Free movement was a big topic during the run up to the vote, and has been a high priority since.
It was a big topic. But, there wasn't anything on the ballot to say "end free movement", and no defined position for Leave. So, there's no way to be certain that all of the 52% were voting to end free movement. Thus, no way that any politician can claim that ending freedom of movement is the expressed will of the people.
The only free movement that people wanted to stop was that of foreigners coming to the UK; the thought that they wouldn't be able to retire to the Algarve probably never entered their stupid little skulls.
Consequences only happen to other people.
We know a few people who voted Leave who now realise their vote may negatively impact them quite seriously. Either because they've retired abroad or are married to an EU national. They're not getting a great deal of sympathy from their extended family as this was pointed out to them quite bluntly in the run-up to the Ref.
I convinced she's realised that it might come to a third ref with the options to either Remain or take her Deal. Hopefully she's got enough sense to keep No Deal off the ballot.
If there is No Deal, there will be a sudden influx of British pensioners.
If the UK continues to make like EU nationals, this will happen quite quickly, I suspect.
Of course the end result might just be that retirees go to Turkey and elsewhere - but then they'll only be welcome if they have money. Which if sterling tanks might not be a given.
There is a particularly impressive news clip going around on twitter.
In fact it is so bad that it almost looks like Onion-style satire. I think it is genuine, but the look on the face of the guy in blue is pure pantomime.
Apparently Brexit is "taking back control from the political elite" via making money worth less, meaning that the buying power against goods - which haven't received in price - is going down. Great, thanks guys.
As a glutton for punishment, I watched some of the HoC debate last night. Owen Patterson's contribution was extraordinary.
We know a few people who voted Leave who now realise their vote may negatively impact them quite seriously. Either because they've retired abroad or are married to an EU national. They're not getting a great deal of sympathy from their extended family as this was pointed out to them quite bluntly in the run-up to the Ref.
What are the consequences for someone married to a EU national? (or for that national?).
We know a few people who voted Leave who now realise their vote may negatively impact them quite seriously. Either because they've retired abroad or are married to an EU national. They're not getting a great deal of sympathy from their extended family as this was pointed out to them quite bluntly in the run-up to the Ref.
What are the consequences for someone married to a EU national? (or for that national?).
We know a few people who voted Leave who now realise their vote may negatively impact them quite seriously. Either because they've retired abroad or are married to an EU national. They're not getting a great deal of sympathy from their extended family as this was pointed out to them quite bluntly in the run-up to the Ref.
What are the consequences for someone married to a EU national? (or for that national?).
I have in-laws in England.
The national may not be allowed to remain in the UK. Depending on their precise status.
And they will find is much harder to travel abroad to visit - as will all UK nationals.
But it all depends on what deal (if any) is actually reached.
The report just published on the Windrush scandal says the Home Office is showing “a lack of curiosity” about the effect of the ‘hostile environment’ policy on other groups. So, it may mean you could be here legally but you get hassled and/or deported anyway.
We know a few people who voted Leave who now realise their vote may negatively impact them quite seriously. Either because they've retired abroad or are married to an EU national. They're not getting a great deal of sympathy from their extended family as this was pointed out to them quite bluntly in the run-up to the Ref.
What are the consequences for someone married to a EU national? (or for that national?).
I have in-laws in England.
The national may not be allowed to remain in the UK. Depending on their precise status.
And they will find is much harder to travel abroad to visit - as will all UK nationals.
But it all depends on what deal (if any) is actually reached.
In the case of my relatives, who have been in the UK for nearly 40 years, they would have fun trying to make them leave.
The report just published on the Windrush scandal says the Home Office is showing “a lack of curiosity” about the effect of the ‘hostile environment’ policy on other groups. So, it may mean you could be here legally but you get hassled and/or deported anyway.
A friend of mine yesterday was telling me that EU nationals were leaving 'for no good reason' as they only were worried because of scaremongering and the government had given 'strong assurances' about their rights.
I pointed out that the Windrush scandal would be enough to suggest that maybe the Government's promises are not that reassuring. If it was me, I wouldn't trust anything said by the former Home Secretary.
Either way, I think it is astounding to me that he didn't understand why EU nationals were worried.
Isn't that precisely how long some of the Windrush folks had been there when they were asked to leave?
I could be wrong, but I don't think many Windrush were actually made to leave (which is of course terrible) but that their rights were taken away whilst they were out if the country and they couldn't return.
I can imagine this happening with people from the EU - I can't see marauding immigration officers going after EU people (partly because there are far too many of them) but I certainly can see these people finding the door closed if they ever tried to leave and then return to their families.
The government says that it has investigated 11,800 cases of people removed to the Caribbean since 2002 to establish if any had evidence of being in the UK before 1973. It says it found evidence of illegal forced removal of 54, denied entry of 29 and 164 total who have some indication of being in the UK before 1973.
Of course there could be a lot more - it seems that a fair number of these only came to the attention of immigration because they were in transit, out if the country or finishing a prison sentence.
There are nearly 3 million EU nationals in the UK.
Having worked with people who were caught up in the Windrush scandal - kids of the original Windrush generation - that whole thing was tough on everyone, so much so that Amnesty International covers it.
This Guardian article from May gives a figure of 5200 people from the Caribbean with no passport who may be caught by the immigration issues, 57,000 people from Commonwealth countries here before 1971.
Long term residents are much safer than recent arrivals. But any non-uk citizens are at risk. This is not just Brexit - this is the vile hostile environment that Weeza has created and is encouraging to continue.
Even if a sensible outcome - not leaving - is somehow arrived at, there has been incredible damage done, and that will stay with us for decades, sadly. It is a disgrace.
The government says that it has investigated 11,800 cases of people removed to the Caribbean since 2002 to establish if any had evidence of being in the UK before 1973. It says it found evidence of illegal forced removal of 54, denied entry of 29 and 164 total who have some indication of being in the UK before 1973.
Of course there could be a lot more - it seems that a fair number of these only came to the attention of immigration because they were in transit, out if the country or finishing a prison sentence.
There are nearly 3 million EU nationals in the UK.
Unrealistic expectations of what documents people might have available to prove 40 years plus residence - particularly when they believed they were here legally and didn't need them.
Coupled with an assumption that you were making shit up because you were here illegally and a refusal to follow their own rules and processes.
The wanton destruction of passenger manifests for the Windrush ships despite Home Office workers pointing out that sometimes these were the only evidence available that people had come over as children with their families. (They didn't even offer them to the local history library).
The likes of Caroline Noakes telling the House of Commons they weren't telling people about the taskforce because they could find that information on the Internet themselves ... And then complaining that the appearance had made her late for a meeting because it had over-run and pulling a face.
It's already been pointed out that there are likely to be similar problems for EU nationals, particularly ones who came here as children.
I wouldn't believe the Tories on this one either ... They've got form. It's not called the Go Home Office for nothing.
The government says that it has investigated 11,800 cases of people removed to the Caribbean since 2002 to establish if any had evidence of being in the UK before 1973. It says it found evidence of illegal forced removal of 54, denied entry of 29 and 164 total who have some indication of being in the UK before 1973.
Of course there could be a lot more - it seems that a fair number of these only came to the attention of immigration because they were in transit, out if the country or finishing a prison sentence.
There are nearly 3 million EU nationals in the UK.
Unrealistic expectations of what documents people might have available to prove 40 years plus residence - particularly when they believed they were here legally and didn't need them.
Coupled with an assumption that you were making shit up because you were here illegally and a refusal to follow their own rules and processes.
The government says that it has investigated 11,800 cases of people removed to the Caribbean since 2002 to establish if any had evidence of being in the UK before 1973. It says it found evidence of illegal forced removal of 54, denied entry of 29 and 164 total who have some indication of being in the UK before 1973.
Of course there could be a lot more - it seems that a fair number of these only came to the attention of immigration because they were in transit, out if the country or finishing a prison sentence.
There are nearly 3 million EU nationals in the UK.
Unrealistic expectations of what documents people might have available to prove 40 years plus residence - particularly when they believed they were here legally and didn't need them.
Coupled with an assumption that you were making shit up because you were here illegally and a refusal to follow their own rules and processes.
