
UK to end freedom of movement for EU citizens on day one of Brexit - tosh
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-eu-brexit-freedom-of-movement-ends-november-boris-johnson-priti-patel-home-office-a9064376.html
======
DangerousPie
FYI, The Independent has a reputation for writing ridiculous clickbait
articles. When you look into the details things almost always turn out to be
much less dramatic than the article made it sound.

See here for a response to this article:
[https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1163335442542059520](https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1163335442542059520)

> As has been previously been made clear, in the event of no deal, EU citizens
> and their family members already resident in the UK by 31 October 2019 will
> be welcome to stay and we want them to do so. They are part of our
> community, and part of our country and we welcome the contribution that they
> make. If there is no deal, they will have until 31 December 2020 to apply to
> the EU Settlement Scheme to protect their status.

~~~
pknight
That's a _very_ misleading quote.

The new Home Secretary wants to institute a different regime from day one of
no deal, which deviates from original plans and creates a whole range of
issues for EU nationals with and without settled status who are resident.

While it is aimed at voters to show that they'll be treating new arrivals
differently, the systems and laws and all of the bodies that deal with EU
nationals are not equipped to differentiate between existing residents and new
arrivals.

Only about a third of EU nationals have applied for settled status and this
new messaging from the incoming Home Secretary is saying the hostile
environment measures must be eagerly applied to all EU nationals without it.
Employers, landlords, banks, health service providers and border officials all
have the burden to verify a person's legal status and the majority of EU
nationals will be unable to demonstrate their status from day one. Their
status furthermore isn't protected by primary legislation and for most people
only amounts to being in a digital system that must be checked online.

Most parties involved in having to check resident's status is not trained in
doing that, in so far it is even practicable from day one of no deal. And it
most certainly will create discrimination, making it more likely that those
that have a harder time demonstrating their rights will be unfairly rejected
or skipped over, or be faced with additional burdens to prove status.

The real world consequences for people affected could be not finding a place
to rent, being evicted, losing a bank account or being unable to open one,
being denied health services or being asked to pay for services that should be
free, being denied a job, being let go, or simply being skipped over by
employers. This all can happen to people who have been in the UK for decades
but are unable to easily demonstrate their status. This is not hypothetical
stuff, this already happens but the occurrence would jump up by an order of
magnitude as the result of the course taken here.

~~~
heavenlyblue
If only a third a third of the EU nationals applied it means they didn’t want
to apply in the first place.

The whole process take about 15 minutes, especially if you have an social
insurance number.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Or they don't intend to stay. I wonder what the consequences of a mass exodus
would be.

~~~
Zenst
Well, if the seas part and they walk across the channel then I'd say people
would start taking note. But humour aside, those leaving have already done so
and [https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-citizens-
brexodus/](https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-citizens-brexodus/)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_But humour aside, those leaving have already done so_

It wasn't very funny and we don't really know what will happen.

------
morrbo
My girlfriend is greek. She has no stamps in her passport, I wouldn't have
stamps in mine if I went to Greece. She's lived here for 8 years. Other than
her landlord's vouch, or some bills registered to her address (which is only
her phone bill and bank account iirc) she has no definitive proof she lives
here. If she leaves the country to visit her parents, now there is a real
chance she might be rejected coming back in.

We were talking about it last night and neither of us have a clue how you'd
even go about getting a UK visa in an EU country. Yes, people who live here
already and don't leave are "good" until 2020. However if this does go ahead
there will be tens of thousands of people who cant (for example) go home and
visit their parents over Christmas without a risk they might be told "nah" at
the border.

I believe that in her specific case she can't get settled status as she
(despite being here 8 years) had a period a few years ago where she worked on
cruise ships so was out of the country for > 6 months.

~~~
wickerman
She still can apply for pre-settled, and there would be no reason she couldn't
get it if she has a national insurance number. I've been in the country only
for 3 or 4 months and got pre-settled status within a day of applying.

~~~
morrbo
Pre-settled wouldn't be a guaranteed re-entry to the UK though would it? Or
have I got that wrong? I was under the impression settled only would be valid
for re-entry (which is the problem, as the deadline is in a month and it takes
5 years to get this status)

~~~
matthewmacleod
"Pre-settled" is essentially the same as "settled" status – the plan was that
either of these would allow entry into the UK after December 2020, when free
movement from the EEA was supposed to end.

There is currently no system in place to allow re-entry for people with either
"settled" or "pre-settled" status (that's why this announcement is mad.) But
your girlfriend should 100% absolutely as soon as possible make sure she has
pre-settled status.

------
matthewmacleod
More information for people who aren't necessarily aware of the full details,
because there's already some confusion in this thread.

Citizens of EU/EEA countries can currently travel to and work in other EU/EEA
countries (including the UK) with essentially no restrictions. There are
currently around 3 million citizens of other EU countries resident in the UK,
taking advantage of freedom of movement to avoid the tedious, expensive, and
time-consuming process of obtaining UK citizenship (or just never feeling the
need).

