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

[Deleted User]

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

I didn't - I moved home to Ireland.

listermint wrote: »

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

My friends who are still there are well established having married, had kids etc It was easy to move around when we had no commitments but it wouldn't be that easy to move now.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

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

Yes, you can.

I'm not sure, though, that INIS finds that very convincing proof of residence. There are quite a lot of names on the electoral register belonging to people who don't reside here (as the phenomenon of the "home to vote" campaign illustrates).

You're supposed to be ordinarily resident in Ireland to be on the register. But for something like naturalisation INIS requires rather more robust proof.

joeysoap

Soldah wrote: »

Ireland is a part of Europe but Brexit have lead the British out from Union but good for all those do vote yes to leave EU the facts is the British politics wanted this for all country for the British best chose now them are like America an own country with interests.

No more suffer in posential military conflict in Union.

:ninja:

Is English your first language? Just curious.

Alun

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

The main difference in other EU countries, or at least the ones I lived in before moving here, Germany and Netherlands, was that they have a formal registration process in place whereby everybody, regardless of citizenship, has to register with the local town hall, so they have a formal record of your address. Looking at the website regarding applying for Dutch citizenship by naturalisation here, there appears to be no requirement to supply any supplementary evidence, just proof of residence from the Municipal Personal Records Database.

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.

For the time being at least.

Anyway, my reasons for obtaining Irish citizenship are also to do with wanting to have citizenship of a country that's hopefully not intent on leaving the EU any time soon, as I may well decide at a later stage to relocate to another EU country.

Lemming

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, you can.

I'm not sure, though, that INIS finds that very convincing proof of residence. There are quite a lot of names on the electoral register belonging to people who don't reside here (as the phenomenon of the "home to vote" campaign illustrates).

You're supposed to be ordinarily resident in Ireland to be on the register. But for something like naturalisation INIS requires rather more robust proof.

And therein lies the rub; furnish bank statements by the year & metric ton? Sure. Same for utility bills and the like. NI number registration, yup. Clearance check to work inside a British government IT system? Yup. Proof of rent, proof of mortgage, electoral registrar, etc. etc. etc.

But as soon as you ask me to "prove" when I moved to the UK, it all falls over given that the culture inside the Home Office & Immigration officialdom seems to be more one of chasing quotas and an attitude of "GOTCHA ILLEGAL!" and not assessment. I can show a one-way travel ticket, but I sincerely doubt that would be taken as proof.

Peregrinus

Sand wrote: »

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.

Keeping the border open requires both a customs union and the single market, or something very close to it. I think the signficance of the customs union is that it helps to solve the Irish border problem but, yes, it doesn't solve it on its own.

Peregrinus

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods . . .

Deleted User wrote: »

Did the common wealth ever really function like that?. . .

No, never.

The UK did have a policy of "imperial preference", under which selected goods could be imported from Commonwealth countries free of tariffs, while similar goods from non-Commonwealth countries attracted extra tariffs. But . . .

(a) This only covered selected goods that the UK wanted.

(b) It was a series of bilateral deals between the UK and other territories. For example New Zealand lamb and butter benefitted from this, while Canadian lamb and butter might not.

(c) The Common Market always had a common customs tariff; a US exporter of (say) beer to France suffers the the same tariff as he would if he exported to Ireland or the UK or Italy or any other member state. There was never such an arrangement in the British Empire/Commonwealth.

(d) The big difference; it was a hub-and-spoke arrangement, not a single common market. By that I mean that New Zealand might have a deal allowing it to import lamb into the UK free of tariffs, and under which the UK imposed punitive tariffs on (say) French lamb. But that didn't mean that New Zealand had any right to import lamb tariff-free to India or Canada or Australia or any other Empire/Commonwealth territory, or that those territories would impose tariffs on non-New Zealand lamb.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

No caveating needed. The "hostile environment" policy targets not illegal immigrants but - as Sand correctly says - undocumented immigrants. The distinction is crucial.

That is a fair point, as I missed that distinction indeed.

It is however perverse, as it posits that the U.K. government would wilfully target long-established, integrated contributing members of British society, such as inter alia the Windrush generation, besides ‘properly’ illegals (to call them that).