Just to be clear, it wasn't me that did that.
Very clear. It wasn't Mr Cheesy who did that. It was the Tories
Long term residents are much safer than recent arrivals. But any non-uk citizens are at risk. This is not just Brexit - this is the vile hostile environment that Weeza has created and is encouraging to continue.
Not quite. Any non-white non UK citizen is at risk, thanks to the toxic atmosphere created by the redtops and exploited by the Leave campaign and UKIP in the run up to the referendum. The risk to those who look European isn't anything like as serious.
They won't go round scooping people up. They'll wait until you need some administrative paperwork processing and then pounce.
This is how it works. If you need hospital treatment, change GPs, get a new job, start renting a new house, open a bank account - you'll be asked for a specific piece of paper you don't have, didn't know you needed, and none of your British mates have got.
They won't go round scooping people up. They'll wait until you need some administrative paperwork processing and then pounce.
This is how it works. If you need hospital treatment, change GPs, get a new job, start renting a new house, open a bank account - you'll be asked for a specific piece of paper you don't have, didn't know you needed, and none of your British mates have got.
And without that, everything unravels.
And, because if you can't produce the piece of paper, the entity asking for it is at risk of prosecution themselves if they let you start work or rent the house etc. Which makes you less likely to be considered in the first place if there is an alternative.
Long term residents are much safer than recent arrivals. But any non-uk citizens are at risk. This is not just Brexit - this is the vile hostile environment that Weeza has created and is encouraging to continue.
Not quite. Any non-white non UK citizen is at risk, thanks to the toxic atmosphere created by the redtops and exploited by the Leave campaign and UKIP in the run up to the referendum. The risk to those who look European isn't anything like as serious.
Don't you believe it!. My Canadian-born son had the very Dickens of a job getting back into the country after a holiday abroad with his wife and children. In vain did he point out that he had a house and a job, paid taxes and NI and so on, they were pretty-much on the point of shoving him (just him, not the rest of his lovely family) on some random plane 'back' to Canada when he pointed out that both his mother and father were UK-born and UK-passport holders. Now he doesn't dare travel out of the UK for fear of being unable to come home.
And Treeza never said that she wanted to create 'a hostile environment;' she said she wanted to create 'a very hostile environment.'
I wonder to which circle of the Inferno Dante would have consigned her?
Not quite. Any non-white non UK citizen is at risk, thanks to the toxic atmosphere created by the redtops and exploited by the Leave campaign and UKIP in the run up to the referendum. The risk to those who look European isn't anything like as serious.
I think you're right.
My personal perspective on this: In 2012, the government introduced the rules on how employers, landlords and healthcare providers were now liable for checking the immigration status of individuals. I am a doctor (as most of you know). I am also a private landlord. In theory, I could be liable for a £20,000 fine if I let a house to someone without the right to reside in the UK. I'll just pause there and reflect on how any sane landlord would seriously consider not letting to someone who couldn't prove that right. Why take the risk?
Similarly, in our clinic rooms, signs went up saying "Is this patient entitled to treatment? Call this number if you're not sure..."
If both contexts, the government is not taking responsibility for its own policy enactment which is reprehensible. Moreover ,the clinical, professional situation is one I have big problems with: how do I tell if this person is entitled to treatment or not? As far as I can see, I only have two ways of doing this (if I'm going to do it myself), either I ask everyone or I ask those that sound different or look different. This is why this policy is blatantly racist - whether or not it's intended to be, it inevitably is, in practice. I refuse to ask anyone; I will not compromise the therapeutic relationship in this way, that is not my job; nor is it professional for me to do so. My job is to look after your child who you've brought to see me in clinic. You'll be stunned to know that I've never phoned that number.
So let's look at the problem - the estimate I have seen is that people having treatment to which they are not entitled costs the NHS around £500m/year. Given that the NHS budget is over 100Bn, that's less than 0.5% of healthcare costs. So it's a very small amount. Yes, in principal I have no problem with the government using legitimate means to save this money but if the cost of doing this is greater than the saving - both in financial and other terms (which it is) then I'm not interested. Moreover, it's not my job to enact the government's immigration policy.
