Free movement of people

[sutty27]

Can I have some links or sources to back up your opinion, please?

 

In the meantime, don't mind me sticking to the actual rule of law (that is in force now and will remain in force after a Brexit, until and unless it is changed) and the associated actual formal procedures (that are in force now and will remain in force after a Brexit, until and unless they are changed).

 

As of right now, and for the foreseeable future, they're the only certainty standing.

 

Links are unnecessary for common sense opinions, and the government aren't going to say what will happen if we vote to leave because they prefer scaremongering, obviously they will change tack after a vote to leave.

[L00b]

Links are unnecessary for common sense opinions, and the government aren't going to say what will happen if we vote to leave because they prefer scaremongering, obviously they will change tack after a vote to leave.

There isn't much common sense to your opinion, when you clearly don't factor in the UK's existing immigration legislation and procedures, and the elementary fact that a UK outside of the EU would render the status all EU nationals in the UK identical to that of current non-EU immigrants (and lower down the legal pecking order/framework than Commonwealth immigrants and the Irish).

 

It's just wishful thinking, and nothing more.

 

Who exactly is the government "scaring", on that issue? The government has nothing to gain from scaring EU nationals in the UK: they can't vote in the referendum.

Edited March 7, 2016 by L00b

[Annie Bynnol]

Their seems to be an assumption that we can negotiate deals with the EU when in fact one country could veto any deal.

Why should the EU deal when they can:

benefit hugely from redirected investment from non EU countries,

benefit from a skilled workforce leaving the UK,

benefit from when Nissan, Toyota and other non UK/EU companies leave to maintain their trading status within the EU.

benefit from their own counties' engineering companies growth to supply them.

benefit from their own counties' financial and service industries growth.

benefit from trading with non UK companies that already offer a better product

 

How long before UK PLC becomes a basket case economy with mass unemployment and a crashing pound and the associated inflation and unrest?

 

A deal with the Commonwealth? They are already in their own regional trading partnership, why would they trust a proven and unreliable partner.

 

And for who's benefit?

UK capitalists who cannot compete with international competition who see the protection afforded by law to individuals as anti capitalist. Who want cheap labour but promote fear.

The nationalists...

The politicians who wish to promote their own failing careers.

 

Follow the money if you want to see why these rich people pay for these campaigns.

[L00b]

Their seems to be an assumption that we can negotiate deals with the EU when in fact one country could veto any deal.

There's no "seems" about it: all I ever read from the pro-Brexit camp is that (i) there absolutely will be a deal and (ii) its terms will benefit the UK more than the EU and EU member states, in that these terms will at least maintain the current status quo in socio-economic terms with the EU (...whilst 'freeing' the UK from doing more and better on its own in the big wide world).

 

This position clearly assumes that the EU and its remainining member states will be happy to let the UK maintain its competitivity relative to them -at the continuing expense of their respective industries, jobs, growth, <etc.>- once it is out of the club. Why on earth would they?

 

Whilst your arguments may appear somewhat over-alarmist (the City won't lose ground to Frankfurt-Paris fast in case of a Brexit)...they have merit in that they consider the alternative worldview as seen by EU Member States, which most pro-Brexiters on here are missing quite glaringly (or wishing away...same-o).

 

Perhaps they're misunderstanding what 'negotiating' means (for the avoidance of doubt: it means both sides have at the give and take).

Edited March 7, 2016 by L00b

[sutty27]

There isn't much common sense to your opinion, when you clearly don't factor in the UK's existing immigration legislation and procedures, and the elementary fact that a UK outside of the EU would render the status all EU nationals in the UK identical to that of current non-EU immigrants (and lower down the legal pecking order/framework than Commonwealth immigrants and the Irish).

 

It's just wishful thinking, and nothing more.

 

Who exactly is the government "scaring", on that issue? The government has nothing to gain from scaring EU nationals in the UK: they can't vote in the referendum.

 

The government haven't said non British EU nationals will be kicked out of the country, that's something you think will happen.

[L00b]

The government haven't said non British EU nationals will be kicked out of the country, that's something you think will happen.

Of course they haven't: they don't know yet, it's not been negotiated.

 

It's something which I think could happen, not will happen, simply because of the change in immigration legal status caused by the UK ceasing to be part of the EU, and the UK's existing immigration law and procedure. That is common sense.

 

Current UK law governing someone's right to residence in the UK based on nationality (EU/non-EU) and circumstances is what it is. Plain black and white, go look it up on legal.gov.uk if you need a refresh.

