Why would anyone decide now to "quickly move to the UK", just because they are leaving the EU? I would rather see this as a disincentive to move there, as a EU citicen, right now...
Their citizens are perceived to be the least desirable EU citizens to have as immigrants.
Or why wouldn't they go in the slightly-less-richer, but culturally closer Spain or Italy? Especially since the weather is much nicer over there :)
Those things might exist in other countries, I don't know of them personally, but I do know that moving to Finland is non-trivial. The language is hard, and unless you speak it you've only got unskilled jobs to find - with high competition. Gaining residency pretty much necessitates having a job too, which makes it all a bit circular.
I'm settled here for the foreseeable future, although I have to wait another couple of years before I qualify for citizenship.
But the article is not about people from hacker news, it's about any EU citizen.
Bulgaria and Romania are both EU countries, neither is Schengen.
Looks like they don't need anything but a passport to go to the UK.
I nearly f. this up when I was traveling with my Non-EU girlfriend who was on a single entry Visa and I was about to book a flight for us from Vienna to Sofia to travel in East Europe.
The question is: Can citizens of Bulgaria and Romania just move to the UK without further requirements? Looks to me they would need a visa.
Yes. This right has nothing at all to do with Schengen.
The transitional restrictions for Bulgarians and Romanians, implemented when the two countries joined the EU, ended on 1 January 2014.
I have friends and loved ones who moved here from the countries mentioned who contribute to this country infinitely more than a large number of native Brits. No one ever really talks about the human side of all of this.
Like there was only going to be a trickle of immigration from the Eastern European countries when they joined the EU.
Don't get me wrong, I was staunchly in favour of remaining and see immigration from Europe as largely positive but we have to be more honest about it.
Conversely, there may well be plenty of Brits who may well be concerned that reciprocal restrictions might prevent them from emigrating to the EU and might move forward their plans to do so too.
But we will only know for sure in two years.
Anyway, I would have expected that there was a bigger rush up until the Brexit vote, when the British economy was very good and moving there seemed to be a safe bet (because it was in the EU and you could stay indefinitely).
Yes GBP has dropped in value but it will inevitably bounce back in time (although unlikely to the artificial high it was on just before the referendum last year).
But a lot of the price pinches are down to currency fluctuation resulting in sellers raising prices in GBP hence our purchasing power is reduced.
The actual economy of the country to date is doing alright.
Are you putting money on that?
Every politician I have listened to has said they want existing migrants to stay, it's absurd to think that wouldn't be the case.
I used to have a lot of respect for the BBC, Financial Times, and The Independent. Even The Guardian being partisan had the basic decency of putting things in perspective of the opposing side.
Nowadays all turned into hardcore fanatics looking how to manipulate as much as possible the news to provoke reactions in readers.
Perhaps they were cornered into this by the readership. And by Facebook and other social networks creating a cutthroat environment where only nasty clickbait survives.
It's very sad. We are witnessing the end of respectable journalism.
How would you have phrased this headline?
She is ending EU citizens right to live and work in UK, with provisions to protect those already in the country.
Whether discriminating against lesser-skilled immigration from poorer countries is a moral thing to do is, of course, a separate subject for discussion.
Also, if I go visit my family on the continent, am I going to be able to come back ?
I agree that, if I were you, I'd be nervous about any trip abroad within the next 3 years.
I think you skipped this part:
> providing the same was true for UK citizens living in the EU.
That means your future in the UK is as safe as some bargain chips can be.
If she were going to kick EU citizens out, the headline would be "May to announce mass deportations" or something.
And secondly, do you really believe the uk government capable of distinguishing between people who have arrived before or after a date? They don't have a record of travel for everyone in the country. Are you going to be keeping bills in your name from before 15th of march to prove your residence history, the same as for a bank account proof of address?
I've been in the UK for close to 10 years now and I definitely feel like this applies to me. I'm considering either getting a green card and moving towards citizenship, or just moving out of the country. These decisions are frankly insulting.
Politics may be a bit screwy right now, but it's not insane, at least not yet in the UK, as much as people like to hyperbolise.
If you're currently living here, going abroad for a few weeks will be vanishingly unlikely to suddenly define you as no longer live here.
Oh yes it is. We have a nasty, dishonest and utterly incompetent government with free reign to do irreparable damage to this country, no thanks to our non-functioning and useless opposition party.
Meanwhile, our national press, who have never been anything other than dishonest and self-serving are in full frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria mode when it comes to Brexit.
I can't recall in recent memory a time in the UK when politics has been so dysfunctional and depressing as now.
All passports leaving the UK by official ports have been scanned by the UK Border Force for several years; at least five, from memory, and probably prior to their inception too.
