A question for those who still support a Brexit

[Supine]

So a nation that exits the union must revoke its policies towards citizens of other nations because of the vote to exit?

That is kind of the point of leaving. One of many points obviously.

 

[Mation]

Well it will have to change some of them. Certainly. How would they differentiate those who've lived here and are entitled to stay from those who haven't and aren't, for starters?

There you go again, assuming that any of this is anything other than being made up as it goes along. You accept these parameters. Why?

 

[Mation]

That is kind of the point of leaving. One of many points obviously.

I'd thought the reason** was to make it possible to*, rather than to do so whatever.

*change policies generally.

** one of them, anyway.

[edited to add the asterisked bits]

 

[Supine]

I'd thought the reason was to make it possible to*, rather than to do so whatever.

*change policies generally.

The problem for me is longer term. If eu nationals are given settled status now then great, but they have no protection in 5, 10, 15 years time. Nasty right wing governments can start squeezing them out. Their rights could be lost as an act of attrition.

 

[Mation]

Well it will have to change some of them. Certainly. How would they differentiate those citizens of other states who've lived here and are entitled to stay from those who haven't and aren't, for starters?

That all depends on having an idea of who is entitled to.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

When I arrived in Spain I got a cunty letter saying something like 'His Excellency the Interior Minister hereby grants your petition to be allowed to stay in Spain on a yearly renewable basis'. Shortly after that I had the right to be in Spain, rather than it being conceded to me. And I may be going back to the initial state of affairs very shortly. It shouldn't make a vast amount of difference and I won't be put on a plane but at every bureaucratic turn non-community foreigners get fucked around whereas European Community citizens get to play the joker that they have to be treated like Spanish people. Obviously I'd like that courtesy extended to everybody. Presumably much the same thoughts are going through EC citizens in UK.

Big difference is that I'm being stripped of my European citizenship (if that's what it is) without being consulted at all, which pisses me off, as can be imagined.

 

[Mation]

The problem for me is longer term. If eu nationals are given settled status now then great, but they have no protection in 5, 10, 15 years time. Nasty right wing governments can start squeezing them out. Their rights could be lost as an act of attrition.

None of which is an inevitable consequence of Brexit; only of a policy that could conceivably be brought in under its banner.

I'm not trying to make light of any of this. It's just utterly fucking depressing how helpless everyone seems, me included.

 

[Supine]

None of which is an inevitable consequence of Brexit; only of a policy that could conceivably be brought in under its banner.

Not much in life is inevitable, but the opportunity to make their lives difficult becomes legally possible and allowable.

 

[Treacle Toes]

The problem for me is longer term. If eu nationals are given settled status now then great, but they have no protection in 5, 10, 15 years time. Nasty right wing governments can start squeezing them out. Their rights could be lost as an act of attrition.

But surely not... oh wait...Windrush anyone?

I think I appreciate those that voted leave who acknowledge it was always a risk and actually have the conviction to say 'it's a necessary consequence and/or a price worth paying' .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Saddest part for me is that Labour have also bought into this absurd line that the referendum result means you have to end free movement. As happened when free movement from the Commonwealth/Empire was ended in 1962, brought in by the Tories, but then inevitably left unchanged by Labour, and never reversed.

 

[Mation]

Not much in life is inevitable, but the opportunity to make their lives difficult becomes legally possible and allowable.

Like it's not already for many? Like it becomes possible in a way that affects people you think it shouldn't (but accepts this for not you)?

 

[Gramsci]

The problem for me is longer term. If eu nationals are given settled status now then great, but they have no protection in 5, 10, 15 years time. Nasty right wing governments can start squeezing them out. Their rights could be lost as an act of attrition.

Which is why the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is arguing for primary legislation to protect existing rights of EU nationals post Brexit.

I think the settled status scheme is made in such a way as to make sure that EU nationals living here don't have to much rights in long term. Its intentional. You are correct to say a future government could squeeze them out.

Mays Brexit is about getting our borders back. That includes making sure that EU nationals don't have to many rights.

 

[Supine]

Saddest part for me is that Labour have also bought into this absurd line that the referendum result means you have to end free movement. As happened when free movement from the Commonwealth/Empire was ended in 1962, brought in by the Tories, but then inevitably left unchanged by Labour, and never reversed.

One of the most upsetting parts of labours position for me.

 

[Supine]

Like it's not already for many? Like it becomes possible in a way that affects people you think it shouldn't (but accepts this for not you)?

