Brexit matters

[DynamicSpirit]

You have totally missed the points.

Eh? Look at your post again: In the sentences I was answering, You wrote:

When you divorce, you have maintenance liabilities, you cannot ask your ex if you can pop over on a Friday night for dinner and a quickie but you can expect confrontation that lasts a lifetime.

Why was anyone remotely thinking that leaving the EU would be any different?

I answered exactly the point you made: You were making an analogy between the UK leaving the EU and a divorce, and I explained why that analogy doesn't hold water. With respect, if you think I've missed your point, then perhaps you need to express your points a bit more clearly.

The EU Brexit is not a business, it affects millions of peoples lives who are significantly affected by emotional issues resulting from the exit and it profoundly affects their lives.

And after this sentence you go on to describe the problems that some people have faced with being allowed to live in different countries etc. You seem to be taking offence that I didn't address those issues in my previous post. But you hadn't said anything about that in your previous post that I was replying to! Were you seriously expecting me to reply to something that you hadn't actually yet said?

If you don't understand that you have a serious problem

No. On these issues I happen to disagree with you. If you think that someone has a 'serious problem' merely because they disagree with you, then you might want to check out the meaning of 'tolerance', 'democracy' and 'free speech'.

 

[reddragon]

There a a couple of million at most not 'millions'. Retiring to the Costas or your French gite isn't using your FoM right to work in another EU country its taking advantage of said countries lax implementation of FoM and you are completely unprotected from any changes said state may make.

Only 2 million have had their lives turned upside down! That's Ok then, tiny number none of whom were allowed to cast a vote on their fate!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Hahahahahaha.... oh, wait. You're actually serious.

I am very confident that my statement 'the UK took special steps to ensure that EU citizens already in the UK at the time of Brexit would be able to continue living here' is factually correct. Indeed a quick Google reveals this as being the special steps I was referring to: https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

Tell that to people I know who still don't actually have any guarantee of their right to live in the UK.

If you know of people who are struggling with being able to live here, then they have my sympathy. I don't know what the circumstances of those people are, or for what reason the EU settled status scheme hasn't worked for them, but I do know from personal experience how hard visa issues can be. As far as EU citizens are concerned, my experience is perhaps a bit different: Living in London, I know quite a lot of EU citizens, and off the top of my head I can't think of any who have been unable to remain in the UK when they wished to, though it's always possible some have had problems I don't know about.

 

[tomuk]

Only 2 million have had their lives turned upside down! That's Ok then, tiny number none of whom were allowed to cast a vote on their fate!

What hyperbolic nonsense. 2 million haven't had their lives turned upside down most of those who have taken advantage of FoM will be covered by either existing or post brexit settlement rights. There will of course be those who have fallen foul of brexit but of those some will be more deserving than others.

 

[najaB]

I am very confident that my statement 'the UK took special steps to ensure that EU citizens already in the UK at the time of Brexit would be able to continue living here' is factually correct. Indeed a quick Google reveals this as being the special steps I was referring to: https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

The implication of "taking special steps" is that the UK has somehow gone above and beyond what was expected of us, as opposed to implementing Article 13 of the Withdrawal Agreement, as has every EU member states towards UK citizens:

1. Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals shall have the right to reside in the host State under the limitations and conditions as set out in Articles 21, 45 or 49 TFEU and in Article 6(1), points (a), (b) or (c) of Article 7(1), Article 7(3), Article 14, Article 16(1) or Article 17(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC.
2. Family members who are either Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals shall have the right to reside in the host State as set out in Article 21 TFEU and in Article 6(1), point (d) of Article 7(1), Article 12(1) or (3), Article 13(1), Article 14, Article 16(1) or Article 17(3) and (4) of Directive 2004/38/EC, subject to the limitations and conditions set out in those provisions.
3. Family members who are neither Union citizens nor United Kingdom nationals shall have the right to reside in the host State under Article 21 TFEU and as set out in Article 6(2), Article 7(2), Article 12(2) or (3), Article 13(2), Article 14, Article 16(2), Article 17(3) or (4) or Article 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC, subject to the limitations and conditions set out in those provisions.
4. The host State may not impose any limitations or conditions for obtaining, retaining or losing residence rights on the persons referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, other than those provided for in this Title. There shall be no discretion in applying the limitations and conditions provided for in this Title, other than in favour of the person concerned.

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1580206007232&uri=CELEX:12019W/TXT(02)

Honestly this thread is just getting pathetic now. It’s quite tragic seeing people trying to justify Brexit.

Matt Green sums it up quite well:

 

[SynthD]

will be covered by either existing or post brexit settlement rights.

How secure are those rights?

 

[Enthusiast]

Could you provide some specific examples, please?

Here's ten to be going on with:

Ten predictions about Brexit that have not transpired | Conservative Home

We can now conclude that the alphabet soup of official bodies got it wrong. They have not yet proved terribly contrite about it.

conservativehome.com

I’ll quote a few. You can read the rest.

Jobs:

George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated:

“A vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000.”

The CBI’s estimate was that “nearly a million” jobs would be lost.

Then we heard repeatedly – from the TUC, Nick Clegg and others – that three million jobs in the UK “depended” on our membership of the EU. The implication – that unemployment would increase by three million if we left relied on the assumption that our exports to the EU would be reduced to nil.

House prices:

Osborne said opting for Brexit would “affect the value of people’s homes” to the tune of 18 per cent. Thus “negative equity” was included in the Remain armoury. The Treasury small print suggested this would be over two years and that prices would rise by 18 per cent less than forecast.

The IMF was more emphatic declaring we could expect “sharp drops in equity and house prices, increased borrowing costs for households and businesses.”

World War Three

Some have argued that NATO is the main safeguard for peace in Europe. But others argued that leaving the EU would risk war. David Cameron said:

“Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash to make that assumption.”

Donald Tusk, the European Council president, warned that a UK vote to leave the EU would destroy western civilisation:

“As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety.”

The above, incidentally, gets my vote for the most ludicrous prediction of the entire campaign, from either side. I think Mr Tusk excelled himself by explaining what a pivotal role the UK plays in the cement that binds Western political civilisation together

A hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic

During a visit to Warrenpoint Harbour, in Co Down, Osborne claimed:

“There would have to be a hardening of the border imposed by the British Government or indeed by the Irish Government and that would have an impact on business.”

Others went further predicting customs posts and border checks, even a return to “the troubles”. While there is certainly unfinished business to resolve with the EU over trading arrangements, the border remains open.

EU nationals resident in the UK to be “sent home”

A constant refrain was that Brexit was motivated by xenophobia. Will Straw, Director of Stronger In, announced that the EU nationals living in the UK would be “sent home”. In fact, they have been offered “settled status” which the vast majority have taken up.

Stock Market crash

On June 23rd 2016, the day of the EU referendum, the FTSE 100 closing price was 6,338. It is now 7,403. At first, we were told that the FTSE 100 didn’t count as it covered big international companies. The FTSE 250 was a better measure. All right then. The FTSE 250 closed at 17,333 on June 23rd 2016. Today it is on 23,481. There was an initial sharp fall in share prices – prompting Remainers to declare that France had overtaken us as the World’s fifth largest economy. But that did not last long. Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, was among those forecasting a long term and serious fall in the value of equities.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Both campaigns uttered lies and half truths in the run up to the vote. All politicians do this and it is up to the electorate to sort the wheat from the chaff. Frankly anybody who cast their vote based on what politicians told them was foolish.

 

[GS250]

I know quite a lot of EU citizens, and off the top of my head I can't think of any who have been unable to remain in the UK when they wished to, though it's always possible some have had problems I don't know about.

Yep...those who work at my employer who have reasonable jobs with good perks have all applied to stay and had no problems doing so.

However...in the previous couple of years before covid, a number of their mates were already heading back home. Life in the UK was becoming too expensive and the illusion of earning 5x their potential salary in Poland was being offset by rising costs, mainly rent. The fact salaries were starting to rise in places like Poland sealed it for them.

The current UK 'labour shortage' will not be solved by re-opening up the labour market to (mainly) East Europeans. The arrogance of presuming they will flood back over to accept the bare minimum and work a 60h week is naive at best. They were taken advantage of by UK employers and they now know it.

 

[Berliner]

The EU settlement scheme was rife with problems and the UK refused to say what thier intentions were, deciding rather to use people as bargaining chips. And before anyone blames the EU for doing the same, remember, the UK was the one who initiated brexit without a plan and then decided to mess around and act hostile towards the EU for a few years, extending leaving dates on a whim, before rushing things through in the end.

That aside, I personally know of a set of sisters who came from an EU country. One had been here for over a decade, had a mortgage, married, children and had had stable employment since day 1 of being in the UK with full tax and NI records. She sas refused the EU setled status on a whim and had to eventually get a lawyer involved. She ended up getting it eventually but alao opted to go through the hassle of obtaining UK citizenship as she simply didn't trust a future UK government to not try and throw her out one day (as happened with so many Windrush people).

Her sister, who had been here for much less time, patchy employment record, no strong ties to rhe UK, got her Settled status right away.

It was a Completely unnecessary and llogical system that only the UK home office would decide to force on people.

 

[tomuk]

That aside, I personally know of a set of sisters who came from an EU country. One had been here for over a decade, had a mortgage, married, children and had had stable employment since day 1 of being in the UK with full tax and NI records. She sas refused the EU setled status on a whim and had to eventually get a lawyer involved. She ended up getting it eventually but alao opted to go through the hassle of obtaining UK citizenship as she simply didn't trust a future UK government to not try and throw her out one day (as happened with so many Windrush people).

If she was here for over a decade and married and settled why wasn't she already or at least on the road to citizenship?

Her sister, who had been here for much less time, patchy employment record, no strong ties to rhe UK, got her Settled status right away.

It was a Completely unnecessary and llogical system that only the UK home office would decide to force on people.

The Home Office, immigration part at least, one of the most useless parts of the government. With Windrush where it was clear that people had been in the UK for years and had emigrated from the Caribbean as children right to remain or appropriate status should have been issued. I do note however there were some 'Sad Face' cases in the press at the time where the person was clearly breaking immigration rules.

 

[Berliner]

If she was here for over a decade and married and settled why wasn't she already or at least on the road to citizenship?

Not that it's anyones business but her own, however...simply put she didn't Need to. As an EU citizen there was no need. She felt secure here, had strong family ties and owned property in her name. Why would she go through the expense and hassle of getting citizenship when there was no reason to do so? Only after her scare with the EUSS (very unfortunate anacronym ill admit) did she start to question her security here and took action to cement it.

 

[najaB]

George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated:

“A vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000.”

The CBI’s estimate was that “nearly a million” jobs would be lost.

Then we heard repeatedly – from the TUC, Nick Clegg and others – that three million jobs in the UK “depended” on our membership of the EU. The implication – that unemployment would increase by three million if we left relied on the assumption that our exports to the EU would be reduced to nil.

While it's true that the rot didn't happen right away, it's instructive that the UK had the biggest contraction during Covid lockdowns and is the slowest growing of the world's major economies.

Osborne said opting for Brexit would “affect the value of people’s homes” to the tune of 18 per cent. Thus “negative equity” was included in the Remain armoury. The Treasury small print suggested this would be over two years and that prices would rise by 18 per cent less than forecast.

The IMF was more emphatic declaring we could expect “sharp drops in equity and house prices, increased borrowing costs for households and businesses.”

Unfortunately, that one didn't come to pass. UK house prices are way too high and we pay the highest percentage of wages on housing in Western Europe.

Some have argued that NATO is the main safeguard for peace in Europe. But others argued that leaving the EU would risk war. David Cameron said:

“Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash to make that assumption.”

Donald Tusk, the European Council president, warned that a UK vote to leave the EU would destroy western civilisation:

“As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety.”

History is not finished.

During a visit to Warrenpoint Harbour, in Co Down, Osborne claimed:

“There would have to be a hardening of the border imposed by the British Government or indeed by the Irish Government and that would have an impact on business.”

Others went further predicting customs posts and border checks, even a return to “the troubles”. While there is certainly unfinished business to resolve with the EU over trading arrangements, the border remains open.

There hasn't been a hardening of the border (yet) because NI has remained in the Customs Union. Perhaps someone could explain to me how they can leave the CU and not have a border between NI and ROI or a border between GB and NI?

A constant refrain was that Brexit was motivated by xenophobia. Will Straw, Director of Stronger In, announced that the EU nationals living in the UK would be “sent home”. In fact, they have been offered “settled status” which the vast majority have taken up.

As I noted above, that is a condition of the Withdrawal Agreement. Had that provision not been agreed then the situation could be quite different.

On June 23rd 2016, the day of the EU referendum, the FTSE 100 closing price was 6,338. It is now 7,403. At first, we were told that the FTSE 100 didn’t count as it covered big international companies. The FTSE 250 was a better measure. All right then. The FTSE 250 closed at 17,333 on June 23rd 2016. Today it is on 23,481. There was an initial sharp fall in share prices – prompting Remainers to declare that France had overtaken us as the World’s fifth largest economy. But that did not last long. Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, was among those forecasting a long term and serious fall in the value of equities.

It's always a good idea to compare the performance of markets across countries. Since July 2016:

Index	FTSE 100	FTSE 250	S&P 500	DJIA	DAX	CAC40
Start (July 2016)	6590	16088	2129	18146	9776	4190
End (July 2022)	7358	19720	3920	31759	13096	6211
Percentage Change	+11.6%	+22.6%	+84%	+75%	+33%	+48%

Which does indicate that our market has seriously underperformed. (As an aside, I'm not sure where your figure of 23,481 came from - it's not been above 23,000 since January)

Both campaigns uttered lies and half truths in the run up to the vote. All politicians do this and it is up to the electorate to sort the wheat from the chaff. Frankly anybody who cast their vote based on what politicians told them was foolish.

That I can agree with wholeheartedly.

If she was here for over a decade and married and settled why wasn't she already or at least on the road to citizenship?

No need to.

 

[class ep-09]

Nonsense. The quantity of immigrants should not be causing this. There were too many, too quickly and too concentrated. Natives should not be having to learn new foreign languages in order to work in their home country.


When there was FoM with the original EU countries with similar economies there was little issue. Extending FoM to the Accession countries was a problem which ultimately was one of the causes of the Brexit vote.

In 2004 UK decided to open its doors for new EU members workers .
UK could use 7 years restrictions for access to its labour market but choose not to .

Germany, Austria and few others did .

FoM has not ended for EU citizens - they have 27+ other countries to choose from .

FoM ended for UK citizens - they have one country ( 2 if you allow Ireland ).

 

[reddragon]

If she was here for over a decade and married and settled why wasn't she already or at least on the road to citizenship?

! - why should they?
2 - time involved
3- costs are now very high
4 - many would have to give up their own nationality & no longer have the right to go back to the EU
5 - Why the hell should they?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

! - why should they?

Because if you're expecting to live permanently in another country, and effectively benefit from the hospitality of that country, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that in return, you show some allegiance to the country and its values, and a willingness to be a part of the community of that country. Becoming a citizen seems to me like a good way to make that commitment. If you choose not to become a citizen, then that would feel to me a bit like saying that you just want to be a temporary guest, you don't really want to be part of that country.

