why is loss of freedom of movement in eu seen as a big deal

[SirGalahad]

For years folk were voicing legitimate concerns about immigration into this country. A big issue on the brexit vote.
And were fobbed off by smug europhiles with patronising platitudes and charges of racism .
For those of you opposing brexit and still trying to work out why it happened, you got exactly what you deserve.
Arzeholes.

So we have had more Tory gov than Labour since our accession to the EU but now you want those same people who haven't listened to you before to listen to you now.

Great Plan.

 

[JohnD]

legitimate concerns about immigration

I wonder what Roger considers to be "legitimate"

Since he is talking about the EU, he doesn't mean Indians, Chinese, or others of non-European origin. So he must mean European citizens working here under the "Freedom of Movement" rules.

I wonder what it is about the EU "Freedom of Movement" rules that he finds objectionable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

He doesn't even get on with his neighbours, even though he is the interloper.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

He doesn't even get on with his neighbours, even though he is the interloper.

Do you know that for a fact or are you just making it up?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Perhaps you're just speculating so accuracy isn't important? Hope my grammer wos OK.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you know that for a fact or are you just making it up?

He's a protestant royalist.



Going back, though, I am interested in what you find inaccurate about "He (Cameron) probably admits he should not have done it (called the referendum)".
Is it that you think the idea is wrong or that he would not admit it although he must undoubtedly think it?

 

[shagster]

And the only voting option boxes were 'remain' and 'leave'.

Which means that Brexiteers either accepted that on leaving those rights would be removed ('leave means leave'), or they didn't realise the consequences of their vote and thus 'placed that cross' in ignorance.

Because the consequences to current/future generations were obvious to those who understood that voting 'leave' (and thus bringing about the removal of 'freedom of movement') would mean the removal of many rights/advantages/priviliges we currently hold that cover many aspects of our lives!

The vote was just a message. It was always down to the government in power to decide what it meant. If leave really meant leave there would be:

- Hard Irish border (which seems unlikely)
- Lack of reciprocal health agreement (which seems unlikely)
- Lack of transition period (which seems highly unlikely)
and so on.

Interpretation/upholding of ILR, on the other hand is a GB government policy choice and I don't see that it has much to do with Brexit. If the courts avoid deporting rapists and murderers due to family ties I don't really understand why ILR can't be honoured for the sake of keeping law abiding families together, but I don't make that policy and there was no vote on it. Even without the existence of European referenda you can still have people forming idiotic laws on a national level.

So your assertion that all rights and advantages would evaporate after a leave vote was unprovable at the time of the vote (it relying on the governments position as well as EU response) and unhelpful. Nobody could predict the response to the vote whichever way it went. I'd like to think a close remain vote would have prompted at the very least a renegotiation based on the level of dissatisfaction that was being expressed by the electorate but who knows, because none was promised, not even by the government at the time.

 

[ellal]

Interpretation/upholding of ILR, on the other hand is a GB government policy choice and I don't see that it has much to do with Brexit.

It has everything to do with Brexit because the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU is now subject to negotiation (with the EU) after article 50 was triggered.

And remember it was the UK that chose to leave - we weren't kicked out!

And if you read my original post, the devil is in the detail - because ILTR is now ILTR with a time limit and restricted family rights!
Previously people of the EU could come and go as they wished, subject to conditions that the UK chose not to enforce!

I don't really understand why ILR can't be honoured for the sake of keeping law abiding families together

Then you don't understand what the function of the ECJ is (regarding EU citizens), and what the implications of reverting to UK jurisdiction are.
And as I have already mentioned, time constraints are to be imposed.
Thus 'law abiding families' (whatever that means) will have to plan very carefully how they live their lives when we finally leave.

I draw your attention to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ildren-need-papers-to-stay-in-uk-after-brexit

"British nationality laws on acquisition of British citizenship were written long before the freedom of movement rules gave any EU citizen moving to another member state automatic right of permanent residence after a period of time."

Given that documentation over time can get lost/mislaid/destroyed, how many people could find themselves at risk of deportation from the only country they have ever lived in? And to where?

Not every family will have been as 'anal' as we have been over making sure we have kept all official documentation (however trivial) over the decades!
(something that was 'alien' to my partner at first due to her country being far more civilised, but a necessity learnt after years of living with UK bureaucratic incompetence/prejudice!)