They won't have a record if you departed in the dead of night from a small harbour using a yacht, but otherwise the database is fairly comprehensive. Even departures to outide the UK from my local flying-club airfield have UKBF in attendance ( I presume they charge for the 'service' ).
More likely everyone will have to prove their right to residence, and the border database will not be available to us.
However, I believe putting a control on immigration is the right thing to do.
Therefore, my presence is only temporary.
I would have gone with:
Theresa May to end EU citizens' rights to move to the UK
"Theresa May poised to announce end of free movement for new EU migrants next month"
A family watches the local news while awaiting their grandfather's arrival at Sunday dinner. The lead story is about a person causing chaos driving the wrong way on the highway. They quickly realize that the person is on the same highway that their grandfather usually takes to their house and call their grandfather to warn him.
"Grandpa, there's a person going the wrong way on the highway! Be careful!"
"_A_ person?" the grandfather replies angrily. "There's hundreds of 'em!"
You're just making assumptions about the time of this order going in effect to be right away which can't be deduced from the headline.
You'd be right if the headline read like this
"Theresa May ends EU citizens’ rights to live in UK"
Which implies immediate action taking place.
The fact that the headline gets the "to end", or in other cases "set to end", suggests that the subject of the sentence is expected to do something in the future and not in the present.
What abuse? People finding jobs in the UK?
Not the best way to start the negotiations and I suspect British nationals will experience reciprocal measures in Bulgaria/Romania.
Historically (read: empirically, as demonstrated by the real world regardless of what theories think), there are two ways to go about this, both having their set of issues:
- Socializing to some extent, but States are bad bad bad at anything economics (and overspend, mismanage, etc.)
- Non-profit legal statuses, with the appropriate amount of tax exemption, incentives, etc.; but then you enter a world of non-competition which produces abysmally low returns (and even if nobody actually profits, we still need these entities to remain efficient).
I think the ad industry, regarding the press for instance, is just one of the factors motivating the above top/general principle; i.e. that profit-seeking is detrimental to some missions/goals. Nonetheless necessary for said missions to be conducted in the first place (quality journalism, for instance, requires suitable compensation).
I certainly don't pretend to know the answer but a few empirically-motivated ideas emerge as we see this century unfold with its specific attributes.
1 - The creation of a legal status between companies and States: a "Citizen layer" of sorts which shares goals with States (not for profit, on a mission for the public good) but is managed just like regular companies (including competition/anti-trust, regular hiring without elections). This should allow "bad seeds" to die just like bad banks, and the good ones (which would actually make profit, and in time lower costs/increase quality) to thrive.
2 - Giving a "universal wage" to a pre-defined subset of some professions (e.g. N journalists) so as to ensure they exist and don't have to worry about profit (but the competition between journalists remains; as an individual you still have to actually be employed by a news outlet to receive said wages, it's not a right but a finite subvention, it's just removing the burden for that news outlet to make profit to pay you). Obviously there's still competition between news outlets.
There are many, many issues with these ideas, especially drafted hastily like that, but I think these are avenues worth considering. To put a few buzzwords into it, 1 is the idea of crowd-sourcing most of States' work and putting the management back into citizen control instead of elected/officials which are usually not qualified. 2 is just extending the notion of universal income to domains that would be deemed as essential as food or shelter for a population, e.g. information services (press). 1 is generally a weakening of the State where it fails historically, towards a more realistic economically-savvy model, with the added benefit of empowering citizenry as a whole. 2 is conversely a slight re-balancing towards a little dose of 'privately owned communism' when things are indeed of common good or interest (such as information), but limited to money transfers (States don't run anything, they just allocate funds they previously used internally).
Clickbait is just one symptom among many of an unbalanced system (let's not even talk about the general intellectual level of public debate at a time when more people are educated than ever in human history). There's a much larger picture to consider if we are to make our societies more efficient (information being key to democracy, and beyond that to a 'smart', 'informed' population, able to build progress).
> how the profits are distributed
There is on top of that the matter of conflicts of interest; i.e. shareholders with a political agenda etc.
They even have a whole site dedicated to clickbait crap: https://www.indy100.com/ ("A bagel started a brawl on a train and it was terrifying.")
> The European Union has apparently argued that the cut-off date should be the same date as the day the UK actually leaves the EU.
They're not sounding particularly muddled or mean-spirited to me..
> 3.6 million EU citizens who are already in Britain
> 1.2 million British citizens living in other EU countries
It will pose a massive problem for old Brits in Spain when their right to claim healthcare via the Spanish system as facilitated by the EU will cause some of them to move back to the UK and this will compounded by placing an increasing strain on NHS which has come under cuts.
The EU citizens in the UK by contrast are typically young, educated working professionals and will be an economic boon for the EU to take some back.
> 3.2 million of the non-UK born residents were born in the EU (16% of whom held British nationality, 83% held EU nationality and 1% held non-EU nationality).
