Free Movement of EU Citizens To Britain Will End in 2019 (standard.co.uk) 356
Free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end when the country leaves the EU in March 2019, Theresa May's spokesman said Monday, moving to contain a Cabinet row over immigration after Brexit. From a report: Downing Street (headquarters of the government of the United Kingdom) said on Monday it was "wrong" to suggest free movement would "continue as it is now" once Britain leaves the EU. It comes following days of confusion and rumours of infighting between Cabinet colleagues over the crucial issue of immigration after Brexit.
Consistent Inconsistency (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The Tory government is on such shaky ground right now that I think any grand proclamations from anyone within the government should be viewed with skepticism. This is a government lead by the lamest of duck PMs, who is almost certainly not going to survive to fight another general election, with a fairly significant contingent of Remainers on the back benches, and a goodly number of remainers on the Opposition benches (Corbyn's personal views notwithstanding). And really, there's every indication th
Will May be Around? (Score:2)
Query whether Theresa May will still be PM in 2019...
Re: (Score:2)
Until next week (Score:4, Informative)
Actually quite tragic (Score:4, Interesting)
The British joined the EU with special conditions because their economy was in really bad shape. And now they want to leave to improve their economic position? This is really tragic. They seem to have decided that fucking themselves with a wire-brush is a really good idea. And now their moron-in-chief also wants a "hard" exit in addition? Well, we will miss you in the 1st world, that's for sure. And I am well aware that about half of you are _not_ terminally stupid. Makes it even more tragic.
Omitting of course... (Score:2, Troll)
That the EU became much more than a "Trade Union" to help free trade between nations and became a supernational government acting well beyond the limits of economics.
I believe you have a very one sided view of who exactly screwed themselves with a wire brush. Numerous countries in the EU are taking issue with the Social policies the EU is trying to force on them.
I wonder why people who promote the EU continuously ignore the first Nation to leave, and what a positive impact it has had on them. Hint: the UK
Re:Omitting of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire point of the Common Market, and ultimately the EU was more than simply to have a trading bloc. It is to create extremely tight economic integration. There's a rather good reason for this, seeing as Europe had just gone through two cataclysmic general wars, and if you cast the net back a bit further, you have also have the Napoleonic Wars and major conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War. In other words, this is a region that was blown to bits multiple times over the last few centuries.
Tight economic integration inevitably means some degree of political union. Now we can debate how much is too much, but in general, even in those countries where EU resentment is highest, countries like Poland, Hungary and Greece, people still in general view the EU positively. The Greeks made clear through multiple elections over the last five or six years that even with intense austerity, they not only want to remain in the EU, but the Eurozone.
These claims that somehow Britain is the canary in the coalmine, that somehow there is going to be this exodus of nations from the EU, really are little more than a shallow attempt by Leavers to try to justify what just about everyone now knows to have been a stunningly idiotic referendum result.
Re:Omitting of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
The wars were not the only reason for tight integration. If you want to have really free and fair trade between nations then they all need to be playing by the same rules. The same standards, the same rules everywhere so that products and services can flow freely and no-one gains an unfair advantage.
There is also the collective bargaining power that comes from being the second largest economy in the world. Outside of the EU, countries are already lining up to bully the UK into accepting their terms. Trump wants a quick deal because he knows we are weak and desperate, open to accepting US chlorinated chicken and hormone infused beef to lessen the pain of Brexit.
Brexit is making the EU stronger. Merkel and Macron are reforming it, renewing it. Cameron could have been with them, getting the changes he wanted, if he had participated and built support instead of presenting a list of demands backed up by a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is just it: You do not make war on your close trading-partners. That alone is far more than ample compensation for some political unpleasantness.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire point of the Common Market, and ultimately the EU was more than simply to have a trading bloc. It is to create extremely tight economic integration. There's a rather good reason for this, seeing as Europe had just gone through two cataclysmic general wars, and if you cast the net back a bit further, you have also have the Napoleonic Wars and major conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War. In other words, this is a region that was blown to bits multiple times over the last few centuries.
Exactly. That's what the moronic Brexiteers (and the other ridiculous nationalist, inward-looking, xenophobic forces all over Europe) seem to ignore, wilfully or otherwise - get rid of the EU and we are back to the different countries in Europe beating the crap out of each other on a regular basis. Brexiteers also seem to ignore that the British empire is long dead and buried. If they think that they are going to be able to bully and exploit the ex-colonies as they used to, they are in for a huge surprise -
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Britain left out of what amounts to a voter pique, a sort of rage against Westminster.
Re: (Score:2)
And in essence sadly correct.
Re: (Score:3)
You still, even after I pointed out, ignore the first country to leave the EU and how it has benefited that country greatly.
I assume you're talking about Greenland, though technically the first country to leave the EU was Algeria. It's not at all clear that leaving the EU was a good choice for Greenland, and there have been a lot of calls recently in Greenland for re-entry. Mainly to promote some economic diversity, because the current almost single-product economy is very shaky.
Greenland is also a very different case from the UK, which has a large and diverse economy much of which depends on supply chains that are tightly int
Re:Omitting of course... (Score:5, Informative)
In the case of both Greenland and Iceland, both have done very well after leaving the EU.
Greenland is a frozen rock of fifty thousand souls that relies on Danish subsidies and selling fishing rights that it could never defend anyway.
Iceland never joined the EU, and is still negotiating to do so. It has, however, been a member of the European Free Trade Area since 1994. Whatever you think about it's economy, EU , or even EEC membership has not been a factor. It isn't even showing particular objections to it's current trade status as far as I know.
You can say they are nothing alike, but that is obviously false. The economies are different, obviously, but the reasons for their departure is the same.
One never departed, the other is a technicality of no great importance.
The EU has gone well beyond it's original trade capacity and went into full on social policy. Which is why other members of the EU have been pushing back very hard against policies the EU is imposing. Poland is probably the most vocal example, but not the only example.
Your factual deficiencies aside, I am not aware of either Iceland or Greenland raising any particular objections to any EU Social Policies.
My posts are not really to debate the metrics of each member, former member, but to argue against GP who gave a faulty piece of ad hominem against the UK for their decision to leave.
Then why include such untrue statements in them? You would be well advised to apologize for your mistaken assertions instead.
That leave vote as in the works for a very long time with a whole lot of the populace getting out.
Actually, it was under 75% turnout, and a bare majority. Without a negotiated plan. Disdain for that process is justified.
Further, the doom and gloom irrationality of GP is discounted completely by other members who _did_ leave and have not crashed and burned because of it.
But s.petry, there really are none. Greenland? Still sucking at Copenhagen's teat, Algeria? Yeah, an Islamic oil satrapy. Iceland? Never an EU member, still a member of the free trade zone.
You can have your own opinions. But not your own facts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, in the EU there is a need for more democracy but Brexit brings it closer.
Historically only two countries have adamantly refused to seceded more power from the EU commission to the EU parliament and after the Brexit there is only one left, France.
Please note, I'm not saying the EU commission is lacking democracy, after all it works like the governments in many democratic nations in that the members are appointed and controlled by democratically elected governments.
Don't be
Re:EU is anti-democratic (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure whether to laugh out cry at this.
The EU has given us more power, more control and more sovereignty. Look at how strong consumer rights and employment rights are under it. Look at how the EU is able to tell the US to go fuck itself when it suits us.
Outside the EU, we have countries lining up to screw us. How is being forced to accept US farming standards, far inferior to our own, "taking back control" or increasing our sovereignty?
The EU is getting stronger. The far right and the populists have been exposed and rejected. Support for the EU is up, it's reforming itself and pushing ahead with the project now that the UK can't hold it back.
Re: Omitting of course... (Score:2)
What positive effect did it have on Algeria?
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Nobody has left the EU to this date. Maybe that is why the "leavers" are ignored?
Re:Actually quite tragic (Score:4, Interesting)
Theresa May has little real political capital anymore, and likely just as little power. There seem to be two competing groups in cabinet; with the Chancellor leading a Soft Brexit bloc and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove being among the chief Brexiteers. My wager is that in the end, with the PM really a dead woman walking, that Hammond's bloc will gain the upper hand, though Johnson, Gove and the 1922 Committee backbenchers will make his life grief. What does seem to be happening, which may have some interesting long-term ramifications for British politics, is that Brexit has divided Parliament into two groups, that don't really align well to the major parties; a Remain group of MPs, with a good many Tories, and probably most Labour MPs, along with the Liberal Democrats and SNP, and a Brexit group which probably represents a fair portion of the Conservative MPs, as well as some Labour MPs, most particularly Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. From everything I'm reading, both the Tories and Labour are in a state of low-grade civil war right now, with some underlying threats that the Remain MPs, which make up the majority of the MPs in Westminster, could work together to scuttle a Hard Brexit.
