Fate of EU citizens in the UK post Brexit

[DexterTCN]

Misogynistic rather than romantic.

Yeah I blocked that thread after being called a rape fantasist by one of your mates. Your problem is that my post #627 about you was relevant to this thread.

Yours isn't

 

[andysays]

And exactly what political lesson(s) have you learned?

Of course the actions of the government are appalling but what are you saying here? That populaces are responsible for the actions of their governments?

Only those of us who voted Leave, obviously. We are clearly not only responsible but at the very least don't give a fuck and probably secretly glad.

 

[DexterTCN]

Romantic scottish nationalist meets basic marxism

When I brought up squirrel's post on the brexit thread...you brought up my nationality there as well

 

[Proper Tidy]

When I brought up squirrel's post on the brexit thread...you brought up my nationality there as well

Because that's your political identity you bell

 

[DexterTCN]

Because that's your political identity you bell

And you see that as an insult?

 

[redsquirrel]

I know it's not worth engaging with Dexter - not only is he an idiot but his politics went down the sinkhole some time ago.

However, for any lurkers.

Or to put it in crude terms - a worker who holds reactionary opinions about immigrants may be a dick but they are still a worker, their class interest are still aligned with mine (and presumably yours). A boss may be lovely and progressive, may be implementing all kinds of policies that tackle discrimination, inequality and even workplace democracy but at a fundamental level their interests are in opposition to those of their workers.

I made the statement above in a discussion about the distinction between progressive politics (based on shared views) and class politics (based on shared interests). As I acknowledged at the time it is a crude, but nevertheless IMO clear, example of how class interests align workers despite their differing political views. Of course it at no point implies that racism or reactionary views about immigration is ok (hence the "dick") and I don't believe anyone bar a moron could claim otherwise.

To go back to the wider point and ska invita's post. It is, obviously, inevitable that there are conflicts of interest between workers at different time and places - conflicts based on nationality, race, sex, sexuality. But that does not mean that (1) a politics based on interests should be jettisoned for one based on views and (2) fundamentally the interests of all workers are not advanced by increased the power and self-organisation of the working class. On a previous thread chilango talked about communities having control of immigration policy

After all who better to make judgements about whether a community would benefit from "incomers" than the community itself.

Many people objected to this, for similar reasons to those that ska's post appears to be based on, essentially because workers might make "wrong" decisions. But surely the aim of any socialist must be for immigration policy to be under the control of workers. The alternative is to argue that it should be capital that is making, or at least has the leading role in making, such decisions*.

I'm confident that the process of class struggle will mean that immigrant and non-immigrant workers are able to see that their interests are aligned and actions to support all workers are taken (just as has happened many times during the past). But if that doesn't happen what is the alternative? That the working class need to be led to the "correct" views by the party/group/enlightened? Certainly socialists can and should always argue in favour of internationalism but the moment we start to argue against workers control we might as well give up - the new boss will be the same as the old.


*I am of course simplifying here, as with all of the political sphere labour and capital will be competing for control with both playing a role in determining policy - at least until the workers take control of the means of production.

 

[Proper Tidy]

And you see that as an insult?

Being scottish, no, wanting independence, also no, being a nationalist, yes

 

[DexterTCN]

Being scottish, no, wanting independence, also no, being a nationalist, yes

Not the nationalism affecting people on this thread, mate. By a long shot.

 

[chilango]

I know it's not worth engaging with Dexter - not only is he an idiot but his politics went down the sinkhole some time ago.

However, for any lurkers.

I made the statement above in a discussion about the distinction between progressive politics (based on shared views) and class politics (based on shared interests). As I acknowledged at the time it is a crude, but nevertheless IMO clear, example of how class interests align workers despite their differing political views. Of course it at no point implies that racism or reactionary views about immigration is ok (hence the "dick") and I don't believe anyone bar a moron could claim otherwise.