> 5.4 million of the non-UK born residents were born outside of the EU (54% of whom held British nationality, 5% held EU nationality and 41% held non-EU nationality) – a reflection that EU nationals have the freedom of movement between EU countries, whereas for non-EU nationals there is an incentive to acquire British nationality.
> Around 900,000 UK citizens are long-term residents of other EU countries; the largest age group is aged 30 to 49 years.
I'm not sure where Independent is getting their numbers.
It's also not clear how how the ONS numbers account for dual citizenship, since their numbers all up exactly to 100%.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/search?q=eu+citizen seems a good start.
Not limited only products such as vegetables.
“UK citizens do not like to come and pick our crops and so we have to bring in workers from the EU; from Poland, Czech Republic and Bulgaria etc. They represent 95 percent of our workforce and without them we are absolutely sunk,” he said.
Obviously the devil is in the details, i.e. what it will mean exactly "after the cutoff date": if one has lived in UK long enough to qualify for treaty-rights but never actually exercised them formally before the cutoff, can he still do it after that date? That's the situation most people are likely in, at the moment. A reasonable government would answer yes, of course, but recent news seem to indicate they are looking for any excuse to kick people out, so it's not a given.
If you are an EU citizen living in UK, you should absolutely ask to exercise your rights TODAY; do not delay, do not trust news reports, it's just a bit of bureaucracy but could make a big difference in your future. Make sure you send documents as recorded delivery and track each and every date.
If you are an EU citizen looking to move to the UK: just don't. This country has decided they don't need you and me, they don't deserve our labour, our ideas and our taxes.
I am Irish; the probability is high that my nationality will be treated differently owing to history. But if they want me to ask to stay, they can go fuck themselves.
Swede living in London here. I've got exactly the same opinion.
I am working remote, so my job moves with me, and it might be back home, hopefully with my british girlfriend :) but I fear the future, and how much bureaucracy we will face.
And many more; as an American it immediately brings to mind WWII Japanese internment. Businesses and homes lost to pressure and profiteering as people were ripped out of society and dropped in open-air prisons.
Did the article? This is about a cutoff date to stop a wave of last minute immigrants. Nothing about expelling current ones. Don't let clickbait headlines make you angry.
Don't be so sure about that: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/26/grandmother-...
More seriously: permanent residency as a result of exercising treaty rights comes with a document, so some will carry that. For everyone else, you would hope the government will put in place some sort of registration scheme that is easier than treaty-rights (which currently requires 5 years of continuous settlement in UK).
As for prosecuting people who overstay... eh. They are already pretty overworked and incapable of tracking most illegals, I can only imagine things will get even worse after they add hundreds of thousands new cases. Like in the US, they will compensate for this structural deficiency by being extra-brutal with the poor few they do catch (like they already do). This will drive more and more people underground, which will do wonders for crime syndicates, human traffickers and the like.
Yes, I think you're allowed to stay.
Then again, isn't the EU supposed to bargain as a block?
Any firm comment on this by a party in a position to influence policy would be received with great interest.
Like everything else, this is now subject to uncertainty. http://irishpost.co.uk/irish-government-attempts-calm-citize...
(The possibility of NI rejoining Éire has now moved from "unthinkable" to "maybe". If a border gets imposed as part of Brexit that moves to "likely")
Of course, the implicit assumption there is that anyone going to NI is doing so to get to Britain. What about the mythical Romanian who just moves to Belfast and sets up a life there? Is that a failure of UK immigration policy? (Maybe it's not - I'm genuinely curious what people think). I'm not from NI, but it doesn't seem terribly polite of British politicians to suggest that people would go to NI just to get to the "real" UK (aka Britain), as though NI isn't a worthwhile destination on its own.
The options I've seen floated range from deputizing ROI immigration officers to enforce UK immigration policy, to imposing a hard land border between ROI and NI (I really, really, really hope we don't end up with that), to imposing document checks for travelers between Britain and NI, which seems to be suggesting that nobody from the EU would want to go to NI just to live in NI.
In my view, at least, all of these options are a bit shit.
(I use the term "Britain" here to refer to the island occupied by England, Wales, and Scotland, distinct from the UK, which is England, Wales, Scotland, and NI)
Internal quasi-border is a bit more likely - there are already some ID checks there - but will accelerate the decline of Unionism further.
Until the end of the two years of the Article 50 negotiation (or before, if both the EU and the UK agree), the UK is a full member of the EU, with all the obligations that this entitles.
That includes the right to live and work of citizens of other EU countries.
Restricting that unilaterally is a gross violation of the treaties.
EU citizens will be free to come right up until the UK exits the EU but those that came after said date will likely have to apply for visas. Those before will keep residency.
