EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[sutty27]

The Conservatives promised immigration below 100,000; yet they let in immigrants from inside and outside of the EU, and immigration is above 300,000

 

If we leave the EU, is anyone expecting a promise of below 100,000 to be kept?

 

The problem is not with the EU, but with our own MPs that would sell their own mother if they benefited.

 

The problem when you are trying to lower the net figure is you need to know how many intend leaving to work out how many to let in.

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2016 at 12:59 ----------

 

But they are still letting thousands in from outside the EU, they could reduce the 300,000; but they choose not to.

The Tories are just a bunch of lairs, as Michael Gove said.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-david-camerons-credibility-is-on-the-line-says-michael-gove-a7054581.html

 

Most of those from outside the EU are students, most of those from inside the EU are looking for work.

[panzer1]

Don,t think Spain will be booting out the ex pats as they add too much to their economy and unless the Spanish are daft they will go for a bilateral agreement to cover healthcare, it will still be a win win for them.

[sutty27]

At least if we leave the EU we will be able to get rid of those 2 million non British EU citizens (I know nothing has been said about what will happen to them) and replace them with the retired Brits coming back from abroad (well at least 800,000 if them):

 

http://majorcadailybulletin.com/news/local/2016/06/01/44134/looming-referendum-casts-shadow-for-british-retirees-spain.html

 

We will need that £11 billion or whatever it is for the health service

 

People that are already settled here can't simply be thrown out and no one as suggested they should be, just like the retired Brits in Spain can't be thrown out. Leaving the EU is retrospective, it means we can control who comes after we leave but we can't control those that are already here.

[Tomjames]

There's so much crap about stopping freedom of movement.

Most of it is coming out of Brussels.

The Swiss, norweigens, icelandic nationals can all live & work in the EU, we will be no different.

 

I don't mind people voting in or out but vote for the right reasons.

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2016 at 12:05 ----------

 

Don,t think Spain will be booting out the ex pats as they add too much to their economy and unless the Spanish are daft they will go for a bilateral agreement to cover healthcare, it will still be a win win for them.

 

No expat will be booted out. It's scaremongering again.

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2016 at 12:07 ----------

 

Don,t think Spain will be booting out the ex pats as they add too much to their economy and unless the Spanish are daft they will go for a bilateral agreement to cover healthcare, it will still be a win win for them.

 

No expat will be booted out. It's scaremongering again.

[High Greener]

Jeremy Corbyn has come under fire after it was revealed that articles written under his name which criticised the EU have been deleted from his blog.

 

Several outspoken posts which slammed the Lisbon Treaty have seemingly disappeared from the Labour leader's blog.

 

Some of the missing archive of Mr Corbyn's blog has re-emerged, revealing how the Islington North MP moaned about the interference of EU law on the British government

[nikki-red]

If you're going to copy and paste from elsewhere, please provide links to the original source.

 

Thank you.

[L00b]

People that are already settled here can't simply be thrown out and no one as suggested they should be, just like the retired Brits in Spain can't be thrown out. Leaving the EU is retrospective, it means we can control who comes after we leave but we can't control those that are already here.

A reasonable assumption. But, all the same, just an assumption.

 

Just the same as e.g. our clients and us currently assume that the British 'portion' of EU trademarks and Community designs will be preserved in some form or another in case of Brexit, by the UK granting equivalent 'retrospective' (back-dated) UK trademarks and designs (...although that will not be easy at all, for a whole host of legal reasons I'll not bore you to tears with). Because it's commonsensical, and fair to the rights owners. But it's just an assumption all the same, since no one (Remain/Leave/Gvt/EUIPO) has said anything official about it whatsoever: the alternative could just as well happen, that such rights simply cease to exist altogether. That will happen automatically anyway, when the UK actually Brexits, regardless of whether a replacement or interim solution (as suggested above) is adopted by then or not. That's the worst case scenario for rights holders, leaving the UK market wide open to, and free for the taking by, all of UK-, EU-based and non-EU-based infringers.

 

Back to the 'settled EU migrants', several heads of EU member states have already gone on record and confirmed that they would mirror any points-based system applied to their nationals by the UK, to settled UK nationals. Lastly the Dutch PM today or yesterday, and counting. No mention of retrospectivity for the measure, but if the UK Brexits and then runs the 'settled EU nationals' through its existing (or modified) PBS, then in view of the above so will those EU member states to Brits settled in them.

