Red Eric

On a matter as vital to this to the entire nation, more openness about what options were available and a considered approach to formulating a stance would have been far better than what's occurred to date. It appears that that could now be about to happen, albeit somewhat late in the day. Whether they achieve what they set out to do in broad terms will depend on whether they have any negotiating power rather than on what they reveal about their overall hopes or expectations.

The EU has been perfectly happy to communicate its negotiating stance to the UK https://www.theguardian.com/politics...tiating-stance

But you have been saying all along that May wanted to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK and the EU refused. I never agreed with that - I think May wanted to do a quick and dirty on us and to wash the UK's hands of obligations to UK citizens resident in the EU along with watering down the rights of EU citizens already resident in the UK. I had far more faith in the EU's approach because the announcements coming from them at least showed they understood and were taking into consideration all the issues and they said their main concern was preserving in full as many of the rights of all, including UK citizens, as possible.

May & Co were vague and appeared to me to be playing to the gallery with the "we tried but they wouldn't talk" line. They did nothing to reassure those who have moved in either direction and didn't even talk to the main groups representing those affected, whereas EU representatives did.

I think you've got it right this time though.

mfesharne

May made more than one speech where she said she wanted to agree that EU immigrants already in the UK should have the right to stay but note the word agree......... Which meant she wanted a reciprocal agreement for Brits in the EU to stay & Junker said it'd have to wait for the official negotiations so consequently May has to wait & I can see the point of that stance.

However, I'd expect the matter to be very high on the list of priorities for both sides & probably one of the first things to be decided.

And of course none of us know what if anything has been unofficially discussed behind closed doors....... other than what the media tell us..... Most of which is probably yet more speculation & BS.

Yet again, time will tell.

Red Eric

There's far, far more at stake than simply the right to continue residing, which particular right, to my mind anyway, was never in doubt. May was exploiting that blind spot on the part of the British public when she played that one and it appears to have worked a treat in many cases.

There are a mulitude of other people as well, of course, who see it very well indeed but simply choose not to and to instead go along with the May line.

mfesharne

I'm sure the right for legal immigrants already in the UK & EU will eventually be respected & even more sure that the UK Govt, EU & media are all deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room which is illegal immigration & asylum & instead diverting attention to the EU migration issue.

I'd bet that the majority of Brits in the UK & Europeans in the EU don't have a problem with the legal migrants here/there & are considerably more concerned with the other issue which no-one is addressing because it doesn't suit their agenda.

EMR

There is no elephant in the room as you suggest, given the numbers more like a pigmy shrew.

macliam

To tackle that, the UK government would actually have to spend some money....
- Start the registration process that was already allowed under UK law, but not used.
- Check for registration on any transactions
- Implement ID cards (but not the expensive garbage proposed last time)
- Start checking passports/ID properly (no checks on the way out and seemingly poor checks on the way in, given Abadi's ease of travel and the London Italian/Tunisian who was on an EU watch list!
- Clamp down on the black economy (look at the various processes in use elsewhere)

Otherwise, just suck it up and deal with the consequences.

mfesharne

I agree & don't have a problem with the expense or anything other part of it.

As I see it, the current situation is unacceptable & must change & I think a significant percentage of Brits would agree.

Red Eric

I should imagine the reason that illegal immigration & asylum are no longer being talked about in the Brexit debate is because neither has the slightest bearing on the matter. The shameful disgrace is that they were ever dragged in to the debate in the first place, given the enormous red herring they are.

Nor will they be in the least altered when this is all over except that, if the UK doesn't play its cards right, it could find itself unable to return asylum seekers to EU countries as it currently can under the Dublin Agreement and if freedom of movement is severely curtailed there will be illegal immigration to count from EU countries as well as non-EU countries. Plus, if the Le Touquet Accord doesn't hold, the UK border will be moved back to ....er .... the UK, which could bring more border control problems.

mfesharne

I & I'm sure many others of the electorate would disagree with you because once out, the UK can change it's laws with regard to those issues much easier than from within the EU but we've been through all that umpteen times before & time will tell which opinion is right on the matter.

Red Eric

The laws on asylum are the UK's own, completely unaffected by EU law. One of the famous opt-outs (with opt-in option) sees to that. The opt-in which has been exercised is to the Dublin Agreement, which assists the UK in fending off asylum seekers.

As to illegal immigration, well, it's illegal, isn't it? How can leaving the EU make it any more illegal?

mfesharne

Again, we've been through it umpteen times before but let's wait & see what happens after Brexit........ my bet is it'll change entirely.

Red Eric

How are you proposing to measure it?

macliam

My guess is that nothing will change as the UK will simply ignore not implementing EU rules in the same way that it has ignored implementing them until now......

Apart from making it more difficult for EU migrants to enter legally (but still enter because the UK economy needs them...), Brexit will achieve little that could not have been achieved before by using existing legislation on registration and the need to prove self-sufficiency.

Oh, and before the other Brexit red herring is waved, the ECHR is NOT an EU mandate, but an agreement by all 47 states of the Council of Europe. So, unless the UK withdraws from that, it will still "interfere" in the ability of the UK to expel unwanted residents. If we withdraw, even the Telegraph said "...any decision to withdraw from the Convention - a move the UK could make now - is likely to have a significant negative impact on the UK standing in Europe, the United Nations and the county’s moral authority around the world." (What would Brexit mean for British sovereignty?)

So, apart from leaving the EU - and dropping out of the Council of Europe - the UK will still need to make fundamental changes to have any impact on migration, legal, illegal or any shade in-between. Given its record to date, I wouldn't hold my breath!

mfesharne

I should think changes in law/criteria would be the obvious answer.

My personal expectation would be asylum requests would have to be made from outside the UK, illegals deported with far shorter waiting periods, more limited appeal structures & a far more effective border control force etc.

Of course that's only a personal opinion & only time will tell........ & I certainly don't expect it to happen any time soon.

BEVS

Yes.