A system has been introduced allowing these residents to apply for something
called "settled" or "pre-settled" status, indicating that they are habitually
resident in the UK. This will give them the ability to remain in the UK
legally, eventually being able to obtain the appropriate long-term rights.

However, it's a virtual certainty that hundreds of thousands of these people
will end up not being registered for various reasons. Additionally, there is
AFAIK no process in place for performing checks using this system at the UK
border. With the proposed approach, it's extremely likely that many people
previously using free movement rights to travel between the UK and the rest of
Europe will find themselves stuck in a limbo where they have been resident in
the UK for a long time (and it's their home), but end up being unable to re-
enter the country because they have no actual legal basis for that residency
any more.

This wasn't expected to be an urgent problem, as previous plans for departure
from the EU were to continue allowing EU/EEA citizens freedom of movement into
the UK until December 2020, eventually implementing controls as systems became
available. This change in policy makes this much more urgent; there are a
variety of issues affecting people who travel a lot, particularly in the
immediate aftermath.

The good news is that this approach will collapse in the face of reality
because it's _totally insane_ and will result in widespread chaos, and it's
unlikely to even make it to the level of actual firm policy at any point.

~~~
xxxpupugo
Maybe chaos is what the UK government is aiming at this point. They are using
EU residents as hostage to get what they want, not sure what that might be
though.

~~~
raverbashing
Edit: bad information, I stand corrected

~~~
Zenst
Untrue - there are 1.3m UK nationals living in the EU and about 3.7m EU
nationals living in the UK.

[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/populationoftheunitedkingdombycountryofbirthandnationality)

[https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-
other-...](https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-
countries/)

~~~
raverbashing
Thanks, I had found a different older source but the numbers are similar
[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/origins-
dest...](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/origins-destinations-
of-european-union-migrants-within-the-eu/)

Still it's a non-negligible number

------
KaiserPro
If this is the case, this has interesting knock-on effects for a number of
things.

1) this would mean that the government (executive) would need to bring in
primary legislation to allow EU citizens to continue to work and live in the
UK. (those who have registered I think would be ok. I'm grateful for
corrections on this point though) This is something they have promised, but
not actually delivered (Which I suspect will be running theme.)

2) haulage companies would need to change drivers (and probably truck) at the
border (possibly the EU side, which would be interesting, as I'm not sure how
haulage licenses work in practice. I know multidrop/mixed purpose [as in
deliver x and pickup y are expressly not allowed])

3) as far as I'm aware, any truck driver delivering stuff would need a
temporary work visa, which requires a sponsor and load of cash and time (The
first is difficult, the last in very short supply.)

If anyone has links to legislation that contradicts this, I'm all ears.

~~~
KaiserPro
gov.uk advice is here:

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-immigration-
af...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-immigration-after-free-
movement-ends-if-theres-no-deal/immigration-from-30-march-2019-if-there-is-no-
deal)

~~~
makomk
That was the previous approach mentioned in the article, which is now dead as
the bill likely wouldn't get through the House of Commons.

------
sorokod
Guardian's article :

[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/19/threat-
to-e...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/19/threat-to-end-
freedom-of-movement-overnight-reckless-say-eu-citizens)

------
gingabriska
I wonder what will be the effect of this move.

Are wages going to shoot up immediately because of labor shortage?

~~~
xxxpupugo
It will be dependent on what business we are talking about.

If the margin of profit is like low single digit, the labour cost rises too
fast will just lead to the business to shut down. In more profitable business
though, what you said might happen, like software engineering I would guess.
Or the position goes remote.

------
gingabriska
What does it mean to a student who is in the UK for studies and wants to work
for an English company immediately after graduation? Will they've to move back
to their own country?

------
e12e
I wonder if this will give another push for "work anywhere" (eg: IT) firms to
open an office in Ireland?

------
mytailorisrich
If I'm not mistaken this is what both sides always said would happen in case
of no deal.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Up until this announcement:

"…temporary transitional arrangements will apply from 31 October 2019 to
provide some continuity for EU citizens and businesses in the UK. The
transition period will be in place until 31 December 2020."

This was essentially "continue free movement for a bit until we get a new
immigration system in place". This announcement suggests that this is no
longer the case. It's unlikely to happen because it will be literal chaos, but
it's important not to underestimate the incompetence of the current UK
government.

~~~
mytailorisrich
I believe you are quoting from [1].

The document from January very clearly states that free movement would end
immediately (or as soon as practicle) in case of no deal.

E.g. " _5\. Once free movement has ended from 31 October 2019_ "

As I wrote previously this is nothing new.

The transitional arrangements are for EEA citizens already in the UK, and I
haven't read anything that suggests they want to change that.

