Should we guarantee the rights of eu citzens to remain unilaterally

[ReallyTired]

I think we should. They came here with the belief that they could live here.

I suppose the argument is that Spain and France may not show compassion to British citizens who have emigrated. Certainly Spain may well be tempted to use it as leverage to gain sovernity of Gibraltar. I think the chances of the French being vindictive is less.

If Scotland leaves the uk and joins the EU could there be an arrangement where ex pats become Scottish citizens? (Even if they are 100% English or Welsh) in the event of British citizens being sent back?

Yes Aerfen, North American indian tribes WERE geographically isolated from not only the rest of the world, but also each other, until relatively recently enough to have retained their indigenous status.

America is vast and was sparcely populated, tribes from the north would never have crossed paths with tribes from the south

Relative to that, we've been tripping over each other here in Europe long before we invaded America!

There is no end to the contortions Brit haters will go to to deny us the right to our ethnicity!

I don't think it's great lengths, so much as short facts ....

Isn't this the whole problem with the referendum? It just wasn't clear what we were voting for, was it? And now it can all be fudged.

Who knows what everyone meant to vote for really?

You might well have voted for controlled migration.

Your neighbour on the other hand, might be furious that controlled migration doesn't mean kicking everyone out.

There wasn't any refinement on what leaving the EU actually meant.

There is no end to the contortions Brit haters will go to to deny us the right to our ethnicity!

You're the one doing the contortins here.

And you still haven't answered my question, who are the indigenous Irish (or English for that matter?)

Because I'm not. DH isn't. Who is?

Yes Aerfen, North American indian tribes WERE geographically isolated from not only the rest of the world, but also each other, until relatively recently enough to have retained their indigenous status.
America is vast and was sparcely populated, tribes from the north would never have crossed paths with tribes from the south

NO they probably all crossed at the Bering straights and moved around a great deal in fact. There is even a theory that America was populated North to south not south to north. They didnt all evolve separately since time immemorial and they certainly admixed if only due to warfare before the arrival of Europeans. Since the arrival of Europeans there has been considerably more admix.

And what are your criteria for an ethnic group "to have retained their indigenous status"?
For that matter who appointed you to be judge and jury of such quantifying?

Correction
"populated North to south not south to north"
South to North not North to South.

"I don't think it's great lengths, so much as short facts ...."

Then youll be able to set out what distinguishes Europeans from other ethnic group that disqualifies all of us from being considered indigenous to our homelands?

And what are your criteria for an ethnic group "to have retained their indigenous status"?
For that matter who appointed you to be judge and jury of such quantifying

YOU'RE the one judging that there are idenifiable indigenous British or Irish people, so why won't you share with us who they are?

Are you one? what makes you one?

"And you still haven't answered my question, who are the indigenous Irish (or English for that matter?)"
The Irish equivalent of any other indigenous persons anywhere in the world, a person of Irish descent.
But perhaps FAH will be along to comment, being as she is Irish.

Adulting.
You are the one who claimed standards are require for a group to 'retain indigenous status' so kindly answer my question first.
What are they?

I cannot for the life of me see why Icelandics one of the remotest and least admixed people in the world with a unique culture and language can possibly be described as NOT indigenous, other than by a European hating racist!

Aerfen

The Irish had a lot of migration. The earliest settlers arrived 10,000 years ago!!! Were they "indiginous", given they were settlers?!?

At no point in history have any settlers to Ireland been isolated for long enough to develop anything close to an identifiable indigenous group, such as we can see in other parts of the world.

"I don't think it's great lengths, so much as short facts ...."

Then youll be able to set out what distinguishes Europeans from other ethnic group that disqualifies all of us from being considered indigenous to our homelands?

No, I've a much better idea.

I advance the point of view that trying to identify an "indigenous" British, or French, or Spanish inhabitant is so obscured by repeated movements of populations over the past - say - two millennia as to be meaningless.

If you disagree with me, then how about you tell me what exactly the criteria are for someone to be classed "indigenous" to a particular space (and time). Starting with England (to make it easy).

Just to add to the mix, there's the current practice of self identity. Which if applied to my bloodline makes me 1/4 "Indian" as my Grandfather (as white "European" as they come) was born in India and always said he was "Indian first, British second". So I'm out on the next boat anyway.

I am not "indigenous" to any of the countries through which I have decent.

That's not what indigenous means!

My traceable decent is all European melting pot.

I am culturally very much of one particular country, being that that is where my family traditions and identity come from. That doesn't make me "indigenous" any more than being an American who practices a lot of "american" traditions like thanks giving, could be considered "indigenous"

By your apparent (you haven't really been clear) standards Aerfen, All "born and bread" americans are now indigenous? and not just native american indians?

And yes, I do consider myself indigenous ot EUROPE , but not to any one pin point country in Europe.

I do consider myself a national or citizen of a particular part though

you seem to use "indigenous" interchangably with a lot of other concepts of decent, race, herriage, nationality etc

Aerfen sounds more and more like those White Supremacy nutjobs, but even more selective in that it's all about "British Supremacy"...

I consider myself indigenous English (both sides of the family are English back to at least 1700s on one side and 1800s on the other, without even a hint of Irish, Welsh or Scottish even). I am also culturally English, having lived all my adult life until 2 years ago in England. I'm not a racist, however.

The Irish equivalent of any other indigenous persons anywhere in the world, a person of Irish descent

That's not what indigenous means!

If I have some distant italian blood, I have italian decent, but I am not a "indigenous" italian!

Unless you think you can be "indigenous" to dozens of countries all at once? do you?

Because that's the only way that your average "born and bred" European could be indigenous to any particular European countries - it can only follow if you thing they're indigenous to ALL european countries from which they derive decent.

I don't think there's anyone in England, or Ireland, who does not decend from other parts of Europe

Your definition of "indigenous" is just illogical!

I consider myself indigenous English (both sides of the family are English back to at least 1700s on one side and 1800s on the other, without even a hint of Irish, Welsh or Scottish even)

Of course that presupposes everyone that came before you told the vicar the truth - or there was no chance of a "mistake" ... www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fatherhood/one-in-50-british-fathers-unknowingly-raise-another-mans-child/

Yet another complication in the concept of "indigenous".

both sides of the family are English back to at least 1700s on one side and 1800s on the other

My FIL used to say this

Until I pointed out that you only have "two sides" in your family back one generation. And he was only tracing back one paternal surname, and ignoring all other maternal lines beyond the point of marraige

"one paternal surname on each side " that should say

He was counting the wives being british at the point of marraige, but not looking any further into their decent

You only get MDNA from your mother, you get DNA from your mother and your father

so actually, he had researched the less significant lines on both sides

The Icelanders wouldn't consider themselves to be indigenous - they are proud of their Viking heritage and the fact that they travelled to Iceland and revel in the history of the settlement of Iceland.

Does Aerfen even know what the word means?

I'm extremely proud of bring Scottish. I am certainly not "Brit hating" - although I do hate xenophobes. I think Aerfen is a perfect example of a xenophobe in the truest sense of the word - someone who hates "others", as in, those that are different to her strict interpretation of pure

Exactly!

It does not mean that you're not proud to be insert nationality here, to also realise that you're not indigenous to that geographical place

You can be proudly an English citizen
You can be culturally English
You can have a strong English heritage
AND not "indigenous"

They're all different concepts
Indigenous doesn't = race, nationality, heritage. They're different things!

The only thing English about me is the fact that I was born here. Oh, and a great grandmother. But I have lived in England most of my life.

Where does that put me in the indigenous stakes?