"Nobody necessarily stays anywhere forever"

[DorothyL]

Says Teresa May

Words cannot describe the RAGE I feel at this fucking government. My children would really quite like me to stay!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, look out for "Brits abroad" by destroying the lives of foreigners who made their lives here legally.

Nothing remotely racist about that.

Only "Brits" really have feelings after all.

If she had reassured them they could stay regardless of talks that would have helped Brits abroad imo. Instead she chose to make everyone suffer

No bkgirl she didn't do that . She set a nasty arrogant tone which is completely unacceptable in serious diplomatic negotiations. If you think what she said was conducive to a 'good deal' think again. TM is alienating the 3 mill people living here without whom the economic and healthcare would bloody collapse (and poor British citizens and the elderly would suffer more than anyone) and she is souring diplomatic relations.

TM decided to take an arrogant imperial tone with her previous EU partners almost like a wronged wife whose dh has had an affair and she is starting divorce proceedings playing tough ball. Come off it TM.

Also she has not changed what she has said about what will happen to UK citizens, she has merely reframed it.

She's reframed it by saying Britain thinks it's ok to play tit for tat with peoples' lives. Given the state of play in the UK at the moment and the disgusting way migrants are being treated, I don't want to play that game.

Just curious, has the EU made any statements about how UK citizens living in EU countries will be treated?

margarethe I think you have fundamentally misunderstood this issue. Once the UK leaves the EU, then unless there is an EEA agreement with free movement, the EU has nothing to do with how Brits abroad (like me) are treated. We would be subject to national immigration law, which is not determined by the EU.

The EU's remit in this debate extends only to EU citizens.

Doctors and nurses and those working in finance will be able to stay. They'll pass the point system. In fact Australia actively recruit doctors and nurses from the UK. It really won't collapse. And there are visas for farm seasonal workers from before the enlargement of the EU to eastern europe. It's just hysteria that all 3 million will be asked to leave the UK.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood this issue. Once the UK leaves the EU, then unless there is an EEA agreement with free movement, the EU has nothing to do with how Brits abroad (like me) are treated. We would be subject to national immigration law, which is not determined by the EU.

That's why I believe May's statement is correct. The eventual immigration status of EU citizens in the UK will depend on whether we'll be in the EEA and what the freedom of movement deal we strike. Even Switzerland has voted to limit the number of people going in. (Still in negotiation on final deal). After we brexit into whatever status, the status will then be down to national immigration law. It will be after the next general election anyway, and it might well not be lead by Leadsom or May.

Nobody thinks all 3m will be asked to leave.

They are horrified to live in a country where the Home Secretary would suggest they might be to appeal to racist voters.

Anyone talking about the "eventual status" is EU citizens already living legally in the UK is taking an extreme right wing position on immigration.

Whatever rules end up in place for new immigrants from EU countries, prople here before Brexit should have their rights at the time they artived protected.

That is what a decent country would do.

I think it is important to remember that at this stage, May is playing, not only to the EU negotiators in waiting but also - indeed possibly more so - to the 280,000 swivel eyed lunatics who make up the membership of the Tory party.

As ken Clarke let slip yerterday, they are predominantly 'Leavers' - and they will be mostly old, wealthy and rigid thinking.

They don't do 'empathy', especially on an issue as dear to their heart as 'immigration'.

"fter we brexit into whatever status, the status will then be down to national immigration law. It will be after the next general election anyway, and it might well not be lead by Leadsom or May."

This would not be right. Eu citizens who live here, own property and have paid into the system for years did so in good faith and under the legal assumption that they were able to invest in their future here. They should certainly not be treated with that in mind, we can absolutely not be treated like illegal immigrants. Chnaging the goal post in this way for existing EU citizens in the UK for but totally inhumane. But then T May did want to ditsch the Human rights act so it all fits in terms of a nasty ice cold regime that could the UK under a ultra conservative government. EU citizens do have options as they are still able to work in other EU countries but it will be the poor British people who work in low skilled jobs, are sick or without a job who will suffer the most. Unless perhaps they vote in Labour / liberal.

It's just hysteria that all 3 million will be asked to leave the UK.

I don't think anybody on this thread has actually suggested this is going to happen . Rather people are objecting, and IMHO rightly so, to being treated as unfeeling economic units to be used as bargaining chips, and now facing an uncertain future when they have lived their lives here (or vice versa for UK citizens in other EU countries) in good faith.

