Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Is there?

My kid has a mother born outside the UK. What would you like to discuss?

Where is the problem?
Click to expand...

Where is the problem? OK. Depending upon the argument du jour, paternal descent is critical if one argues for citizenship and maternal descent is critical if one argues against. It is a big ball of misogyny and racism blown up so as to be a convenient baseball bat against which resistance is futile.

Do I like it? No. Does it hold any water? No. Is it deployed by the fringe? Yup, with monotonous regularity.
 
abaddon said:
Where is the problem? OK. Depending upon the argument du jour, paternal descent is critical if one argues for citizenship and maternal descent is critical if one argues against. It is a big ball of misogyny and racism blown up so as to be a convenient baseball bat against which resistance is futile.

Do I like it? No. Does it hold any water? No. Is it deployed by the fringe? Yup, with monotonous regularity.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are arguing? In the UK when you are born your status as being a British citizen is based on the status of your parents both mother and father. Usually one British parent is enough to be classed as British, or if both (or one) parents are legal immigrants they can apply on behalf of the kid for the kid to be granted British citizenship.
 
Darat said:
The USA I think is quite unusual in anyone being born in the barn is classed as a cow.
Click to expand...

Yep. Haven't looked into it in detail but I think it's not standard practice.

I'm still waiting to hear from the poster who raised it why my kid needs to be discussed however.
 
Liam Fox says it's vitally important to keep foreigners out - even if we end up destroying the economy in the process :rolleyes:

Unregulated free movement of people after Brexit would "not keep faith" with the EU referendum result, the international trade secretary has said.

In a Sunday Times interview, Liam Fox said he had "not been party" to widely-reported talks about a "transitional" period when free movement is retained.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40767023

Xenophobia FTW !!!!!!
 
What part of "unregulated free movement" (my bolding for emphasis) is difficult to understand....?
 
MCel58 said:
I think the issue about unlabelled GMO is simply one of ensuring that consumers have the information so that they can make a choice. Many people have objections to the actions of companies involved in GMO and their treatment of small farmers and would wish to boycott these products not on a scientific basis but a political one. You cannot exercise that choice if the products are unlabelled.
Click to expand...

Pretty much a good reason to keep the labeling.
Same reason we have labeling for part of country the meat/vegetable is coming from and so forth.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Yep. Haven't looked into it in detail but I think it's not standard practice.

I'm still waiting to hear from the poster who raised it why my kid needs to be discussed however.
Click to expand...

Some other country have a similar right while not 100% identical. In France for example children of both foreign parent born there and having at least 5 years of residency after age 11 by the age 18 (or immediately at birth if they are stateless) can become french if desired. Not happening for your random tourist going back though.
 
LondonJohn said:
What part of "unregulated free movement" (my bolding for emphasis) is difficult to understand....?
Click to expand...
It's impossible to understand until Neil Fox deigns to inform us what sort of regulation he would approve of, and how "free" the movement will be after the regulation is applied.
 
I didn't realise that the DJ and TV personality "Doctor (sic) Fox" was involved in Brexit negotiations.....

And surely it's impossible NOT to understand the clear importance/significance of the word "unregulated" in this context. And just as it is now with non-EU nationals entering the UK, the doors will always be open under certain conditions - e.g. to fill a job where there is a supply/demand deficit among the UK population (nursing is an obvious example), or where there is a familial/marital link.

(NB I am anti-Brexit, pro-European, and libertarian. But I do get frustrated (and many other stronger adjectives) at people hyperbolising things for argumentative gainsaying purposes.)
 
LondonJohn said:
I didn't realise that the DJ and TV personality "Doctor (sic) Fox" was involved in Brexit negotiations.....

And surely it's impossible NOT to understand the clear importance/significance of the word "unregulated" in this context. And just as it is now with non-EU nationals entering the UK, the doors will always be open under certain conditions - e.g. to fill a job where there is a supply/demand deficit among the UK population (nursing is an obvious example), or where there is a familial/marital link.

(NB I am anti-Brexit, pro-European, and libertarian. But I do get frustrated (and many other stronger adjectives) at people hyperbolising things for argumentative gainsaying purposes.)
Click to expand...

But as it turns out free and unregulated do not mean the same thing in terms of EU law, this is one of those misleading claims that the Brexiteers have pushed for years. An EU citizen cannot simply come to this country and start claiming benefits or jump to the front of the council housing queue. Ironically despite endless British complaints it was the Germans who went to the ECJ and settled the benefits question once and for all.

Then there's non EU immigration, which the UK is free to regulate as it wishes. it still accounts for half of all immigration and if anything is likely to rise after Brexit to provide an alternative to fill empty posts.