 

Take the UK out of the EU, and there is no more distinction between EU nationals and non-EU nationals, there are just non-EU nationals. For whom visas and the right of residence in the UK is governed by the UK's 2008 PBS.

 

Until such time as the said current UK law governing someone's right to residence is updated to reflect terms negotiated between the UK and the EU about EU nationals residing in the UK (and UK nationals residing in the EU) after a Brexit vote, that is what the law is.

 

It's elementarily simple. If the vote outcome is for Brexit:

 

No, it doesn't mean EU nationals will be kicked out on 24 June.

 

Yes, it means that as of 24 June, EU nationals' right of residence (and that of Brit nationals in the EU) will be up in the air, along with everything else up for negotiation between the UK and the EU.

 

Until and unless (if) a policy statement is issued before then, anything beyond is pure conjecture, whether informed or not.

Edited March 7, 2016 by L00b

[sutty27]

Of course they haven't: they don't know yet, it's not been negotiated.

 

It's something which I think could happen, not will happen, because of the change in immigration legal status caused by the UK ceasing to be part of the EU.

 

Current UK law governing someone's right to residence based on nationality (EU/non-EU) and circumstances is what it is. Plain black and white, go look it up on legal.gov.uk if you need a refresh.

 

Take the UK out of the EU, and there is no more distinction between EU nationals and non-EU nationals, there are just non-EU nationals.

 

Until such time as the said current UK law governing someone's right to residence is updated to reflect terms negotiated between the UK and the EU about EU nationals residing in the UK (and UK nationals residing in the EU) after a Brexit vote, that is what the law is.

 

It's elementarily simple. If the vote outcome is for Brexit:

 

No, it doesn't mean EU nationals will be kicked out on 24 June.

 

Yes, it means that as of 24 June, EU nationals' right of residence (and that of Brit nationals in the EU) will be up in the air, along with everything else up for negotiation between the UK and the EU.

 

Until and unless (if) a policy statement is issued before then, anything beyond is pure conjecture, whether informed or not.

 

Yes its conjecture and that is why I countered your post.

 

 

Specificity this line,

 

"But there are no certainties, or even statements of intention, what-so-ever so far. From either camp."

 

It is nothing at all to do with the Brexit camp because they aren't in government, only the government of today can tell you what will happen and they are campaigning to stay in so its not in their interest to put anyone's mind at ease.

[L00b]

It is nothing at all to do with the Brexit camp because they aren't in government, only the government of today can tell you what will happen and they are campaigning to stay in so its not in their interest to put anyone's mind at ease.

It is, because it would be one of the (very) numerous consequences of a successful campaign by the Brexit camp. Which counts a goodly number of elected MPs and Ministers, last I checked, each with direct influence on policy.

 

Or do you think the Brexit camp should bear no responsibility whatsoever for the outcomes of a Brexit, positive or adverse?

[sutty27]

It is, because it would be one of the (very) numerous consequences of a successful campaign by the Brexit camp. Which counts a goodly number of elected MPs and Ministers, last I checked, each with direct influence on policy.

 

Or do you think the Brexit camp should bear no responsibility whatsoever for the outcomes of a Brexit, positive or adverse?

 

No its because they won't be in a position to do anything, all decisions and policies are made by the elected MP's.

 

The Brexiters could have some ideas about what to do after we leave but they won't have the power to do it, that responsibility will fall on the elected MP's some of which are campaigning to leave, but I don't think they represent a majority.

Edited March 7, 2016 by sutty27

[Annie Bynnol]

 

It is nothing at all to do with the Brexit camp because they aren't in government, only the government of today can tell you what will happen and they are campaigning to stay in so its not in their interest to put anyone's mind at ease.

 

Government policy is known and will continue to be known within reason.

 

The Brexit factions are split and are unable to offer any coherent view on the outcome of exit. Their paymasters hide their financial backing and their own agenda by raising levels of fear unfortunately very successfully as no debate is possible over real issues without resorting to scary migration tales oft repeated here.

 

We have been put in a position where an indecisive party made an election pledge to protect what they erroneously though would be a minority government. This promise of a referendum has enable several factions with different backers to tell us to vote no. Pressure groups exist for a reason. That reason should be made public and be questioned.

Asking people to jump into a potential financial abyss without explaining is wrong.

 

We know with some certainty what happens now. I want to know what will happen if their is a no vote.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Annie Bynnol