When Article 50 Is Triggered

[sp1814]

I'm lead to understanding that those who voted to leave the EU, did so to gain back control of our laws and borders.

With that in mind - what should we do with the hundreds of thousands of EU citizens living and working in the UK?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-wont-be-triggered-this-week-theresa-may-eu-referendum-latest-news-rome-treaty-a7627676.html

Me, I think that those who can show that they have gainful employment should be granted a 'permanent right to remain' as they are contributing to the UK economy.

Would you be happy with them applying for visas? Or do you think that they should all go?

Sidebar - Theresa's hat is an abomination.

[ToraToraTora]

same thing that happens to ours in the EU SP. If everyone is sensible then I see no reason why we cannot do a reciprocating deal. Both sides should get a right to remain ideally.

[Islay]

I have no issue with them staying.

[mikey4444]

Most women's hats are terrible....Even the Queen wears a large green hairy bucket on her head on occasions.

Meanwhile back at the ranch :::

We have had some half-hearted promises from Mrs May, but very little else. I can't see how we would be able to manage with our Gastarbeiters.

[Old_Geezer]

We anticipate letting them stay, well if they have employment. But common sense dictates that it'll depend on what the EU agrees to at the negotiation table. In any event one can not afford, nor want, a mass leaving at any one point. Visas is a fair option though. For those not electing to adopt UK citizenship it may be a good option, if desired. Not presently commited to one particular solution.

[Islay]

I was watching a political program last week and this may be slightly off topic but the current 'immigrants' in the UK cost the NHS something like 4 million a year whilst the current pensioners cost 1.4 billion!

[ToraToraTora]

mikey, any right thinking person would permit both sides to stay but they cannot have their hands tied pre negotiation. That would be foolish in the extreme. That is why the Lords will not be allowed to impose pre conditions.

[mikey4444]

TTT....to be honest, I can't see why our Gastarbeiters shouldn't be allowed to stay and I expect that the rest of Europe will think the same about all those British bank robbers living on the Costa Del Sol.

[Buenchico]

I can think of a family of Germans and Greeks, living in a big house in central London at the expense of British taxpayers, whom I'd happily boot out!

[Islay]

Fortunately Chris there are many more that would happily see that family stay!

[sp1814]

This question was prompted by a programme I was watching on catch-up last night, 'A Very British Hotel' (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-british-hotel)

It centres on the Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park hotel, where 80% of the staff are from abroad (although the programme didn't say how many of them were from the EU).

I've noticed that the catering and hospitality industry (in London) is overwhelmingly staffed by Eastern Europeans, and it got me thinking about Brexit.

If we go for 'hard Brexit', it's going to have massive ramifications on these industries (as well as construction, and home services).

It suddenly makes everything a little bit more complicated...and yes, I agree with TTT here, there needs to be a very carefully thought-out set of agreements to ensure that Brits living in Europe aren't adversely affected by this (same with EU citizens in the UK).

[Old_Geezer]

Both Lord's amendments rejected.
So seems like this question is still to be decided at the negotiation table, barring loads of ping pong between the houses.

[Togo]

The difference being that "the current pensioners" have paid into the system, sometimes for 50 years, to qualify for NHS care that is a shadow of the service that they would have access to had that money been paid into private health care insurance. Now they are a burden and resources must be diverted, in the name of diversity and compassion, to illegal and mostly downright ungrateful chancers.

[Old_Geezer]

So called "Hard Brexit" has no compulsion to throw employees out. If these industries are paying a decent rate and giving decent working conditions then change should not be great. Meanwhile we do need to look at how to ensure native Brits can't deliberately avoid work and expect to be kept by the decent citizens who both contribute and pay tax as a result. Welfare is for those who need it not those who wish to abuse it.

[Old_Geezer]

Current pensioners are a legitimate cost to the public purse. They are long standing citizens of our country. Health tourists, which I take it the figures refer to, or even illegal economic immigrants, are simply taking the UK for suckers, and are not a legitimate cost. One does not ignore abuses of our system because one can see a legitimate expense that is financially greater.

[New Judge]

Nobody I know who voted to leave (virtually everybody I know bar two or three people) either expected or wanted mass repatriations of EU citizens who arrived here legally. That was not the purpose of the exercise. They arrived here in good faith under the prevailing rules and most of them have jobs or businesses here. There should be no need for them to apply for any sort of visa and their right to remain here should be extended for as long as they wish to exercise it. I should like to think that the same rights would be extended to UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU but that is a matter for the EU.

The reason many people voted to leave was to regain control. This means that new arrivals (post Brexit) should be those the UK would like to settle here only and they should be subject to either a visa or work permit system. Similarly, control of those here should be exercised if it seems they are abusing this country’s facilities. Those who commit serious criminal offences (or a string of less serious transgressions) should be subject to deportation. Those who are unable to support themselves who arrived here simply to take advantage of the country’s generous welfare facilities should similarly be subject to sanction.

We must bear in mind that after Brexit the UK will still be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and be subject to rulings by its court (which has nothing to do with the EU). But Brexit should see the end of discrimination against people in the UK who are not from the EU.

[anneasquith]

Her hat is OK, she does look constipated though.

[sp1814]

NJ

What you have posted makes perfect sense - but aren't there complications?

What would be the situation for someone from (say) Poland, who has been working here for a couple of years, who wants to bring his wife and children over?

The ECHR (to which we are are signed up to) guarantees the right to a family life ,which surely would mean that there would still be free movement of EU citizens?

[jno]

sp1814, the situation is even worse at Pret a Manger - few Brits want to work there at all.

http://news.sky.com/story/one-in-50-job-applicants-at-cafe-chain-pret-a-manger-is-british-10795294

[New Judge]

Yes of course there would be complications, sp, and we won’t address all of them here. What I was suggesting was the principle. There would have to be some allowances for the sort of circumstances you describe though that would hardly amount to the “free movement” fiasco that currently prevails. Controls would have to be in place to prevent abuse.

On a different tack, both Mr Cameron and Mrs May pledged to withdraw the UK as signatories to the ECHR but that, of course, has now been put on the back burner.

[douglas9401]

It's a forked up system that imports labour from abroad when tens or even hundreds of thousands of home-grown bodies lie a-bed, happily supported by the state, ie you and me, rising only to go for pint and hang out in Ladbrokes.