Are you saying it doesn't make it worse?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

One of the most upsetting parts of labours position for me.

The most upsetting part for me. I can live with the rest, more or less. But the immigrant-bashing from all sides is fucking depressing.

 

[Gramsci]

i was rather under the impression that the problem with Windrush was that those involved were specifically told they did not have to sort it out, and that 50 years later they were told they did.

which doesn't really match the settled status scheme - at least not in principle.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights sees the settled status scheme as having the same flaws.

Why they are saying rights should be put into primary legislation.

Warning of legal limbo for 3m EU citizens living in UK after Brexit

Example of similar problem:

The report voices concerns that the government’s proposed EU citizen registration scheme post-Brexit does not provide physical proof of status. “Getting this right is extremely important considering the similarities of some of these concerns with problems that have arisen with the treatment of the Windrush generation,” the report says.

Some posters here have been going over these issues on the fate of EU citizens thread.

I think there is a level of complacency here on this issue.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Saddest part for me is that Labour have also bought into this absurd line that the referendum result means you have to end free movement.

I think you're miscronstruing or misunderstanding what Labour have said. During the 2017 election Corbyn said free movement would end, that Britain would leave the Single Market, but he also said that Labour wouldn't introduce new immigration controls.

"Free movement" as constituted within the Single Market means the Posted Workers Directive, it means the freedom for capital to circumvent the minimum wage and trade union negotiated rates of pay to move the cheapest labour to wherever it's needed. No one on the left should be defending what the EU means by freedom of movement.

Labour haven't said they'll deny EU nationals their right to stay. They've said EU constituted free movement must end. Which it absolutely should. We can't allow EU agency workers to work in Britain for less than the minimum wage, because that's hyper exploitation, that's wrong, *and* it's a complete gift to the far right who will use it to divide workers.

 

[redsquirrel]

I like freedom of movement, but once brexit was voted for i had come to terms that it was going to stop in some form, and was okay with that as long as people living here were to maintain their rights. I was reassured by Mays words on this in theory - turns out in practice its a very different picture.

I'm sorry but this is utterly inconsistent with your posts since 2016.
You've argued that those who voted Leave were getting into bed with the far right, you've argued for free trade because it supports freedom of movement, you opposed the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, you've implied that those that voted leave are immiseratists.

 

[Dogsauce]

It would be much harder as the documentation giving proof of status is much more easily available than the documentation for for anyone who settled here in the 30 or more years ago. Contemporary records are on accesible databases this is not necessarily true for older records

Plenty of people originating from EU states have been here for as long as some of the Windrush folk. It’s much broader than the maligned ‘Eastern Europeans’ of the last decade.

 

[Spymaster]

Except that four countries exist outside the EU but within the free travel area - Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Indeed, they are all part of the Schengen area, which the UK is not part of. So leaving the EU doesn't necessarily mean that new border controls and travel/work restrictions are imposed on EU/EFTA people.
It could even mean that border controls are reduced in some respects, by leaving the EU but joining the Schengen area, not that Schengen doesn't have its own problems re id cards and the like. Or more plausibly, it could mean a totally unchanged situation in which the free travel area is maintained as before, with reciprocal health arrangements etc - in the travel area but outside Schengen, just as the UK and Ireland currently are. Ironically enough, the main reason Ireland isn't in Schengen is that the UK isn't in it.

Immigration policy was not on the ballot paper, and models of Brexit along EFTA lines could easily be done with zero disruption for EU/EFTA people living here or UK people living in the EU/EFTA. UK was in EFTA pre-EU after all. It's not an outrageous suggestion.

The Schengen 4 were never in the EU so didn't have a few million citizens whose status' were about to change out of line with everyone elses. Ending the freedom of movement/taking control of borders was a massive bullet point for many who voted leave and was a hugely played card in the year before the referendum. Do you agree with that?

 

[Gramsci]

Labour haven't said they'll deny EU nationals their right to stay. They've said EU constituted free movement must end. Which it absolutely should. We can't allow EU agency workers to work in Britain for less than the minimum wage, because that's hyper exploitation, that's wrong, *and* it's a complete gift to the far right who will use it to divide workers.

My understanding is that minimum wage of this country applies to all workers. ( gig economy/ so called self employed is an issue here).

Employers getting around minimum wage are doing something illegal in UK.

Work in another EU country

Example
If the country you’re posted to has a higher minimum wage, your employer must give you that rate or higher.