And while that's all going on, British and EU negotiators have to try to hammer out a deal that Parliament and all the other EU members can agree on. This is why some are beginning to speculate if Brexit will actually happen.
Re: (Score:3)
They seem to have decided that fucking themselves with a wire-brush is a really good idea.
Quite.
It seems that the main effect of Brexit is to reduce immigration, not by controlling borders, but by making the country sufficiently crap that people don't want to come here.
Anyway I'm sure the shitholes which voted for Brexit will be much better off under an EU-free Tory rule. I hear the tories *LOVE* poor people.
Anyway, the brexiters keep claiming there are valid arguments for leaving but I've yet to hear any.
Re:Actually quite tragic (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently he angrily voted leave because the EU banned something they never actually banned.
That pretty much sums up Brexit. There was a woman on the TV the other day saying she made a last minute decision to vote leave because of EU rules on straight bananas, one of the oldest and most widely debunked Euro myths.
Most people know less than nothing about the EU. By that I mean that they aren't just ignorant, everything they think they know is a lie.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the rules on bananas were the UK rules. The EU decided to standardize to make trade easier, and the UK rules were already pretty much the same as most of the other members and international norms, so they adopted them. We literally wrote those rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. The stuff you can buy in the local shop is almost certainly what you're talking about.
Real creosote is nasty stuff, however in the documents published about it they actually ecognised that there's currently nothing with the performance of creosote and banning it completely has significant downsides. What they really don't want is any old yahoo buying a galloon from homebase, huffing half of it while putting it on a fence and tipping the rest down the drain, so the sale has been somewhat heavily r
Just as well my pension date is January 2018 (Score:3)
My Pension date will be January 2018 so I can quit their new society of scare for and fear of their neighbours before it becomes problematic.
Not that I believe they will impose great barriers to EU citizen, even in the Maggie Thatcher days there were no real issues getting in.
The Bexiteers say they want to improve their standards of living by removing the EU rules and workers, well let me say there isn't a single employer in the UK that would hire an EU worker if he couldn't make money that way. Or more money than by employing a British national.
The underlying issue of the Brexit campaign is the same as Trumps Make America Great Again, the portion of the population that has a lack of Self-respect. For some reason they feel (in their own country!) inferior to their foreign born fellow citizen.
Something that has been instilled in parts of the British people by years of reading the tabloids that were full of nonsensical stories about crooked cucumbers and outsiders living of the meagre UK benefits. And other elements of the media that have never bothered much to set right these ridiculous misconceptions.
The bottom line is I feel sorry for the enlightened Brits and the Europeans that had a good commercial relation with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody real
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't you worried about your pension though? Aside from being decimated by the crashing economy, if you are outside the UK your state pension won't get yearly increases. Inside the EU it currently does, but not necessarily after Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
But read your rant, which type of shortcomings caused your issues, open borders or bad laws favouring employers instead of employees? Your problem is not open borders, it is the employers of illegal immigrants that are not prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, like the problem that fix isn't at the border.
Re:Muslims already won (Score:4, Insightful)
Look to Dearborn and Hamtramck, Michigan. (Score:3, Insightful)
Demographic change can happen much quicker than one expects.
Look at Hamtramck, Michigan [wikipedia.org] and Dearborn, Michigan [wikipedia.org] for examples of this happening recently.
Even as late as the 1970s, the residents of Hamtramck were nearly all (90%) from Poland, or of Polish descent. But by 2000, Poles made up only about 10% of the population. By 2015 it had the first majority Muslim city council in the US.
Dearborn is similar. Once mainly populated by people of European origin or descent, as of 2010 over 40% of its population was
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, even if you accept what you say as being at all likely to happen, it only matters if you think it's a problem for there to be a Muslim majority in some places.