To go back to the wider point and ska invita's post. It is, obviously, inevitable that there are conflicts of interest between workers at different time and places - conflicts based on nationality, race, sex, sexuality. But that does not mean that (1) a politics based on interests should be jettisoned for one based on views and (2) fundamentally the interests of all workers are not advanced by increased the power and self-organisation of the working class. On a previous thread chilango talked about communities having control of immigration policy

Many people objected to this, for similar reasons to those that ska's post appears to be based on, essentially because workers might make "wrong" decisions. But surely the aim of any socialist must be for immigration policy to be under the control of workers. The alternative is to argue that it should be capital that is making, or at least has the leading role in making, such decisions*.

I'm confident that the process of class struggle will mean that immigrant and non-immigrant workers are able to see that their interests are aligned and actions to support all workers are taken (just as has happened many times during the past). But if that doesn't happen what is the alternative? That the working class need to be led to the "correct" views by the party/group/enlightened? Certainly socialists can and should always argue in favour of internationalism but the moment we start to argue against workers control we might as well give up - the new boss will be the same as the old.


*I am of course simplifying here, as with all of the political sphere labour and capital will be competing for control with both playing a role in determining policy - at least until the workers take control of the means of production.

Worth noting that my suggestion here is not restricted to immigration, but also to internal migration. It applies as much to incomers to rural Welsh speaking communities or the terraces of Reading...

 

[DexterTCN]

I know it's not worth engaging with Dexter - not only is he an idiot but his politics went down the sinkhole some time ago.

However, for any lurkers.

I made the statement above in a discussion about the distinction between progressive politics (based on shared views) and class politics (based on shared interests). As I acknowledged at the time it is a crude, but nevertheless IMO clear, example of how class interests align workers despite their differing political views. Of course it at no point implies that racism or reactionary views about immigration is ok (hence the "dick") and I don't believe anyone bar a moron could claim otherwise.

To go back to the wider point and ska invita's post. It is, obviously, inevitable that there are conflicts of interest between workers at different time and places - conflicts based on nationality, race, sex, sexuality. But that does not mean that (1) a politics based on interests should be jettisoned for one based on views and (2) fundamentally the interests of all workers are not advanced by increased the power and self-organisation of the working class. On a previous thread chilango talked about communities having control of immigration policy

Many people objected to this, for similar reasons to those that ska's post appears to be based on, essentially because workers might make "wrong" decisions. But surely the aim of any socialist must be for immigration policy to be under the control of workers. The alternative is to argue that it should be capital that is making, or at least has the leading role in making, such decisions*.

I'm confident that the process of class struggle will mean that immigrant and non-immigrant workers are able to see that their interests are aligned and actions to support all workers are taken (just as has happened many times during the past). But if that doesn't happen what is the alternative? That the working class need to be led to the "correct" views by the party/group/enlightened? Certainly socialists can and should always argue in favour of internationalism but the moment we start to argue against workers control we might as well give up - the new boss will be the same as the old.


*I am of course simplifying here, as with all of the political sphere labour and capital will be competing for control with both playing a role in determining policy - at least until the workers take control of the means of production.

tldr

Socialists will allow this deportation program just now then consider fixing it later depending on their needs.

 

[redsquirrel]

Worth noting that my suggestion here is not restricted to immigration, but also to internal migration. It applies as much to incomers to rural Welsh speaking communities or the terraces of Reading...

Yes sorry - I did try think of a better word to use than immigration but couldn't think of one, should have used migration as you have said.

 

[ska invita]

This suggests EU states may not agree the bill unless the Tories overhaul the process - which seems unlikely to happen to me, but would be great if so





-----
Also interesting link here Do the EU Settlement Scheme statistics add up? | Free Movement
Suggests in the government stats of people who have signed up, people are 1. being pushed into pre-setlled status when tehy should have settled status 2. having pre-settled status means you have to reapply 3. cases of reapplying are being counted again. So the figure of applications is not of applicants, but of applications - i.e. bigger than the number of applicants

Also there are 330,000+ cases in limbo with no ruling at the moment. They are still being counted as applications.

 

[ska invita]

From waht i gather the Lab manfiesto gives all EU nationals living in UK the automatic right to stay

 

[Gramsci]

Gove on radio this morning criticising Labour for saying if their is another referendum EU nationals resident here will get a vote.

They were excluded last time. This angered a lot of people I know who have lived here for years and made this country their home.

The referendum made them feel unwanted here. They has no say in something that would affect them personally.

Gove hits out at Labour plan to let EU citizens vote in a second referendum

 

[andysays]

Gove on radio this morning criticising Labour for saying if their is another referendum EU nationals resident here will get a vote.

They were excluded last time. This angered a lot of people I know who have lived here for years and made this country their home.

The referendum made them feel unwanted here. They has no say in something that would affect them personally.

Gove hits out at Labour plan to let EU citizens vote in a second referendum

It's worth pointing out first that no other EU country allows nationals of all other EU states to vote in their national elections.
The Labour policy, as I understand it, is to let all UK residents (not just EU citizens) vote in all national elections (not just a hypothetical 2nd Brexit referendum). I think this is a positive suggestion, but it does throw up the question of who exactly will count as a UK residents and whether people will have to register in some way beyond the electoral register. There is also the question of whether e.g. French citizens registered to vote in UK elections will or should also still be able to vote in their home country.

ETA edited to take on the point about reciprocal UK/Irish voting rights

 

[Idris2002]

It's worth pointing out first that no other EU country allows nationals of other EU states to vote in their national elections.
The Labour policy, as I understand it, is to let all UK residents (not just EU citizens) vote in all national elections (not just a hypothetical 2nd Brexit referendum). I think this is a positive suggestion, but it does throw up the question of who exactly will count as a UK residents and whether people will have to register in some way beyond the electoral register. There is also the question of whether e.g. French citizens registered to vote in UK elections will or should also still be able to vote in their home country.

Not quite:

"Residents of the state who are Irish citizens or British citizens may vote in elections to the national parliament."

Elections in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia

 

[flypanam]

Idris2002 beat me to it.

 

[andysays]

Not quite:

"Residents of the state who are Irish citizens or British citizens may vote in elections to the national parliament."

Elections in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia

Yeah, there are arrangements between the UK and Eire, but they pre-date and have nothing to do with the EU.

French or Polish citizens can't vote in Irish national elections either.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, there are arrangements between the UK and Eire, but they pre-date and have nothing to do with the EU.

French or Polish citizens can't vote in Irish national elections either.

It's not just Irish citizens. It's also citizens of a long list of Commonwealth countries who have leave to remain in the UK. It would be very easy (and very equitable) to extend that to everyone who has leave to remain, regardless of where they are from. Currently, EU citizens living here can vote in local but not national elections, while non-EU, non-Commonwealth citizens living here cannot register to vote at all. It's high time that was changed.

Personally I'd do the above and drastically curb the rights of 'ex-pats' to vote. Fifteen years away is a long time. I'd reduce that limit to something more like three. There is an argument for reducing it to zero.

 

[andysays]

It's not just Irish citizens. It's also citizens of a long list of Commonwealth countries who have leave to remain in the UK. It would be very easy (and very equitable) to extend that to everyone who has leave to remain, regardless of where they are from. Currently, EU citizens living here can vote in local but not national elections, while non-EU, non-Commonwealth citizens living here cannot register to vote at all. It's high time that was changed.

The point I'm making, after saying that I support the Labour proposals, is that nowhere else in the EU (apart from the arrangement between the UK and Eire) allows citizens of all other EU countries to vote in their national elections, it's by no means something unique to the nasty UK denying EU citizens rights they would have elsewhere.

 

[Gramsci]

The point I'm making, after saying that I support the Labour proposals, is that nowhere else in the EU (apart from the arrangement between the UK and Eire) allows citizens of all other EU countries to vote in their national elections, it's by no means something unique to the nasty UK denying EU citizens rights they would have elsewhere.

I was not talking about national elections.

EU citizens resident here in UK are allowed to vote in Council elections and also election to the EU parliament ( as long as they waive right to vote in country of origin).

The referendum was not a national election. It was a political choice to exclude UE citizens resident here a vote in the referendum.