 

[tim]

Plenty of people originating from EU states have been here for as long as some of the Windrush folk. It’s much broader than the maligned ‘Eastern Europeans’ of the last decade.

They won't have to prove how long they've been here, just that they are here now.

 

[Spymaster]

This was one of the reasons I was Remain at time of referendum. Did I trust that the rights of EU nationals from other EU countries rights to stay here and right to keep the same level of status they had post Brexit were safe with a Tory government arranging Brexit?

Indeed. So you voted to remain. That makes sense.

 

[Spymaster]

There you go again, assuming that any of this is anything other than being made up as it goes along. You accept these parameters. Why?

Which parameters?

 

[Spymaster]

That all depends on having an idea of who is entitled to.

So you agree with me?

 

[Gramsci]

I think you're miscronstruing or misunderstanding what Labour have said. During the 2017 election Corbyn said free movement would end, that Britain would leave the Single Market, but he also said that Labour wouldn't introduce new immigration controls.

"Free movement" as constituted within the Single Market means the Posted Workers Directive, it means the freedom for capital to circumvent the minimum wage and trade union negotiated rates of pay to move the cheapest labour to wherever it's needed. No one on the left should be defending what the EU means by freedom of movement.

Labour haven't said they'll deny EU nationals their right to stay. They've said EU constituted free movement must end. Which it absolutely should. We can't allow EU agency workers to work in Britain for less than the minimum wage, because that's hyper exploitation, that's wrong, *and* it's a complete gift to the far right who will use it to divide workers.

In my area Ritzy workers have been trying to get the London Living Wage. A mixed bunch many from other EU countries.

The view from one from Poland:

Agata Wanda Adamowicz is one of the Ritzy’s workers: she believes that the dispute exposes a law firmly rooted on the side of bosses. “It shows you can have every devoted worker fighting, you can have local support, you can have the mayor of London – and yet nothing can be done.”

For Agata – who is from Poland – there is another bitter side to the dispute. It has become all too common for migrants like her to be scapegoated for social ills caused by others. Here she is, a Polish worker fighting for a decent wage for her and her fellow workers, in a country where it has become fashionable to blame migrants for suppressing wages. “Why don’t you blame the employer?” she implores. “It’s got especially worse in the Brexit climate: all this trying to find blame in the wrong places.”

Now showing at the Ritzy: low pay and exploitation | Owen Jones

Its not immigration "free movement" that is the problem. Its bosses.

 

[inva]

Heres one difference, this settled status law can yet be stopped in its tracks.

A damning indictment of the EU.

 

[SpackleFrog]

My understanding is that minimum wage of this country applies to all workers. ( gig economy/ so called self employed is an issue here).

Employers getting around minimum wage are doing something illegal in UK.

Work in another EU country

That's not how it works in practice though.

In my area Ritzy workers have been trying to get the London Living Wage. A mixed bunch many from other EU countries.

The view from one from Poland:



Now showing at the Ritzy: low pay and exploitation | Owen Jones

Its not immigration "free movement" that is the problem. Its bosses.

Did I say immigration was the problem? Of course bosses are the problem.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Schengen 4 were never in the EU so didn't have a few million citizens whose status' were about to change out of line with everyone elses. Ending the freedom of movement/taking control of borders was a massive bullet point for many who voted leave and was a hugely played card in the year before the referendum. Do you agree with that?

Yes I do. But we have seen on here that not all those who voted leave did so because of immigration. Even if 90 per cent of those voting leave did so at least partly because they objected to the free movement area, that is only 90 per cent of 52 per cent, which is 47 per cent, which is lower than 48 per cent. The referendum was not a mandate to end free movement. It most certainly wasn't an instruction to do so as has been repeatedly claimed by May and others. Most leave voters want X is very far from most voters want X, because X wasn't in the ballot question. It wasn't even implied by the ballot question.

Norway has voted over joining the EU and voted to stay out, btw. Don't see how that is so different from voting to leave.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes I do. But we have seen on here that not all those who voted leave did so because of immigration.

There's no suggestion of that. The point is that the regardless of people's motivations to leave, no reasonable person could have thought everything was going to remain the same for non-UK citizens from EU states living here.

Norway has voted over joining the EU and voted to stay out, btw. Don't see how that is so different from voting to leave.

It's enormously different. Voting to stay out is voting to maintain the status quo and will affect no one, whilst voting to leave is voting for massive change that will affect almost everyone.