Given that new context, then

Peregrinus wrote: »

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?

no, what that fact tells me, is that this policy was written on the back of a UKIP fag packet, with about as much common sense and due care exercised on its implementation.

The Tories didn’t filter the populist rethoric, if anything they’ve amplified it.

Alun: same system in Luxembourg btw (formal registration -heavy on docs/evidence- at local townhall as the first thing to do on arrival, because everything else downstream (tax, health, driving, insurances, utilities, ...) is tied to it and the national number.

Peregrinus

But, ambro, it's perfectly possible to be a "proper" illegal and also a long-established, integrated contributing member of whatever society you're an illegal immigrant in. That is precisely the group addressed by proposed "Dreamer" policies in the US, and why would we expect that there would be no similar group in the UK?

You, and I suspect the framers of this policy, are appealing to a stereotype in which people who have no legal right to be in the UK work in the black market, live below the radar, etc, etc. While there are some such people, the reality is that the "illegal immigrant" community is much more diverse, and much more integrated with the mainstream community, than the stereotype would suggest. Which is precisely why measure that are conceived with illegal immigrants in mind also tend to impact, often adversely, on citizens and legal migrants; their circumstances are often very similar, and it's very hard to devise measures which are "hostile" to one group, but benevolent to the other.

Charles Babbage

Sand wrote: »

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.

A customs union does two things. It does remove some of the issues and it ensures that the different arrangements very much still required in NI are more regulatory than anything else. So the checks at Larne are not customs men but vets or food safety inspectors. This is good for optics since vet checks already exist and there is already a rudimentary All Ireland food safety regime.

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.

Unfortunately, you have to think the UK has picked on these elderly people, who are almost all entitled to stay, precisely because it will raise a media campaign and so intimidate others with less of a case.

Sam Russell

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Unfortunately, you have to think the UK has picked on these elderly people, who are almost all entitled to stay, precisely because it will raise a media campaign and so intimidate others with less of a case.

I think the term is collateral damage. Or perhaps racist. I think perhaps both, with a side order of incompetence, ignorance, and deliberate obtuse application of an obviously unjust set of rules.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, ambro, it's perfectly possible to be a "proper" illegal and also a long-established, integrated contributing member of whatever society you're an illegal immigrant in. That is precisely the group addressed by proposed "Dreamer" policies in the US, and why would we expect that there would be no similar group in the UK?

Of course it’s possible, and far from me the notion that it couldn’t or shouldn’t be: the issue at hand here, is not one of sovereign capacity to amend immigration policies as time goes on and circumstances change, it is that such changes have been performed by the U.K. apparently in complete disregard of their multifarious impacts, turning hitherto-legal undocumented immigrants, some of them so for decades on end, into illegal undocumented immigrants overnight.

Reading between the lines, I gather that you are a legal practitioner, so I’m confident you’re aware of the long-settled principle of legitimate expectations, and it’s relevance in the above context.

A « Dreamer »-like policy is irrelevant in that respect, save as to the facts that it happens to conform to this principle of legitimate expectations, and that the U.K. government should be looking to replace its hostile environment policy with it, if it had any economic interest in maintaining contributing immigrants, both legal and not, in place to power U.K. plc.

Beyond all that...I’ve never been a gambling man and, as an EU immigrant in the U.K. (as I was back then), the sum total of these policies and mistakes contributed its own little way -besides other factors- to make the move just as much of a safety measure, as an opportunity chased.

As I said: a win for May & Rudd no doubt. But a loss to Hammond.

Soldah

UKIP is a portion Fascism or Nazism like new portion in election 2018's AfS its ultra-nationalism of Sweden but review in UKIP it is 1 of 2 kind off ultra-nationalism.

Soldah

joeysoap wrote: »

Soldah wrote: »

Ireland is a part of Europe but Brexit have lead the British out from Union but good for all those do vote yes to leave EU the facts is the British politics wanted this for all country for the British best chose now them are like America an own country with interests.

No more suffer in posential military conflict in Union.

:ninja:

Is English your first language? Just curious.