Hypothetically, say the ill-defined area known as "Birmingham" became majority Muslim, why is that of concern?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, you can't keep your religion alive unless you convince everyone there is a war against it. It's either that or talking about the end times.
Re: Muslims already won (Score:5, Informative)
Most Muslims in the UK come from the Commonwealth.
With very little paper work they receive an UK resident permit, even citizenship and also a passport if they want.
The EU has absolutely nothing to do with the UK's perceived "Muslim problem".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First in Christianity there are scriptural distinctions between church and state: "Render onto Caesar that which is Caesars
Except in very few places for very short times there were always secular and ecumenical leaders - and if you knew your history you would now that there was violence at times between the two.
The Caliphate is something that has NEVER existed in Christianity. (And if you bring up th
Re: (Score:2)
First in Christianity there are scriptural distinctions between church and state: "Render onto Caesar that which is Caesars ..."
That didn't exactly stop medieval and early modern kingdoms from forcing religion onto people. Cuius regio, eius religio. I'm not sure whether it would matter to me if was ecclesiastical or government authority forcing ancient superstition onto me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The top 10 male baby names in 2017 for the UK: http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/07/... [metro.co.uk]
Mohammed or any of the combinations does not even make it to the top 100
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
4.4% of the population of the United Kingdom is Muslims. That would mean the birth rate of British Muslim women of childbearing age over the next 10 years would have to be astronomical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or people can convert to Islam.
Islam is a religion that accepts conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think it's probable that there would be tens of millions of converts to Islam?
Or to put this another way, just how far you willing to go down Stupid Street to justify what is clearly an absurd, even idiotic claim?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Under considerably different circumstances; military invasions.
Re: (Score:3)
No, most of those conversions happened after conquest, not during. Like for instance, Iran was first conquered by the caliphs, but conversion to Islam happened mainly in the 9th & 10th centuries under the Samanids & Buyids. In short, discriminatory policies were set up that made Zoroastrians second class citizens to Muslims, and to escape that, the bulk of them converted to Islam. Same story in Syria, Egypt & the rest of North Africa. In the East Indies, after a ruler converted to Islam,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When leaving Islam the Sharia allows all kinds of nasty punishments to you by the remaining believers right here on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Muslims already won (Score:4, Interesting)
Either scenario, or a combination of the two, would require unbelievably high birth rates and levels of emigration that only happen in countries with civil wars or mass famines.
In other words, no, Britain is not going to be majority Muslim in 10 years. To believe so requires such an intense degree of stupidity that it's difficult to imagine how one would have the cognitive function sufficient to operate a keyboard... or a flush toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried flushing a toilet?!
Your "facts" are wrong (Score:2)
If you go direct to the ONS website [ons.gov.uk] you will see that they do not have statistics yet for 2016 but you can also see that 'Oliver' was the top boys name in 2014. So please stop peddling lies and fak
Re: (Score:2)
on your school there are 10 Muslim children. 8 of them are called Muhammad (it is a very popular name for people with that background).
*You* are a moron if you think that *80%* of "people with that background" have a single name. You'd be lucky for it to be more than about 10%. (How did you even come up with the idea that people *in any society* would willingly give almost everyone the same name? Even Romans with their notoriously limited repertoire of names had a few dozen of them.)
Re: (Score:2)
Only those non-Muslims that haven't started families need to leave a particular area and it is guaranteed to become majority Muslim.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was it you would be correct?
Rapes. Acid Attacks. Machete attacks. That's different. Being aggressively abusive about your adopted country calling people "Pig Eaters" (This is Germany not England).
You used to have the trope of the "Ugly American." Now the new reality is the Ugly Immigrant
Re: Muslims already won (Score:2)
They're only at 4% after 7 decades of immigration so they'd better get a move on
Re:Muslims already won (Score:5, Insightful)
Around 4.4% of the population said they were Muslim at the last census (2011). Keep in mind that the census tends to inflate the numbers because the people filling it in put their kids down as being religious when they aren't really and stop participating when they grow up.
Anyway, that's up 1.7% since 2001, so in a decade. At that rate, by 2050 a massive 10% of the population will be Muslim. I don't think we have too much to worry about.
Re:Muslims already won (Score:4)
The worst part is how when immigrants or the children of immigrants want to integrate, want to be British, and these idiots tell them that they can't be. Incompatible culture, wrong accent, funny name, as if those things make people British.