[1] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-immigration-
af...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-immigration-after-free-
movement-ends-if-theres-no-deal/immigration-from-30-march-2019-if-there-is-no-
deal)

~~~
matthewmacleod
That's the correct document, but I don't think your interpretation makes
sense. The "settled status" scheme is already in place for EEA citizens, and
this is not the "temporary transitional arrangements" being referred to in
that paragraph. This section of the document is about "ending free movement,"
and _free movement_ is the thing to which "temporary transitional
arrangements" will apply.

This is supported by earlier statements from the former Home Secretary Said
Javid: "If there's a no-deal, we won’t be able to immediately distinguish
between those Europeans that were already here before March 29, and those who
came after – and therefore, as a result, I wouldn’t expect employers to do
anything different than they do today. There will need to be some kind of
sensible transition period. I mean, these are the kinds of things I’ve been
working on for months and months."

~~~
mytailorisrich
It's not my interpretation. It's is plainly written: freedom of movement ends.

Now, some people assume that this means EU citizens are immediately kicked
out. That's obviously not the case, hence this "transitional period".

~~~
matthewmacleod
I appreciate you have taken that impression, but you're missing the important
point that this is a change in policy.

The policy document says that "freedom of movement" ends – you are correct
that it is written plainly, and it is technically correct - _freedom of
movement rights under EU law_ will end.

However, the position of the previous government was that EEA citizens would
be able to continue to freely enter the UK for the transitional period—even if
no deal was secured—up until December 2020. That means that while "freedom of
movement" as an EU-granted right would end, there would still be effective
"freedom of movement" into the UK for EU workers, _explicitly because there
will be no system in place to differentiate between UK-resident and non-UK-
resident EU citizens at the border_.

The transitional period applies to immigration into the UK while the new
"skills-based immigration system" is implemented. You can see this from the
policy document:

"The details of the UK’s future skills-based immigration system are set out in
a white paper published on 19 December 2018. It will take some time to
implement this new system… therefore, temporary transitional arrangements will
apply from 31 October 2019… The transition period will be in place until 31
December 2020."

The paragraph immediately above says:

"The information below is concerned with those EU citizens who arrive in the
UK after exit, not those residing here before the UK withdraws from the EU."

This is _explicitly_ not to do with EU citizens who are already resident in
the UK.

~~~
mytailorisrich
So now we agree that freedom of movement will immediately end, as always
expected.

Nothing in what they have just said implies that the "temporary transitional
arrangements" will no longer exist.

The only worry, which is real, is that the government may not have time to set
them up.

I don't see that as a change of policy, more like posturing by the government
before a new negotiation push, and over the top reaction from the opposition.

------
bArray
This is just to push the EU into a position where it's more willing to
negotiate.

~~~
jashmatthews
The EU have offered the best they can given the UK negotiation red-lines. It's
not an adversarial negotiation, it's a future partnership.

~~~
makomk
Notice how differently you've framed the two sides' complete unwillingness to
budge - the EU magnanimously "offered the best they can" whilst the UK had
"negotiation red-lines" they're stubbonly refusing to budge on. In reality,
they're both the same thing - both sides have lines they're unwilling to cross
based on their own interests and what actually stands a chance of passing.
It's just that the press has spent the last few years spinning the EU
negotiating position as some kind of blameless, inevitable natural law and the
UK negotiating postion as a fallable human delusion.

~~~
addicted
This is a complete moscharacterization of what happened.

The elected representatives of the EU and the UK agreed to a deal. A deal in
which the EU compromised a lot (the backstop applying to the entire UK was a
UK demand, insisted upon by May to retain DUP support).

That agreed upon deal was then ratified by the EU parliament, but rejected by
the UK parliament.

Considering the UK is the party that is rejecting the deal, one would imagine
they would be the ones responsible for at the very least stating what they
want. But they cannot do that because there is no version of Brexit that has
majority support. If they move in one direction away from the deal, they lose
left wing votes while gaining fewer right wing votes. If they move in the
other direction, they gain a few right wing votes, while losing more left wing
votes.

That’s why the UK has constantly insisted the EU compromise, without ever
explaining what that compromise should look like (other than, no backstop,
which then raises the impossible desire to both maintain an open border
between Ireland and NI, while the UK insists on controlling its borders and
having a different customs regime on one side of that border).

It’s stupid, and the UK’spoliticians are entirely at fault here. The EU has
been compromising to a fault, honestly. They should have listened to Macron
and not extended the deadline. At least you wouldn’t have an incompetent lying
charlatan leading the UK during Brexit. You’d only have an incompetent leading
the UK.

~~~
makomk
You sure about that? As far as I know the European Parliament never actually
ratified the deal. They'd cannily scheduled their vote after the UK
parliament's vote and last I'd heard they hadn't bothered going ahead with the
vote after the UK rejected it, though that may have changed. It's possible
that the EU parliament would've rejected it. Perhaps unlikely, as we saw with
the copyright directive it's pretty hard to convince them to ever block
something, but it's certainly possible - especially when it involves something
that's so different from what the EU normally does.