2 - time involved

You have to fill in some forms, get a photo and identity reference, and biometric stuff etc., and then attend a ceremony. If you're not willing to make that tiny effort, it doesn't say much for your commitment to your new home!

3- costs are now very high

Yes I'll give you that. £1300 for naturalisation. Probably not a barrier for someone on a professional salary, but a lot for someone working in a shop or something. It's arguable that costs should either be lower or have some allowance for people on a low income.

4 - many would have to give up their own nationality & no longer have the right to go back to the EU

That's the one really good reason on your list. I agree, you can't expect people to abandon their own nationality. I do think those countries that outlaw dual nationality are wrong to do so.

 

[RT4038]

How secure are those rights?

As secure as any 'right' which is conferred by a treaty or agreement or law that can be terminated or amended. If you go and live in any country where your residence is not by birthright, and you don't seek naturalisation, there is always the possibility (however remote) of your residency right being terminated.

! - why should they?
2 - time involved
3- costs are now very high
4 - many would have to give up their own nationality & no longer have the right to go back to the EU
5 - Why the hell should they?

1 & 5 - Because if you don't, there is always the possibility of your residency becoming precarious.
2 & 3 - This is just a consequence of ensuring your peace of mind for 1& 5
4 - This may apply to some (Austrians for instance). This is unfortunate, but hardly a fault of the UK, who don't operate such a policy.

 

[Berliner]

Because if you're expecting to live permanently in another country, and effectively benefit from the hospitality of that country, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that in return, you show some allegiance to the country and its values, and a willingness to be a part of the community of that country. Becoming a citizen seems to me like a good way to make that commitment. If you choose not to become a citizen, then that would feel to me a bit like saying that you just want to be a temporary guest, you don't really want to be part of that country.

Absolutely disgusting attitude.

Someone who came here, married a UK citizen, raised a family, contributed every day for over a decade and you class them as a "temporary guest" who doesn't"want to really be part" of this country all because they didn't feel the need to get a bit of paper with the word "British" on it until this country turned against them?

I'm not even going to bother replying to you from now on. What a horrible post.

 

[reddragon]

Absolutely disgusting attitude.

Someone who came here, married a UK citizen, raised a family, contributed every day for over a decade and you class them as a "temporary guest" who doesn't"want to really be part" of this country all because they didn't feel the need to get a bit of paper with the word "British" on it until this country turned against them?

I'm not even going to bother replying to you from now on. What a horrible post.

The British forget how they reacted to the loss of Imperial measurements! "We shall still use Miles / pints / £1 per pound of bananas" etc Absolutely nobody expected the UK to suddenly become an inward looking insular nation that hates everyone outside in some kind of paranoid way, or is that just the Daily Mail / gutter press?

 

[RT4038]

Do you have reports about those areas?

They could change the rules, to match the rest of the EU, before Brexit. They didn’t, and we still don’t know why.

I just know - I live in one of those areas.

In 2004 UK decided to open its doors for new EU members workers .
UK could use 7 years restrictions for access to its labour market but choose not to .

Germany, Austria and few others did .

We can always lay blame, but I guess that FoM had not hitherto been a issue and therefore , in their open outlook, not thought of being one in the future?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Absolutely disgusting attitude.

Someone who came here, married a UK citizen, raised a family, contributed every day for over a decade and you class them as a "temporary guest" who doesn't"want to really be part" of this country all because they didn't feel the need to get a bit of paper with the word "British" on it until this country turned against them?

I'm not even going to bother replying to you from now on. What a horrible post.

Absolutely agree with you. As a quid pro quo perhaps we will see a large scale expulsion of British immigrants from Spain, France etc. If they can't be bothered to get citizenship of their host country.

 

[reddragon]

The UK wanted FoM for cheap labour as they did with other countries such as the Windrush generation. You can't then suddenly kick people out , they are not disposables!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Absolutely agree with you. As a quid pro quo perhaps we will see a large scale expulsion of British immigrants from Spain, France etc. If they can't be bothered to get citizenship of their host country.

No-one is doing large scale expulsions. This is just silly hyperbole that has no relation to what is actually happening.

The British forget how they reacted to the loss of Imperial measurements! "We shall still use Miles / pints / £1 per pound of bananas" etc Absolutely nobody expected the UK to suddenly become an inward looking insular nation that hates everyone outside in some kind of paranoid way, or is that just the Daily Mail / gutter press?

Isn't it just as well then that the UK hasn't become an 'inward looking insular nation that hates everyone outside in some kind of paranoid way'. Like other posts, that is just silly hyperbole that has no relation to facts.

 

[SynthD]

I just know - I live in one of those areas.

I don't want to know where you live, but that's not an answer. Please find news reports of a place you're ok to talk about.

 

[RT4038]

Because if you're expecting to live permanently in another country, and effectively benefit from the hospitality of that country, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that in return, you show some allegiance to the country and its values, and a willingness to be a part of the community of that country. Becoming a citizen seems to me like a good way to make that commitment. If you choose not to become a citizen, then that would feel to me a bit like saying that you just want to be a temporary guest, you don't really want to be part of that country.

I think that is going a little far. There are circumstances which this comment may well be reasonable, and others that it would be unfair (I've married my spouse, not their country'). There is also the issue that some countries do not permit dual citizenship. Whatever, not being a citizen of the country you reside in does always put you in a less secure position than if you were a citizen, and susceptible to all sorts of bureaucratic control.

I don't want to know where you live, but that's not an answer. Please find news reports of a place you're ok to talk about.

Never seen a news report about it, but I know.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If she was here for over a decade and married and settled why wasn't she already or at least on the road to citizenship?

Because there was no need to.
Before the run up to the referendum leaving the EU was basically a fringe issue. There was no real reason to think anything would actually change from the status quo.
And even in the run up to the referendum the leave campaigners were at least trying to say EU citizens who already lived here had nothing to worry about.
Then when you add in the costs and the insane test that is part of the process (that most Brits themselves wouldn't pass), I'm not surprised many didn't bother.
There's also the element of wanting to keep your EU citizenship and passport specifically because of Brexit (i.e. if you are an EU citizen living here you presumably can use your EU passport to travel much more freely around the continent than what someone on a British passport now can).

 

[Cloud Strife]

4 - many would have to give up their own nationality & no longer have the right to go back to the EU

In practice, they don't have to. They only aren't recognised as dual citizens in their 'other' country. The law is rather that countries such as Germany or Estonia require you to renounce your previous citizenship if you want to get their citizenship, but the UK doesn't make such demands. The UK will simply recognise you as British, but there's absolutely no obligation to give up your other citizenship, and there are no countries in the EU that actively revoke citizenship from their citizens if they acquire a foreign one.

Like for me: in Poland, I'm a Polish citizen. In the UK, I'm a British citizen. Elsewhere, I'm whatever I want to be. I normally pick Polish for things like car rental, because it's easier to show my ID card than my passport.

Or for instance, I have flights soon to Asia: I'll show my ID card at the Polish border control, but as far as the airline and the destination country are concerned, I'm British, because I'm too lazy to get a Polish passport.

 

[GS250]

Absolutely disgusting attitude.

Someone who came here, married a UK citizen, raised a family, contributed every day for over a decade and you class them as a "temporary guest" who doesn't"want to really be part" of this country all because they didn't feel the need to get a bit of paper with the word "British" on it until this country turned against them?

I'm not even going to bother replying to you from now on. What a horrible post.

Isn't this the same story with citizens from non EU countries though? There appeared to be little sympathy for Canadians, Americans, Australians etc who had worked productively for years but who then fell foul of the 'rules'. Either we change the rules for everyone or not at all. As should other countries. Making exceptions based on geopolitical lines is very wrong. Decisions should be made on an individual basis.