Re: (Score:2)
The great majority of these countries refuse entry to those that don't want. (or not have a relevant passport, birth certificate etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Only a f**king idiot thinks this is a good idea or would troll about it. 20 years ago it may have been laughably improbable.
Today. Unfortunately it looks like a distinct possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was pretty much the norm for most of the world....?
Re: (Score:3)
Think of requiring the same to go from state to state. EU.. US, same type of thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a direct comparison....states are not sovereign countries.
Hence the name "United States"....
There is not a difference in the states of customs, languages, etc....so, not quite the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
But the EU is more of an economic confederation with open borders than a federalist union of semi-sovereign states. The current "United States" is USA 2.0. where as USA 1.0 was something more similar to the economic confederation of the EU. As brexit and the lack of an EU army is showing is that the central government is fairly weak in its ability to force certain actions or keep members from leaving (which may or may not be a good thing depending on who you are).
Re: (Score:2)
True, but if the EU were given a couple hundred years of open border movement it probably would start to look like the US of today. It would become a "melting pot" as well. I was thinking more in terms of travel between member states, less so of the cultural aspects. Canada might be a slightly better example with Québec versus the other provinces, and also somewhat with the maritimes.
As for "independent countries", are they really? The US is a collection of (supposedly) sovereign states. The membe
Re: (Score:3)
What went wrong and can be easily fixed, is they forgot to improve and finance the border controls of the outer countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Improving and financing the border controls of outer countries sounds like giving up control.
Re:Irish passport (Score:4, Interesting)
A bit like the Mexican-US border, what would work better, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California each policing by themselves or the Federal border force?
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union had similar open borders and was farther down the rabbit hole of merging than the EU of today - looking now at this point we'd sooner see an open US/Canadian border before any two FSRs do.
Re: (Score:3)
States within the US do not have wildly different values, cultures, and fiscal/financial policy like the "states" of the EU.
Yes you do. Do California and Alabama look anything a like in their values, cultures and fiscal/financial policy? If there were any similarities in values, cultures, and fiscal/financial policy you wouldn't get such heated elections like we did in 2016. I don't see anywhere in the EU losing their shit during election season to the same extent. Even with brexit it seemed tame compared to the shit show of Clinton and Trump. The point of free movement in the US is to vote with your feet. Don't like the local l
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, Compare Washington State and Mississippi.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the passport. It's about the ability for any EU citizen, to move to any other EU country and take a job there, and live there.
Re:Irish passport (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the US, I'm wondering what the big deal is for requiring an passport to move between sovereign countries over there?
I thought that was pretty much the norm for most of the world....?
As another poster has already said, you should be thinking in terms of states.
One of the reasons for the US's global dominance in the 20th century was the size of the country, and the amount of economic activity that could be carried out within its borders. Free movement of workers between states allowed the workforce to move very rapidly, and any "goldrush" (Detroit becoming "motor city", the birth of Hollywood) saw mass migrations from all over. Now imagine what would have happened in Hollywood if anyone who wasn't Californian wasn't allowed in without a lengthy immigration process that couldn't be started until they had a job -- it would have been very different.
Think about all the noise over H1B, and imagine if Microsoft had to apply for an H1B to hire anyone not born in Washington State.
Imagine Google applying for H1Bs for all their staff not born in California.
And imagine all the people in the Grain Belt who would have highly restricted choice of profession, because they're not allowed to move to where the work is.
Re: (Score:2)
But not the same thing....states are not comparable to sovereign countries.
Between the states in the US, there aren't major differences in culture, language, history, etc.
States are not small countries in the sense of how I think of different countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, in plenty of countries a simple id is enough, because they have treaties with the surrounding countries.
Inside of the EU/Schengen you don't need a passport, and inside of Schengen there aren't even border controls for EU citizens.
And if you are from a country where you require a Visa to enter the EU, you usually get a "Schengen Visa" and can travel freely in the Schengen area. Of course, AFAIK UK does not belong to the Schengen area and you would need an extra Visa if you want to travel from Paris to Lo
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, I'm wondering what the big deal is for requiring an passport to move between sovereign countries over there?
I thought that was pretty much the norm for most of the world....?
It's a lot more than being able to move.
Being an EU citizen allows you to live and work in any of the EU countries. If you're a British passport holder, you've lost a lot more than free movement.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot more than being able to move.
Being an EU citizen allows you to live and work in any of the EU countries. If you're a British passport holder, you've lost a lot more than free movement.
You're not guaranteed the right to live anywhere - many EU countries will issue you a temporary permit, and then later grant you a permanent one if they see fit to do so.
On the right to work, yup, that's pretty much spot on, so have fun getting a job somewhere, and then get told you're not getting your permanent resident's permit.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, I'm wondering what the big deal is for requiring an passport to move between sovereign countries over there?
I thought that was pretty much the norm for most of the world....?
As a US citizen, I must have a US passport in order to enter Mexico, but no visa is required; it used to be that a US drivers license was enough. As a Brazilian citizen, my wife can enter just about any South American country with just her Brazilian passport (again, no visa required). Surely there must be a way to verify that someone has the required citizenship to cross the border without a visa.
Re: (Score:3)
First understnad that immigration and customs are separate things. Immigration is about you, customs is about your stuff. The lanes are a customs thing.
First immigration, an EU citizen can show their passport or national ID card (if their country issues them) to border control of any EU country and with very few exceptions they will be let in. Once in they can live and work in the target country without needing to get a visa, work permit or similar. Some non-EU visitors can visit without a visa but they wil
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you see the idiot Conservative MEP who suggested the solution was simply to have a hard border between the whole British Isles and the EU.
Yeah, that'll go down splendidly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Brexiteers either haven't figured this out or are in denials. Want to go to Spain? You'll need a visa. France? Visa. Ireland? Well, if you are travelling overland a visa and an amoured car.
In theory they don't need to issue visas at all and the English channel is a better wall than Trump could ever make. In practice this is just the kind of scare-mongering that led to the Brexit vote, trying to act like the UK has no choice in the matter or that all hell would rain down on them if they did. I just checked here in Norway and I can go to 127 countries around the world without a visa, at least for vacations shorter than a month. It's a standard courtesy offered by most friendly nations and all t
Re: (Score:3)
It seems unlikely that freedom of movement will really end. Maybe in the sense that EU nationals will no longer have the right to work in the UK or use UK services as anything other than tourists, and of course the same for UK citizens living in Europe. But politically they won't be able to close that border, and people will move freely across it.
In practice that means that people will be able to bring family members in via the border, for example. It will create a new underclass of immigrants from the EU w
Re: Free movement of Brits to the EU also ends in (Score:3)
Why do you think it will be the same afterwards? The EU won't just give it to us, it will be part of the negotiations which at the moment don't seem to be going too well.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, could the individual countries in the EU agree to wavered visas like a pre-EU that ac was speaking of?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, all of those would need a visa? I'm from the US, I've been to most of those countries and I've never needed a visa. And the US isn't part of the EU. We've just had to go through customs.
By default, yes.
The UK has very few visa waiver agreements in place, mostly relying on the EU agreements.
On leaving the EU, it's not likely we will have any visa waiver agreements in place with our former partners, and many of our non-EU agreements may well also lapse.
Imagine if your state ceded from the union. Would you still have visa-free travel? No -- it would have to be negotiated.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's going to be any long-term issue on visitor visas, but it's going to be a massive headache for people wanting to work abroad -- as an English teacher, I've got good reason to be concerned. The specific problem for me and thousan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The claim EU regulations make it impossible or difficult to expel them is bull, it is their own British laws that need fixing plus you can never send someone to a country that doesn't want them.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think these people come to the UK? It's not for fantastic health care, the great housing or transport system, all these things are way better in other NW European countries.
They come because there are contrary to other EU countries very few limits to getting benefits from the bat and the very low minimum wage makes them interesting to employers.
These issues could have easily been fixed at Westminster if it weren't for the total control by Tory s
Re: (Score:3)
They figure if they can wait long enough, they can replace the will of the people with the will of the Eurocrats.
What will is that. "the people" voted to leave, but they didn't vote for any specific form of leave.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, the Leave campaign and prominent Leave proponents all said we could stay in the single market, which means retaining freedom of movement. This isn't what was voted for at all.
https://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY [youtu.be]