Well, 52% of the people who voted kinda, sorta said that. The rest of us are just being dragged along at the moment.
What about an EU citizen deciding to move to the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil or India? These countries were never in the EU. Did they therefore decide they don't need EU citizens? If not, why is the UK after it exits from the EU necessarily a less welcoming place for EU citizens than other non-EU countries?
To put it another way: if working in London, New York and San Francisco are going to be equally difficult to arrange, I'm not sure why anyone would prefer London. Housing is as expensive as NY or SF, yet wages are much lower. The weather isn't great either.
At any rate, "not sure why anyone would prefer London with the post-EU laws" is very different from "they decided they don't want me because they're not in the EU (even though there might be an otherwise nicely sounding arrangement available for me)."
Note that the freedom of movement in the EU means there isn't any "visa stuff" to deal with.
An EU citizen moving to the UK needs to fill in a form, to get a "National Insurance" number. The same would be required of a British citizen that didn't have one, for example if they'd been born and lived overseas before moving to the UK.
There are no other requirements that don't also apply to British / resident people moving within the UK.
I might not expect it, but I do hope that a country that prides itself on the rule of law, and the historic influence it had in the world, would not break the terms of an international treaty.
> it's actually pretty good from my perspective
Are you familiar with the British expression, "I'm all right, Jack"?
> exercise your rights TODAY ... it's just a bit of bureaucracy
Ah, the 85 page form with the £65 fee, which many of my friends are worried they'll not be able to fill in correctly -- especially after all the stories in the British press of the long-term residents whose applications were rejected.
For comparison, the Danish form for permanent residency has 6 pages in English (and 6 in Danish, it's bilingual), no fee, and only requires copies of the last few tax returns and a current job contract. Unfortunately, even if Britain remains in the UK until, say, 31 March 2019, I'll still be a few months short of the 5 year requirement.
Apparently my Dutch friend who has a PhD funded by the UK government can't apply for permanent residency because she doesn't earn enough to meet the £35k minimum earning set by the UK government. She's been here for almost 8 years. She's lucky that she's getting married and her now-fiance earns enough to make her qualify for spousal visa, but I know tons of others who are not so lucky.
Nonetheless, any amount above £0 makes my life a misery.
I'm British living in another EU country, with my non-EU spouse and British son. Who knows how my situation will resolve itself. This article holds out some olive branch of the offer of EU citizenship for people in my situation.
However, let's play the hypothetical situation that I am forced to leave due to negotiation breakdowns or whatever. I return to the UK, right? Unfortunately, my wife can't join me until I already earn above about a £22k threshold (additional for child). It isn't that I don't believe I can earn that amount, it is the elapsed time and enforced separation. Maybe it takes me a couple of months to find a job, it will then probably take several months for my wife's Visa application to be processed (she's already randomly had one visitor visa application denied, which we appealed against and won, but it was a 12 month process). And what's her status in our current EU country of residence if I have returned to the UK?
It's all a big old mess for those of us exercising our EU treaty rights.
I call BS on that. UK is quite open to LEGAL worker immigration from anywhere around the world. What's the big deal? I worked in UK for years and I'm not EU. Many Americans, Asians, Australians, etc. go through these channels without issue. After a few years they give you residentship. And shortly after that they give you citizenship.
It's crazy how this is all made to sound like UK is going to become Cuba or something. ALARMIST NONSENSE by radicalization and willful ignorance.
lol, no it isn't - legal immigration from the EU is the main pillar of Brexit: "Stop all these people coming to live in our country."
1. You want to come work in London? Fill out all these forms, pay fees, prove that you're going to be useful, and we might allow you to stay
2. You want to come work in Berlin? Sure, come along.
Do you see how the latter makes you feel much more welcome?
Or a 30% increase in emigration, but I doubt they're aiming for that.
It doesn't look too unreasonably, and probably doesn't violate EU rules by itself, but I wonder about a few things:
* How will it effect EU nationals getting for example a mortgage in the UK before the exit? Normally banks require a permanent right of residency and an EU passport is enough to prove it.
* How will EU nationals who entered before the cut-off date prove it to the government? Immigration applications can often be ridiculously cumbersome. Will someone who has lived in the UK for 20 years be expected to submit detailed documentation for every international trip in those 20 years?
a) Saying that the same rules will apply to UK citizens living in EU countries at that point in time (hard line).
b) Saying "UK folks welcome".
c) No comment/ignore.
To liberals, any pro-Trump poster must be a Russian operating out of a St. Petersburg fake news factory. To conservatives, any anti-Trump poster must be a paid protester on the payroll of George Soros.
I feel it would make sense for HN to have a full ban on any accusations of astroturfing or paid trolling.
Everyone is free to post stories from Breitbart, Daily Mail or Russia Today. I guess they just don't get enough upvotes.