And of course there's that caveat of 'where necessary', a number of industries have already begun lobbying to ensure that they can still bring in labour and while Liam Fox might deny it other government ministers have conceded it will be years before these jobs can be filled by British workers and that assumes the government actually pursues policies to encourage UK citizens to take up those jobs. They've done the opposite when it comes to nursing and barring huge pay rises or coercion you are not going to fill the vacancies in agriculture with home grown staff.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
No really to do with that though. Merely that being born in the UK doesn't earn you citizenship unlike in the US.
Click to expand...

That's to do with constitution. Countries like the USA and also France operate on the concept of jus solis - place of birth (hence the brouhaha over Obama's birthplace). Many European countries operate jus sanguine depending on your mother's nationality. Soil versus blood.

The UK Immigration Act of 1963 and 66 served to block any further immigration from Commonwealth countries such as India, Africa and the Caribbean, the former allowed wives and extended family, the latter limited 'close relatives' to only those who had at least one grandparent who was British.

Problem is, it will be difficult for the Brits and the EU to thrash out a like-for-like Brexit nationality deal because of the large variation on nationality requirements of each EU country.

For example, Finland requires a residency period iirc seven years (as opposed to the UK proposed five years) and a basic grasp of Finnish, which is tricky for most British expats in Finland.

Thankfully, they can opt to learn Swedish instead.
 
Meanwhile ... the Cabinet is in open warfare while the PM is off on a walking holiday in The Alps (or something).

ffs

Headless chickens would be an improvement on this chaos.
 
The infighting in the cabinet seems to be continuing whilst the headmistress is away.

Now Phil Hammond seems to be saying that post-Brexit, the UK will not become a tax haven - though strictly speaking he says that the UK will not engage in "unfair tax competition" (which is IMO a meaningless phrase).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40771900

This seems to be at odds with his January statement.

It prompts the question of why businesses would want to relocate to the UK post-Brexit (and they'll be needed as the financial services industry seems to be heading the other way). If it's not particularly tax-efficient to do so (unless Phil Hammond is proposing a massive shift of tax burden from business to individuals - I note he was talking about the overall tax take, not corporate rates), then will is be our lax environmental and employment regulation which will tempt them, our low wages or something else ?
 
MCel58 said:
I think the issue about unlabelled GMO is simply one of ensuring that consumers have the information so that they can make a choice. Many people have objections to the actions of companies involved in GMO and their treatment of small farmers and would wish to boycott these products not on a scientific basis but a political one. You cannot exercise that choice if the products are unlabelled.
Click to expand...

Sure, but GM marketing strategies have nothing to do with that.

McHrozni
 
LondonJohn said:
I didn't realise that the DJ and TV personality "Doctor (sic) Fox" was involved in Brexit negotiations.....

And surely it's impossible NOT to understand the clear importance/significance of the word "unregulated" in this context. And just as it is now with non-EU nationals entering the UK, the doors will always be open under certain conditions - e.g. to fill a job where there is a supply/demand deficit among the UK population (nursing is an obvious example), or where there is a familial/marital link.

(NB I am anti-Brexit, pro-European, and libertarian. But I do get frustrated (and many other stronger adjectives) at people hyperbolising things for argumentative gainsaying purposes.)
Click to expand...

Is hyperbolising things better or worse in your book than making things or just downright being dishonest?

The doors are not open for non EU citizens right now family link or no. And you cannot state that they would remain at even the current crappy standards given the governments pledge to reduce immigration further.

Regulated free movement is an oxymoron at least as used by you and the brexiteers
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Is hyperbolising things better or worse in your book than making things or just downright being dishonest?

The doors are not open for non EU citizens right now family link or no. And you cannot state that they would remain at even the current crappy standards given the governments pledge to reduce immigration further.

Regulated free movement is an oxymoron at least as used by you and the brexiteers
Click to expand...
This is from a government publication. It is obviously intended to reflect and express support for the main motives for the pro-Brexit vote.
We have ruled out being a member of the single market, as the PM said in the Lancaster House speech. EU leaders have made clear their view that members of the single market must sign up to the ‘four freedoms’ that underpin it — including the free movement of people – and be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We respect that position.​
That is what this is all about. Ending free movement.
 
Vixen said:
That's to do with constitution. Countries like the USA and also France operate on the concept of jus solis - place of birth (hence the brouhaha over Obama's birthplace). Many European countries operate jus sanguine depending on your mother's nationality. Soil versus blood.
Click to expand...

The details are actully both for the US. Now it is having a US citizen as a parent but at the time Obama was born you needed to be born in the US or have a parent who was a US citizen and lived for 5 years in the US over the age of 18. His mother was not old enough to meet the second requirement
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom