Speaking for myself only, I find all this new stuff very odd. As if states can make or unmake treaties and trade and residence agreements, but individual citizens can opt out of them if they wish. Usually treaties and suchlike things are considered to be binding on everyone who is subject to the authority of the government that makes them.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
More of a slogan than an argument, though.
What good reasons are there for preventing individual UK citizens from buying associate membership?
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
It's certainly novel. But are there good reasons to prevent people from opting into it, if that's what they want?
I'm trying to imagine how that would have worked in previous treaties and agreements. Like merchants could opt out of the Corn Laws, or excise duty on whisky.
I wonder why this novelty is being promoted. Is it because Brexit is so unworkable that only unprecedented diplomatic concepts are thought capable of coping with it?
To answer your question: there may well be international agreements I would prefer didn't apply to me. The Treaty of Union of 1707 is one such. Up to now I thought this had to be attended to by constitutional changes that would involve to every citizen of the UK. But perhaps we can make individual arrangements to opt out, for a small annual fee. The mind reels when contemplating this new order of things.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
But isn't this a matter of post-Brexit UK citizens choosing to opt in to an agreement with the EU, rather than out?
What difference does that make to the principle involved?
ddt
Mafia Penguin
You call it an opt-out, but I more see it as an opt-in. Britain as a country wants out of the EU, but this scheme would give those Britons who like the EU an opt-in to sort-of stay in the EU.
I think on the face of it it's a cute idea, and it's certainly a great PR move. "Look, we Europeans aren't the baddies, and we want to welcome those who want to stay".
But I'd like to see the details first. Foremost, how does this reciprocity work? For Britons it's easy: those who want this "associate citizenship" apply and pay for it with an annual fee and get freedom of movement within the EU. But how does the freedom of movement to the UK for EU citizens work?
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
I'm probably not fully understanding the principle you're describing, but your examples all relate to people opting out of UK laws (which happen to derive from implementation of treaties). No-one (I think) is suggesting that UK citizens will be able to opt out of being subject to any UK laws.
What is being suggested (AIUI) is that they'll be able obtain a form of EU citizenship via this new mechanism, which would only exist at all with the prior approval of the UK and EU, alongside their existing UK citizenship. I don't see anything fundamentally unusual or different to the existing ways in which people can hold dual citizenship.
Is there such a thing presently as "EU citizenship" separate from the concept of "citizenship of a member country of the EU"?
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
What's on offer is "associate citizenship of the EU", which would be a new status.
I think this is all very novel and strange; and that it has implications absent from present concepts of citizenship, international treaties, or other currently understood institutions and principles.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
Just out of interest, if it were "associate citizenship of Luxembourg" offered under the same terms, would you find it as problematic?
ETA: Sorry, actually I'd rather retract that question and just ask if you wouldn't mind elaborating on what you think the problems are.
ETA: Sorry, actually I'd rather retract that question and just ask if you wouldn't mind elaborating on what you think the problems are.
Last edited:
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
Associate citizens would also have the right to vote in European elections, AIUI.
Yes but ordinary foreign migrants wouldn't be able in practice to come to live and work in the UK if the payment condition was designed to have that effect.
Do you not understand what this whole campaign is about? ceptimus has been very plain. Keep them out!
I think Luxembourg ought to have a problem with that, not me. I have started the process of applying for an Irish passport, to which my ancestry entitles me. If it was the case that people could become "associate citizens" of Ireland merely to participate individually in the treaty arrangements that Ireland has entered into, I think that might be a revaluation of Irish citizenship, which not all holders of that citizenship would immediately welcome.
I'm not sure if all this is a "problem", but as I have said, I think this principle of individual purchase of rights to engage in or abstain from the terms of treaties entered by states, is rather strange, as well as novel.
Britain has talked about having some sort of immigration system that allows those with skills we need to come and work here. No doubt the Tories will also want to allow the stinking rich to come and live here too (hoping they will spend some of their money here and benefit our economy).
The EU proposal seems more regressive than that - it's basically saying, 'if you can afford the payments then you can come and live and/or work in the EU' I hope Britain adopts a better system than that for people who want to come and live here.
Also, the proposed British system will allow other migrants, from outside the EU, the same opportunity to come and live here as migrants from EU countries. If this EU proposal doesn't allow people in Africa or Asia or wherever to apply for associate membership the same as a UK citizen, then it's less fair and equitable than the proposed British system.
No doubt you'll be calling the proposed EU policy 'racist' if it doesn't apply equally to all countries?
- Status