I think though, that when you understand this was the situation and (as intimated above) the handling by the Home Office itself was appalling, it's not surprising that there are thousands of people who were denied accommodation or lost their jobs or were denied healthcare... And as stated above, the biggest issue here is that people who were told they would never need the documentation suddenly needed it and had no means of obtaining it.
That's the experience of the past few years.
Is it possible that Remain advocates like me are scaring EU nations with what post-Brexit UK will look like? Yes, I suppose it is. However, recent experience demonstrates that this government's word is not reliable. Hence, I think non-UK EU nations are entitled to more than a little anxiety.
One other thing: Nadine Dorries - what is she going on about?
Doubt if she knows herself half the time ... I have no idea how MPs are selected but if that was the best candidate they could find ... . The one thing that this whole debacle has revealed is just how mediocre and completely clueless some of our MPs are.
One other thing: Nadine Dorries - what is she going on about?
Doubt if she knows herself half the time ... I have no idea how MPs are selected but if that was the best candidate they could find ... . The one thing that this whole debacle has revealed is just how mediocre and completely clueless some of our MPs are.
In her speech she seemed to say that the UK should be able to quickly get a deal.. because Canada had already negotiated it.
One other thing: Nadine Dorries - what is she going on about?
Doubt if she knows herself half the time ... I have no idea how MPs are selected but if that was the best candidate they could find ... . The one thing that this whole debacle has revealed is just how mediocre and completely clueless some of our MPs are.
In her speech she seemed to say that the UK should be able to quickly get a deal.. because Canada had already negotiated it.
Erm..
Must resist unsisterly comment about being amazed her face moved enough to be able to say anything ...
Long term residents are much safer than recent arrivals. But any non-uk citizens are at risk. This is not just Brexit - this is the vile hostile environment that Weeza has created and is encouraging to continue.
Not quite. Any non-white non UK citizen is at risk, thanks to the toxic atmosphere created by the redtops and exploited by the Leave campaign and UKIP in the run up to the referendum. The risk to those who look European isn't anything like as serious.
Various things I've heard from people in my area about getting rid of Polish truck drivers*, Romanian gangs** and the like would suggest that being white isn't quite the get-out-of-deportation-free card you're suggesting it is.
*= "they're all drunk all the time"
**= if certain people are to be believed*** Romanian gangs are responsible for roughly 130% of metal or automotive thefts in Britain in the last year.
***= they're not.
Long term residents are much safer than recent arrivals. But any non-uk citizens are at risk. This is not just Brexit - this is the vile hostile environment that Weeza has created and is encouraging to continue.
Not quite. Any non-white non UK citizen is at risk, thanks to the toxic atmosphere created by the redtops and exploited by the Leave campaign and UKIP in the run up to the referendum. The risk to those who look European isn't anything like as serious.
Various things I've heard from people in my area about getting rid of Polish truck drivers*, Romanian gangs** and the like would suggest that being white isn't quite the get-out-of-deportation-free card you're suggesting it is.
*= "they're all drunk all the time"
**= if certain people are to be believed*** Romanian gangs are responsible for roughly 130% of metal or automotive thefts in Britain in the last year.
***= they're not.
When you're a Nazi or fellow traveller, Slavs don't count as properly white, and neither do Roma or people you can confuse with Roma. They're all Untermenschen, whatever the colour.
<tangent>It rather depends on whether you're a fan of Nadine Dorries' extensive oeuvre of chick lit as to whether you see her as a footnote or not. The fact that Kindle is selling a number of the titles at 99p suggests that they may need a sales boost.</tangent>
So it looks like the promised debate will be there m Channel 4. Treeza wanted it on the BBC because they wanted to widen the amount of politicians taking part. Jezza wanted it on ITV because they would be just the PM and Jezza head to head.
Nothing about this is simple is it?
<tangent>It rather depends on whether you're a fan of Nadine Dorries' extensive oeuvre of chick lit as to whether you see her as a footnote or not. The fact that Kindle is selling a number of the titles at 99p suggests that they may need a sales boost.</tangent>
No. Wouldn't pollute my Kindle with that ... Or give her any money
Okay, the footnote will read:
Nadine Dorries: writer of chick lit, reality TV show contestant and MP. May as well list in order of achievement. It can't be done on ability
In her speech she seemed to say that the UK should be able to quickly get a deal.. because Canada had already negotiated it.
Erm..
Maybe she has forgotten that the negotiations for the Canada-EU deal took seven years, and that such deals are tailored to the circumstances of the individual non-EU country. The UK is not Canada by just about every measure.
In her speech she seemed to say that the UK should be able to quickly get a deal.. because Canada had already negotiated it.
Erm..
Maybe she has forgotten that the negotiations for the Canada-EU deal took seven years, and that such deals are tailored to the circumstances of the individual non-EU country. The UK is not Canada by just about every measure.
It was hard to tell what she thought she was saying but I think she thinks that the UK can just replicate the EU-Canada deal.
There are deep layers of stupidity she seems to be mining.
“This paper appears to show the government were well aware Ireland will face significant issues in a no-deal scenario. Why hasn’t this point been pressed home during negotiations? There is still time to go back to Brussels and get a better deal.”
Yeah. Great idea, Priti. Why don't we prevent food from getting to the Republic - starve out those peasants until they give us what we want, eh?
But the Irish problem is more than that. Making threats to the Irish will not go down well. The history of Britains interactions with them is not happy reading. We have fucked them regularly, repeatedly and deliberately. The fact that we have been on good terms with them for a couple of decades is a miracle, and not something to be taken lightly.
Starting to fuck them again will restart the violence. Not the same violence, but more in the same vein. Because, frankly, we deserve it.
I have to say, with all the shit that has been spoken by Boris flaming Johnson, Nigel friggin Farage, David fuckwit Davies and Jacob knobhead Rees-Mogg - it's getting to the point where we all start laughing hysterically, join hands and admit that we deserve whatever is coming.
For being so bone-headedly stupid as to allow these people out in public.
“This paper appears to show the government were well aware Ireland will face significant issues in a no-deal scenario. Why hasn’t this point been pressed home during negotiations? There is still time to go back to Brussels and get a better deal.”
Yeah. Great idea, Priti. Why don't we prevent food from getting to the Republic - starve out those peasants until they give us what we want, eh?
Comments
Consequences only happen to other people.
We know a few people who voted Leave who now realise their vote may negatively impact them quite seriously. Either because they've retired abroad or are married to an EU national. They're not getting a great deal of sympathy from their extended family as this was pointed out to them quite bluntly in the run-up to the Ref.
I convinced she's realised that it might come to a third ref with the options to either Remain or take her Deal. Hopefully she's got enough sense to keep No Deal off the ballot.
If the UK continues to make like EU nationals, this will happen quite quickly, I suspect.
Of course the end result might just be that retirees go to Turkey and elsewhere - but then they'll only be welcome if they have money. Which if sterling tanks might not be a given.
In fact it is so bad that it almost looks like Onion-style satire. I think it is genuine, but the look on the face of the guy in blue is pure pantomime.
Apparently Brexit is "taking back control from the political elite" via making money worth less, meaning that the buying power against goods - which haven't received in price - is going down. Great, thanks guys.
As a glutton for punishment, I watched some of the HoC debate last night. Owen Patterson's contribution was extraordinary.
What are the consequences for someone married to a EU national? (or for that national?).
I have in-laws in England.
Heaven knows. My relatives are in this situation.
The national may not be allowed to remain in the UK. Depending on their precise status.
And they will find is much harder to travel abroad to visit - as will all UK nationals.
But it all depends on what deal (if any) is actually reached.
In the case of my relatives, who have been in the UK for nearly 40 years, they would have fun trying to make them leave.
A friend of mine yesterday was telling me that EU nationals were leaving 'for no good reason' as they only were worried because of scaremongering and the government had given 'strong assurances' about their rights.
I pointed out that the Windrush scandal would be enough to suggest that maybe the Government's promises are not that reassuring. If it was me, I wouldn't trust anything said by the former Home Secretary.
Either way, I think it is astounding to me that he didn't understand why EU nationals were worried.
AFZ
I could be wrong, but I don't think many Windrush were actually made to leave (which is of course terrible) but that their rights were taken away whilst they were out if the country and they couldn't return.
I can imagine this happening with people from the EU - I can't see marauding immigration officers going after EU people (partly because there are far too many of them) but I certainly can see these people finding the door closed if they ever tried to leave and then return to their families.
Well this might come down to who you believe.
The government says that it has investigated 11,800 cases of people removed to the Caribbean since 2002 to establish if any had evidence of being in the UK before 1973. It says it found evidence of illegal forced removal of 54, denied entry of 29 and 164 total who have some indication of being in the UK before 1973.
Of course there could be a lot more - it seems that a fair number of these only came to the attention of immigration because they were in transit, out if the country or finishing a prison sentence.
There are nearly 3 million EU nationals in the UK.
Gosh! So we've all been 'jumping the queue' as Treeza so graciously put it?
This Guardian article from May gives a figure of 5200 people from the Caribbean with no passport who may be caught by the immigration issues, 57,000 people from Commonwealth countries here before 1971.
Yes. Of those are a significant number of people from the Irish Republic who have a right of residence over-and-above the EU rights.
But it'd be a monumental task to scoop EU migrants up for removal after a hard Brexit. That's all I was saying.
Even if a sensible outcome - not leaving - is somehow arrived at, there has been incredible damage done, and that will stay with us for decades, sadly. It is a disgrace.
Unrealistic expectations of what documents people might have available to prove 40 years plus residence - particularly when they believed they were here legally and didn't need them.
Coupled with an assumption that you were making shit up because you were here illegally and a refusal to follow their own rules and processes.
The wanton destruction of passenger manifests for the Windrush ships despite Home Office workers pointing out that sometimes these were the only evidence available that people had come over as children with their families. (They didn't even offer them to the local history library).
The likes of Caroline Noakes telling the House of Commons they weren't telling people about the taskforce because they could find that information on the Internet themselves ... And then complaining that the appearance had made her late for a meeting because it had over-run and pulling a face.
It's already been pointed out that there are likely to be similar problems for EU nationals, particularly ones who came here as children.
I wouldn't believe the Tories on this one either ... They've got form. It's not called the Go Home Office for nothing.
Just to be clear, it wasn't me that did that.
Very clear. It wasn't Mr Cheesy who did that. It was the Tories
Not quite. Any non-white non UK citizen is at risk, thanks to the toxic atmosphere created by the redtops and exploited by the Leave campaign and UKIP in the run up to the referendum. The risk to those who look European isn't anything like as serious.
This is how it works. If you need hospital treatment, change GPs, get a new job, start renting a new house, open a bank account - you'll be asked for a specific piece of paper you don't have, didn't know you needed, and none of your British mates have got.
And without that, everything unravels.
And, because if you can't produce the piece of paper, the entity asking for it is at risk of prosecution themselves if they let you start work or rent the house etc. Which makes you less likely to be considered in the first place if there is an alternative.
Don't you believe it!. My Canadian-born son had the very Dickens of a job getting back into the country after a holiday abroad with his wife and children. In vain did he point out that he had a house and a job, paid taxes and NI and so on, they were pretty-much on the point of shoving him (just him, not the rest of his lovely family) on some random plane 'back' to Canada when he pointed out that both his mother and father were UK-born and UK-passport holders. Now he doesn't dare travel out of the UK for fear of being unable to come home.
And Treeza never said that she wanted to create 'a hostile environment;' she said she wanted to create 'a very hostile environment.'
I wonder to which circle of the Inferno Dante would have consigned her?
I think you're right.
My personal perspective on this: In 2012, the government introduced the rules on how employers, landlords and healthcare providers were now liable for checking the immigration status of individuals. I am a doctor (as most of you know). I am also a private landlord. In theory, I could be liable for a £20,000 fine if I let a house to someone without the right to reside in the UK. I'll just pause there and reflect on how any sane landlord would seriously consider not letting to someone who couldn't prove that right. Why take the risk?
Similarly, in our clinic rooms, signs went up saying "Is this patient entitled to treatment? Call this number if you're not sure..."
If both contexts, the government is not taking responsibility for its own policy enactment which is reprehensible. Moreover ,the clinical, professional situation is one I have big problems with: how do I tell if this person is entitled to treatment or not? As far as I can see, I only have two ways of doing this (if I'm going to do it myself), either I ask everyone or I ask those that sound different or look different. This is why this policy is blatantly racist - whether or not it's intended to be, it inevitably is, in practice. I refuse to ask anyone; I will not compromise the therapeutic relationship in this way, that is not my job; nor is it professional for me to do so. My job is to look after your child who you've brought to see me in clinic. You'll be stunned to know that I've never phoned that number.
So let's look at the problem - the estimate I have seen is that people having treatment to which they are not entitled costs the NHS around £500m/year. Given that the NHS budget is over 100Bn, that's less than 0.5% of healthcare costs. So it's a very small amount. Yes, in principal I have no problem with the government using legitimate means to save this money but if the cost of doing this is greater than the saving - both in financial and other terms (which it is) then I'm not interested. Moreover, it's not my job to enact the government's immigration policy.
I think though, that when you understand this was the situation and (as intimated above) the handling by the Home Office itself was appalling, it's not surprising that there are thousands of people who were denied accommodation or lost their jobs or were denied healthcare... And as stated above, the biggest issue here is that people who were told they would never need the documentation suddenly needed it and had no means of obtaining it.
That's the experience of the past few years.
Is it possible that Remain advocates like me are scaring EU nations with what post-Brexit UK will look like? Yes, I suppose it is. However, recent experience demonstrates that this government's word is not reliable. Hence, I think non-UK EU nations are entitled to more than a little anxiety.
AFZ
Doubt if she knows herself half the time ... I have no idea how MPs are selected but if that was the best candidate they could find ...
In her speech she seemed to say that the UK should be able to quickly get a deal.. because Canada had already negotiated it.
Erm..
Must resist unsisterly comment about being amazed her face moved enough to be able to say anything ...
She looks exhausted - no surprise there, anyone would be on their knees with her punishing schedule.
I don’t have any sympathy - most of her woes are self inflicted. But her tenacity will go down in history, come what may.
We were talking about Nadine Dorries, fwiw.
Various things I've heard from people in my area about getting rid of Polish truck drivers*, Romanian gangs** and the like would suggest that being white isn't quite the get-out-of-deportation-free card you're suggesting it is.
*= "they're all drunk all the time"
**= if certain people are to be believed*** Romanian gangs are responsible for roughly 130% of metal or automotive thefts in Britain in the last year.
***= they're not.
When you're a Nazi or fellow traveller, Slavs don't count as properly white, and neither do Roma or people you can confuse with Roma. They're all Untermenschen, whatever the colour.
And Nadine will just be a footnote. If she's lucky.
Nothing about this is simple is it?
No. Wouldn't pollute my Kindle with that ... Or give her any money
Okay, the footnote will read:
Nadine Dorries: writer of chick lit, reality TV show contestant and MP. May as well list in order of achievement. It can't be done on ability
Maybe she has forgotten that the negotiations for the Canada-EU deal took seven years, and that such deals are tailored to the circumstances of the individual non-EU country. The UK is not Canada by just about every measure.
It was hard to tell what she thought she was saying but I think she thinks that the UK can just replicate the EU-Canada deal.
There are deep layers of stupidity she seems to be mining.
Yeah. Great idea, Priti. Why don't we prevent food from getting to the Republic - starve out those peasants until they give us what we want, eh?
Moron.
Please may I say - re her - what an UTTER cunt! No - they're warmer.
And, as one of my Irish friends points out, threatening starvation to one of the most food-secure countries on the planet is going to end badly.
Starting to fuck them again will restart the violence. Not the same violence, but more in the same vein. Because, frankly, we deserve it.
I have to say, with all the shit that has been spoken by Boris flaming Johnson, Nigel friggin Farage, David fuckwit Davies and Jacob knobhead Rees-Mogg - it's getting to the point where we all start laughing hysterically, join hands and admit that we deserve whatever is coming.
For being so bone-headedly stupid as to allow these people out in public.
Fuck.
Even I'm surprised by this. Stupid and so wrong.