Its toughless for telling on Finnish as Native so I tells only Swedish ordinary life! :D

An Ciarraioch

The DUP warn against backsliding:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-latest-dup-leader-vows-to-bring-down-theresa-may-if-she-breaks-red-line-on-border-a3823321.html

FrancieBrady

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The DUP warn against backsliding:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-latest-dup-leader-vows-to-bring-down-theresa-may-if-she-breaks-red-line-on-border-a3823321.html

Nigel has plenty of inflammatory rhetoric but no solutions either.

An Ciarraioch

Can Ireland take a further two years of Border negotiations?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/ireland-border-solution-could-come-after-brexit-david-davis-admits-36843575.html

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The DUP warn against backsliding:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-latest-dup-leader-vows-to-bring-down-theresa-may-if-she-breaks-red-line-on-border-a3823321.html

What is the endgame for the DUP here? What did they think would happen by deciding to go for Brexit? There were no indications that the UK would be better off outside the EU, Northern Ireland has special circumstances relating to the EU and the border as well. So what was the objective for them?

They cannot possibly want a border between the UK and the EU as it has been shown it would be catastrophic for NI and Ireland. They don't want a border with the UK either. Did they just want to be contrarian and didn't want to be seen as following SF?

J Mysterio

The DUP want NI to be as 'British' as Britain. Never mind the fact that NI is not part of Britain, never has been and never will be. So many Unionists dont understand thisnsimple point.

NI, is part of the United Kingdom. It's already different to Britain in a myriad ways - laws, customs etc.

The EU are offering NI a golden ticket to remain part of the UK, while having a multitude of benefits the rest of the UK want, but can't get. These guys are even more stupid than the Toey government and are going to burn NI to the ground so they can get that warm feeling inside that 'Britain' consider it to be a part of it. They don't, and it isn't.

An Ciarraioch

It appears UK citizens without dual nationality will need to apply for ETIAS post-Brexit:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/04/25/european-travel-information-and-authorisation-system-etias-council-confirms-agreement-with-european-parliament/

Unpossible

Enzokk wrote: »

What is the endgame for the DUP here? What did they think would happen by deciding to go for Brexit? There were no indications that the UK would be better off outside the EU, Northern Ireland has special circumstances relating to the EU and the border as well. So what was the objective for them?

They cannot possibly want a border between the UK and the EU as it has been shown it would be catastrophic for NI and Ireland. They don't want a border with the UK either. Did they just want to be contrarian and didn't want to be seen as following SF?

Someone else mentioned it on here before and I agree. The plan is probably to make a show and "take a stand", bring down the government, have labour come in and agree to NI staying in the CU and SM. Then they get the best of both worlds, membership of CU and SM, but also they get to tell their base that they took action and stood up for their principles.

jobbridge4life

Unpossible wrote: »

Someone else mentioned it on here before and I agree. The plan is probably to make a show and "take a stand", bring down the government, have labour come in and agree to NI staying in the CU and SM. Then they get the best of both worlds, membership of CU and SM, but also they get to tell their base that they took action and stood up for their principles.

While that is an interesting hypothesis, I don't think any of us can make reliable predictions until the source of the questionable funding that allowed the DUP to take out a massively expensive advertisement campaign in the UK, in areas where they do not compete, is uncovered.

Unpossible

jobbridge4life wrote: »

While that is an interesting hypothesis, I don't think any of us can make reliable predictions until the source of the questionable funding that allowed the DUP to take out a massively expensive advertisement campaign in the UK, in areas where they do not compete, is uncovered.

True, they might be planning on profitting personally from BREXIT.

J Mysterio

This shower are so untrustworthy!

"Britain's Brexit secretary David Davis has said that the backstop solution to avoid a hard border will not include anything that will mean different arrangements for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the UK."

Attending a hearing of the House of Commons Committee on exiting the EU, Mr Davis said the British government’s position was that when the so-called backstop solution was agreed and inserted into the treaty governing Britain’s departure, it would not require Northern Ireland to be treated any differently."

https://www.rte.ie/amp/957097/

Enzokk

Unpossible wrote: »

Someone else mentioned it on here before and I agree. The plan is probably to make a show and "take a stand", bring down the government, have labour come in and agree to NI staying in the CU and SM. Then they get the best of both worlds, membership of CU and SM, but also they get to tell their base that they took action and stood up for their principles.