 

Solving the issue of the 'settled EU nationals' right to residency and work will not be a walk in the legal park, that is for sure. They'll have to be formally registered with immigration and formally granted definite/indefinite leave to remain and work under some form of criteria, visa-like (whereby my reasonable current expectation, that they'd be run through the existing PBS system for non-EU immigrants, maybe with some minor tweaks). They couldn't continue to "exist outside of the system", because that would open Pandora's Legal Box to discrimination claims by 'new' EU immigrants. So, they'll have to be formally processed and authorised (or not) one way or the other...and those Brits settled in their home countries can be expected to be formally processed and authorised (or not) through reciprocity.

 

Which sounds perfectly fair to me.

Edited June 2, 2016 by L00b

[tinfoilhat]

Labour voters don't know how Labour would like them to vote.....

 

God that's a depressing statement. "Please mr mp how do you want me to decide my future, one where you'll probably be fine either way? whatever you say I'll do. "

 

Scarey.

[unbeliever]

A reasonable assumption. But, all the same, just an assumption.

 

Just the same as e.g. our clients and us currently assume that the British 'portion' of EU trademarks and Community designs will be preserved in some form or another in case of Brexit, by the UK granting equivalent 'retrospective' (back-dated) UK trademarks and designs (...although that will not be easy at all, for a whole host of legal reasons I'll not bore you to tears with). Because it's commonsensical, and fair to the rights owners. But it's just an assumption all the same, since no one (Remain/Leave/Gvt/EUIPO) has said anything official about it whatsoever: the alternative could just as well happen, that such rights simply cease to exist altogether. That will happen automatically anyway, when the UK actually Brexits, regardless of whether a replacement or interim solution (as suggested above) is adopted by then or not. That's the worst case scenario for rights holders, leaving the UK market wide open to, and free for the taking by, all of UK-, EU-based and non-EU-based infringers.

 

Back to the 'settled EU migrants', several heads of EU member states have already gone on record and confirmed that they would mirror any points-based system applied to their nationals by the UK, to settled UK nationals. Lastly the Dutch PM today or yesterday, and counting. No mention of retrospectivity for the measure, but if the UK Brexits and then runs the 'settled EU nationals' through its existing (or modified) PBS, then in view of the above so will those EU member states to Brits settled in them.

 

Solving the issue of the 'settled EU nationals' right to residency and work will not be a walk in the legal park, that is for sure. They'll have to be formally registered with immigration and formally granted definite/indefinite leave to remain and work under some form of criteria, visa-like (whereby my reasonable current expectation, that they'd be run through the existing PBS system for non-EU immigrants, maybe with some minor tweaks). They couldn't continue to "exist outside of the system", because that would open Pandora's Legal Box to discrimination claims by 'new' EU immigrants. So, they'll have to be formally processed and authorised (or not) one way or the other...and those Brits settled in their home countries can be expected to be formally processed and authorised (or not) through reciprocity.

 

Which sounds perfectly fair to me.

 

That's the trouble with the way the referendum has been set up. The government could have published 2 policies for 2 results, but they have not. They've done this because the PM wants to remain and is trading on the uncertainty he has deliberately fostered.

Edited June 2, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

A reasonable assumption. But, all the same, just an assumption.

 

 

I'm almost curtain that its not an assumption, I've read it or heard it somewhere, I will try and find it.

 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/984ea1e8-ef6c-11e5-9f20-c3a047354386.html#ixzz4AQhuf52V

 

A 2013 House of Commons paper explored this alarming prospect, asking whether UK citizens in the EU (and, by extension, EU citizens in the UK) would, after a Brexit vote, “suddenly become illegal immigrants”. The paper thought not. Under general international law, “withdrawing from a treaty releases the parties from any future obligations to each other, but does not affect any rights or obligations acquired under it before withdrawal”.

 

So those who had already exercised their right to live in an EU country could continue to do so.

 

 

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=145

The status of treaty rights acquired while a treaty is in force, when that treaty comes to an end, was dealt with in a 2013 Parliamentary briefing, and is covered in much more detail by UN lawyers. A clarification has even been issued via a House of Commons Library note, which stated:

 

“Generally speaking, withdrawing from a treaty releases the parties from any future obligations to each other, but does not affect any rights or obligations acquired under it before withdrawal.”

 

The (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is clear, in article 70.1.b it states that a termination of a treaty:

 

“Does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”

 

To summarise, “acquired rights” – also known as “executed rights” or “vested rights” – do continue to apply to individuals. So firm are they embedded in the international order that they have acquired the status of “customary law”, which means the principle does not need to be anchored by any particularly treaty, but stands alone as a fundamental principle of international law.

Edited June 2, 2016 by sutty27