Doctors and nurses and those working in finance will be able to stay. They'll pass the point system. In fact Australia actively recruit doctors and nurses from the UK. It really won't collapse. And there are visas for farm seasonal workers from before the enlargement of the EU to eastern europe. It's just hysteria that all 3 million will be asked to leave the UK.

How very reassuring Head - as long as enough of you stay so the NHS and the banks can function and as long as the fruit gets picked the rest of you from the EU can sod off regardless. So what about those that have would not pass a points system - those in other professions, low incomes, the SAHM, the long term sick, the elderly.

She is appealing to the "280,000 swivel-eyed lunatics" while the entire world looks on.

It sends an appalling message to the world about the UK.

As ken Clarke let slip yerterday, they are predominantly 'Leavers' - and they will be mostly old, wealthy and rigid thinking.

I think Leadsom will be the next PM anyway, exactly because of this. If she can get to the final two, the grass root will vote for her. Have you seen the kind of stuff she says? It is downright scary too.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/06/andrea-leadsom-challenged-to-explain-views-on-workers-rights

Head thank you for that article and apologies fro my awfully worded and spelled pp.
From the article:
"A trade union has called on the Conservative leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom to give guarantees on workers’ rights post-Brexit in the wake of a speech she made calling for people who work in small businesses to have no employee protection at all."

How do Brexit voters feel about this?

and more:
“I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever – no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights – for the smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground, in order to give them a chance,” she suggested."
So without the EU employment laws, I ask again, how do Brexit voters feel about voting out to gain back control when faced with the prospect of no or little protection for workers?

Going against the grain here. I think the likelihood of EU citizens being made to leave is comparable to Turkey joining the EU in the next 5 years: nil.

I do think it will happen as a reciprocal agreement and I think that's why TM is very reluctant to make any unilateral statements.

The UK will be relatively weaker when negotiating this point as it's obviously more beneficial for the UK to retain a younger tax paying workforce than for a country such as Spain to keep an older group who rely heavily on its health service. Perhaps the UK gov will be trying to negotiate the retention of those rights for UK citizens who currently qualify. Whether they are allowed to stay abroad or not, most retirees would not be able to afford to if they had to pay for health care and a big group coming back in a short space of time would put a massive strain on public services. I am aware that most UK citizens in Europe are not pensioners btw, I'm just using it as an example of why negotiations may not be as simple in this area as it seems.

The right to a family life and other such reasons which have stopped numerous people being deported over the last decade would surely also come into play.

I find it infuriating that Leadsom, Gove etc who just spent months riding on a tide of anti EU immigrant rhetoric are now trying to make political capital off this. Such open opportunism, say anything to get where they want to be. Ignore the difficult realities.

I agree very much with what you say MangoSteenSoda.

I do wonder about pensioners though.

Yes, they use health services, but on the other hand they enter the local economy and spend money on food, entertainments etc. without taking a job. Their state pension and retirement savings all gets spent in Spain for instance when the money was originally earned in Britain. I know there are several latin american countries that actively try to attract American and Canadian pensioners because they are regarded as boost to the economy, sort of like permanent tourists.

We would need to know how much Spain spends on UK pensioners through its health system vs. how much money the pensioners bring to the Spanish economy. This may turn on how many years a pensioner is retired there before ill health and whether English pensioners tend to return home when they are old and frail.

I think the Spanish gov will want to keep the pensioners and you're totally right about it being a boost to the economy in the areas in which they settle.

If no healthcare could be agreed, the ones coming back would disproportionately be the ones more in need of the NHS, or less well off pensioners with less spending power.

I'm sure there are many other more complex issues too, but I doubt it's as straightforward as saying you keep ours and we keep yours. This IS probably one of the easier issues to agree on though.

Basically it comes down to whether you are OK with actual human beings being used as bargaining chips.

Personally I'm glad that most people in the UK have more moral sense than to accept such awfulness.

It makes my blood run cold to see people cheapen the lives of their fellow UK residents in that way.

But - again being slightly provocative - we (along with most other Western countries) have frequently changed the immigration rules in ways that impacted those who came here in good faith. I don't recall accusations of fascism or much protest at all outside of niche sectors such as universities or employer organizations.

And I think many pp aren't grasping a fundamental issue about sovereign countries, which is that their first duty is to act in the interests of their own citizens. Of course there are obligations (legal and human decency) that extend to how we treat non-citizens, but almost every country in the world accords rights and privileges to their citizens that do not extend to others. That's not fascist - especially as we treat non-citizens in many important ways far better than other countries already.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36721689
Pound hits new low on Brexit nerves.