In 2004 UK decided to open its doors for new EU members workers .
UK could use 7 years restrictions for access to its labour market but choose not to .

Germany, Austria and few others did .

Spot on. Am no fan of the EU but they did strongly recommend to us that we restrict numbers. The Blair government ran roughshod through this though and wanted as many people as possible to move here thus pushing up GDP. They claimed to have vastly underestimated numbers but deep down they knew there would be a absolute tidal wave of incomers. Great for keeping wages down but improving productivity.

The UK wanted FoM for cheap labour as they did with other countries such as the Windrush generation. You can't then suddenly kick people out , they are not disposables!

Totally agree. It was never sustainable though. Windrush was slightly different as Britain was vastly down on numbers following WW2. Given the vast majority demographic that went to war was also the one that did the jobs filled by the Windrush it was logical there needed to be a big replacement. In 2004, there was no shortage of UK citizens suitably qualified to do the kinds of job that were filled with EU migrants. Just a shortage of work ethic and expectation in places. However, once 'undercutting' quickly started to become apparent, attitudes towards the EU migrants started to change.

Currently in Portree where some of the local business owners are bemoaning 'brexit' for the lack of hospitality roles being fulfilled. Well....just have a look around the place and notice the unproductive nature of the native 16-25 age group. How about parents, teachers and general society actually facing up to what they created and maybe admitting they got it wrong.

Before the run up to the referendum leaving the EU was basically a fringe issue. There was no real reason to think anything would actually change from the status quo.

This was the biggest misjudgment by the establishment of all. They failed to understand the (rightly or wrongly) resentment that was building up towards the EU. Didn't UKIP poll with 13% of the vote in 2015? So the signs were definitely there. The EU may have been the fall guy for the failings of the British establishment, but once the EU cheerleaders started to behave like they did during the run up to the referendum, that was probably enough to push some people over the edge into voting against anything they stood for. Yes, there was some utter waffle and lies from the leave campaign, but in my opinion there wasn't the class/status based patronising going on.

 

[alex397]

Honestly this thread is just getting pathetic now. It’s quite tragic seeing people trying to justify Brexit.

I’d like to apologise for my over-the-top comment I’ve quoted here.
Not really suitable for a sensible debate, sorry.

 

[daodao]

Absolutely disgusting attitude.

Someone who came here, married a UK citizen, raised a family, contributed every day for over a decade and you class them as a "temporary guest" who doesn't"want to really be part" of this country all because they didn't feel the need to get a bit of paper with the word "British" on it until this country turned against them?

I'm not even going to bother replying to you from now on. What a horrible post.

Germany does not generally permit foreigners to become citizens unless they have German ethnicity (by blood). Hence the large number of "temporary" gastarbeiter, particularly from Turkey, who cannot by and large become German citizens and who are treated as an underclass. The basic principles underlying German nationality law were laid out in the 1913 Imperial and State Citizenship Act and have merely been tweaked a little since re-unification in 1990 so as not to conflict excessively with EU/ECHR rulings.

The UK is by contrast more humane in its treatment of foreigners and other ethnic/racial/religious groups and in permitting them to become citizens. Unlike the UK, many EU states (including Germany) don't generally permit dual nationality, which is/was a strong disincentive for many EU citizens to acquire UK nationality even when residing long-term in the UK. With certain exceptions, German nationality is automatically lost when an individual voluntarily acquires a foreign citizenship of a state outside the EU.

 

[edwin_m]

Germany does not generally permit foreigners to become citizens unless they have German ethnicity (by blood). Hence the large number of "temporary" gastarbeiter, particularly from Turkey, who cannot by and large become German citizens and who are treated as untermenschen. The basic principles underlying German nationality law were laid out in the 1913 Imperial and State Citizenship Act and have merely been tweaked a little since re-unification in 1990 so as not to conflict excessively with EU/ECHR rulings.

That a highly inappropriate word to use.