That may be the plan now, but what was the plan before they decided to back leaving the EU? Did they not know how important the trade between Ireland and NI is for both countries? If they didn't, why not? If they did, why did they decide to vote for something that would put this at risk?

Look, I can understand some of their stance now. They are backed into a corner so tight they will probably be spat out on the other side having lost everything they held dear. They might lose their link to the UK. They may have Jeremy Corbyn in charge who could be more sympathetic to SF and a united Ireland. But anyone with two brain cells could have worked out not rocking the boat would mean the status quo remains. Is there a problem with that for them? I mean its not like Ireland will join the UK, ever, so the best they can hope for is to remain as part of the UK.

Politicians should have people below them at least to advise them, but it seems like common sense have left everyone at the moment in any political position in the UK. It's baffling to witness.

Just wondering as well, what would the votes have been had the DUP decided to back remain in NI? It would not have stopped Brexit, but what percentage would have voted Remain if all parties went for the sensible option? Also, even if they did back Remain, after the election Theresa May would have still needed to approach them for a deal to govern, but they could have actually made a difference for their own people instead of spouting threats about wanting something that cannot be given to them.

Charles Babbage

J Mysterio wrote: »

This shower are so untrustworthy!

"Britain's Brexit secretary David Davis has said that the backstop solution to avoid a hard border will not include anything that will mean different arrangements for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the UK."

Attending a hearing of the House of Commons Committee on exiting the EU, Mr Davis said the British government’s position was that when the so-called backstop solution was agreed and inserted into the treaty governing Britain’s departure, it would not require Northern Ireland to be treated any differently."

https://www.rte.ie/amp/957097/

Quite. No doubt it will not mention NI at all but merely goods entering the UK on a land border.

Christy42

Enzokk wrote: »

That may be the plan now, but what was the plan before they decided to back leaving the EU? Did they not know how important the trade between Ireland and NI is for both countries? If they didn't, why not? If they did, why did they decide to vote for something that would put this at risk?

Look, I can understand some of their stance now. They are backed into a corner so tight they will probably be spat out on the other side having lost everything they held dear. They might lose their link to the UK. They may have Jeremy Corbyn in charge who could be more sympathetic to SF and a united Ireland. But anyone with two brain cells could have worked out not rocking the boat would mean the status quo remains. Is there a problem with that for them? I mean its not like Ireland will join the UK, ever, so the best they can hope for is to remain as part of the UK.

Politicians should have people below them at least to advise them, but it seems like common sense have left everyone at the moment in any political position in the UK. It's baffling to witness.

Just wondering as well, what would the votes have been had the DUP decided to back remain in NI? It would not have stopped Brexit, but what percentage would have voted Remain if all parties went for the sensible option? Also, even if they did back Remain, after the election Theresa May would have still needed to approach them for a deal to govern, but they could have actually made a difference for their own people instead of spouting threats about wanting something that cannot be given to them.

I imagine they expected to lose the referendum and not need to think about any of this

flatty

I honestly think that the rump of the brexit wing are all a bit dim. This isn't a flippant remark. It is very relevant. I think honestly that they are too thick to nuance anything, too thick to steer any way through this, too thick to be negotiating with the eu, and too thick to realise it.
Unfortunately, I don't think the lady who sent them is any brighter.

EdgeCase

I feel sorry for the UK civil servants being sent to Brussels with a plan that looks like it was drawn up by General Melchett from Blackadder.

They are left with the impossible task of trying to make something of what is nothing but a load of populist rhetoric and somehow make that work in reality. I mean these are intelligent, professional people who have worked all their careers on dealing with sane and pragmatic negotiations and they are being expected to now implement absolutely nonsense.

Professor Moriarty

flatty wrote: »

I honestly think that the rump of the brexit wing are all a bit dim. This isn't a flippant remark. It is very relevant. I think honestly that they are too thick to nuance anything, too thick to steer any way through this, too thick to be negotiating with the eu, and too thick to realise it.
Unfortunately, I don't think the lady who sent them is any brighter.

No. Apart from the odd exception like Davis, they are all from privileged backgrounds. Boris is an old Etonian. Mogg is an old Etonian. May went to grammar school and Oxford as did Gove, Hague and Redmond. It isn't stupidity, it's arrogance.