person living in the UK establish their right to do so formally.

How, as a matter of interest, did you "formalise your position"?

Alun

Regarding lack of evidence of residence status, it's not that different here. I'm a UK citizen living here since 2001 who is thinking of applying for Irish citizenship, and the only way of proving residence seems to be providing piles of bank statements and utility bills.

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

As above when I moved to the UK the only proof the state had of my residence was my natiinal insurance and tax details. Nothing formal about my status. Being a young lad and not planning on staying for long I wasn't bothered but a colleague who was active in the Labour party recommended that I formalize my position if I wanted to settle there. Looking back he was right and I would recommend that any Irish person living in the UK establish their right to do so formally.

Or dont and move to a country that doesn't portray such a disastrous world outlook.

Why would anyone pay thousands to live somewhere where there is a simmering unrest of xenophobia and a fear of other nationality's. Its bubbling

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I heard on Ch 4 News last night a comment that the fees for the various paperwork to get the Right to Remain certification was 'many thousands'. Is that the case?

Edit: Just checked - yes the fees are in the thousands - see here.

Will these fees apply after Brexit for UK citizens that are currently in the EU ? I can see some outrage if they do.

Peregrinus wrote: »

How, as a matter of interest, did you "formalise your position"?

You formalise your position by paying up to £1,300 per head for the documentation. If you want to use the phone, then it is a high premium rate call.

Look at the charges in the link I gave above. It is outrageous to charge British Citizens who have lived in the UK for forty years this kind of fees to prove what the UK Gov knows already.

It is undisguised racism.

Peregrinus

Alun wrote: »

Regarding lack of evidence of residence status, it's not that different here. I'm a UK citizen living here since 2001 who is thinking of applying for Irish citizenship, and the only way of proving residence seems to be providing piles of bank statements and utility bills.

Yes. But the difference is that we're not threatening to deport you if you can't produce the bank statements and utility bills.

Any EU citizen, seeking to be naturalised in any other EU member state, would face the problem you're facing. Because of free movement and open borders, your movements in and out of EU countries are not checked or recorded so, if you need to establish a certain period of residence in order to be naturalised, there are not government records that will do this for you; hence the recourse to utility bills, bank statements, leases, insurance policies, etc.

But, because you're an EU citizen, your right to be here is in no way contingent on all or any of these documents; it rests simply on the fact that you're an EU citizen.

Sam Russell

Surely, as an EU citizen, you can put your name on the electoral register.