My partner and my friends from Eastern Europe were on the electoral list yet denied voting rights in a referendum that personally would affect them.

This was nasty and deliberate. I heard Gove this morning. Its , according to him, not democratic to allow EU nationals here to vote in referendum. BTW I know and have worked with a lot of people from EU. They are all working class. So Tories made sure a section of the working class here were excluded.

My Spanish partner is registered here on the electoral list and her status here is a Spanish national resident in this country by the Spanish state. So she votes here.

 

[Azrael]

I was not talking about national elections.

EU citizens resident here in UK are allowed to vote in Council elections and also election to the EU parliament ( as long as they waive right to vote in country of origin).

The referendum was not a national election. It was a political choice to exclude UE citizens resident here a vote in the referendum.

My partner and my friends from Eastern Europe were on the electoral list yet denied voting rights in a referendum that personally would affect them.

This was nasty and deliberate. I heard Gove this morning. Its , according to him, not democratic to allow EU nationals here to vote in referendum. BTW I know and have worked with a lot of people from EU. They are all working class. So Tories made sure a section of the working class here were excluded.

My Spanish partner is registered here on the electoral list and her status here is a Spanish national resident in this country by the Spanish state. So she votes here.

The temptation for politicians to scapegoat a large yet disenfranchised resident population is why, despite my misgivings over its effect on citizenship, I also support full voting rights for EEA and Swiss nationals, especially given the liberal policy for Commonwealth citizens.

Personally I'd do the above and drastically curb the rights of 'ex-pats' to vote. Fifteen years away is a long time. I'd reduce that limit to something more like three. There is an argument for reducing it to zero.

Here I disagree. While they may be more immediately affected by events in their new home, they're still members of the national family, will still have interests back home, and domestic policies can end up directly impinging on their lives. To disenfranchise them weakens those bonds. If all expatriates had retained their vote in 2016, things might have gone very differently.

 

[Yossarian]

This was nasty and deliberate.

Yep - and as I've probably said already on a different thread, this has gone hand in hand with a very steep rise in the fees to become a British citizen, which is part of the whole "hostile environment" policy to keep immigration numbers down.

Countries that are slightly less shit sometimes encourage long-term residents to become citizens and take part in democracy, but Britain is trying to make it as difficult as possible - fees to become a citizen now far exceed the cost of actually processing the applications.

If the Brexit referendum had been a real referendum instead of a poisonous Tory pile of shit and if the UK was a real country instead of a seething mass of resentments heaped together on an island then EU citizens residing in Britain long-term would have been allowed to have a say in their futures.

Instead, they've had more than a third of a decade of stress and insecurity before Brexit even happens - the whole thing is already evidently a massive failure, I wish we could just fast-forward 5 to 10 years until the recriminations and backtracking from the Tory architects of Brexit begin.

 

[Azrael]

Yep - and as I've probably said already on a different thread, this has gone hand in hand with a very steep rise in the fees to become a British citizen, which is part of the whole "hostile environment" policy to keep immigration numbers down.

Countries that are slightly less shit sometimes encourage long-term residents to become citizens and take part in democracy, but Britain is trying to make it as difficult as possible - fees to become a citizen now far exceed the cost of actually processing the applications.

If the Brexit referendum had been a real referendum instead of a poisonous Tory pile of shit and if the UK was a real country instead of a seething mass of resentments heaped together on an island then EU citizens residing in Britain long-term would have been allowed to have a say in their futures.

Instead, they've had more than a third of a decade of stress and insecurity before Brexit even happens - the whole thing is already evidently a massive failure, I wish we could just fast-forward 5 to 10 years until the recriminations and backtracking from the Tory architects of Brexit begin.

Extortionate naturalisation fees remind me of the sadistic glee that Hanoverian gaolers took in charging their wretched prisoners rent for their own incarceration. Alongside unchecked corruption at the heart of Whitehall and the scouring of her industrial heartlands, it's just another testament to Britain's decline into a money-grubbing oligarchy, where the robber barons reborn are unrestrained by even a hint of noblesse oblige, feeling not the slightest loyalty to their country or its people.

When our fellow citizens are treated with such icy contempt, what hope is there that those in power will show kindness and welcome to immigrants?

 

[andysays]

I was not talking about national elections.

EU citizens resident here in UK are allowed to vote in Council elections and also election to the EU parliament ( as long as they waive right to vote in country of origin).

The referendum was not a national election. It was a political choice to exclude UE citizens resident here a vote in the referendum.

My partner and my friends from Eastern Europe were on the electoral list yet denied voting rights in a referendum that personally would affect them.

This was nasty and deliberate. I heard Gove this morning. Its , according to him, not democratic to allow EU nationals here to vote in referendum. BTW I know and have worked with a lot of people from EU. They are all working class. So Tories made sure a section of the working class here were excluded.

My Spanish partner is registered here on the electoral list and her status here is a Spanish national resident in this country by the Spanish state. So she votes here.

It seems to me that a referendum to decide if a nation remains in a supra-national organisation like the EU is pretty much the perfect example of a national election.

I know what the current position is regarding voting rights of EU nationals resident in other EU countries; I know that they are allowed to vote in local elections and also in European elections but (with the exception of the special UK/Eire arrangements which pre-date the EU) not in national elections.

As I've already said, I think it's a positive step for the Labour party to take to allow all UK residents (not just EU and Commonwealth citizens) to vote in all UK national elections, but I also know that EU law does not require member countries to allow citizens of one EU country resident in another country to vote in that country's national elections and, to the best of my knowledge, no EU countries currently choose to do this.

In the hypothetical situation where you and you partner decided to become resident in Spain, do you think you would be able to vote in Spanish national elections?

 

[DexterTCN]

EU residents in Scotland are allowed to vote in indyrefs.

 

[andysays]

EU residents in Scotland are allowed to vote in indyrefs.

That's a good point which I'd forgotten. Does that apply specifically to EU citizens, or is it everyone resident in Scotland?

And out of interest, can EU citizens vote in MSP elections?

 

[DexterTCN]

EU's resident here can vote and stand for Holyrood (MSP) and MEP seats.

 

[Gramsci]

It seems to me that a referendum to decide if a nation remains in a supra-national organisation like the EU is pretty much the perfect example of a national election.

I know what the current position is regarding voting rights of EU nationals resident in other EU countries; I know that they are allowed to vote in local elections and also in European elections but (with the exception of the special UK/Eire arrangements which pre-date the EU) not in national elections.

As I've already said, I think it's a positive step for the Labour party to take to allow all UK residents (not just EU and Commonwealth citizens) to vote in all UK national elections, but I also know that EU law does not require member countries to allow citizens of one EU country resident in another country to vote in that country's national elections and, to the best of my knowledge, no EU countries currently choose to do this.
elections?

I'm not clear on what you mean.

I'm talking about this country and the referendum. Not about what other countries in EU do.

As far as I know their was nothing about being in EU to stop the government of this country allowing EU nationals from other countries resident here ( that is on the electoral list) to vote in a referendum.

Therefore , if I'm right on that, then it was a political decision to not allow that. Being in EU had nothing to do with it. EU would not stop this.

So if that was the case do you think it was wrong to not give EU nationals from other countries resident here a vote in the 2016 referendum?

 

[andysays]

I'm not clear on what you mean.

I'm talking about this country and the referendum. Not about what other countries in EU do.

As far as I know their was nothing about being in EU to stop the government of this country allowing EU nationals from other countries resident here ( that is on the electoral list) to vote in a referendum.

Therefore , if I'm right on that, then it was a political decision to not allow that. Being in EU had nothing to do with it. EU would not stop this.

So if that was the case do you think it was wrong to not give EU nationals from other countries resident here a vote in the 2016 referendum?

I've already said, more than once, that I'm in favour of the Labour party proposal to allow all foreign nationals resident in the UK the right to vote in all UK national elections. I'm less keen on an argument which suggests that some foreign nationals should be given the right to vote in a particular national election as some sort of one off, but since Cameron didn't consult me before calling the referendum, my views regarding the 2016 referendum aren't especially important now.