EU citizens will still be allowed to come to live and work in UK after Brexit, Home Secretary reveals

[webfact]

EU citizens will still be allowed to come to live and work in UK after Brexit, Home Secretary reveals

By Gordon Rayner, political editor 

Jack Maidment, political correspondent 

 

LONDON: -- EU citizens will still be allowed to come to the UK to live and work after Brexit as long as they register with the Home Office, Amber Rudd has announced.

 

The Home Secretary said that freedom of movement will officially end in March 2019 when Britain leaves the EU, but revealed plans that suggest the existing immigration regime will remain largely unchanged during the transitional period after Brexit.

 

Government sources conceded that the rules governing EU migrants coming to Britain during the transitional period “may look like a similar arrangement” to free movement.

 

Full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/27/eu-citizens-will-still-allowed-come-uk-brexit-register-home/

 

-- The Telegraph 2017-07-28

[darksidedog]

I suspect that won't go down too well in some circles. Many people voted to leave to stop other countries workers coming to Britain, yet this "similar arrangement" seems to mean there will be little or no change in things. Good news for Brits working in Europe, but folks at home may not be so happy.

[impulse]

As I recall from lots of rants on the topic, that's the main reason a lot of people voted to leave.

 

Take that off the table, and ya figure the 2% margin may swing the other way?

 

[Richard W]

If I understand correctly, the government already has the power to enforce registration.  What is more, there is already the requirement for EEA adults to register to vote, though this doesn't catch non-commonwealth non-EEA family members, or minors.

 

What is likely is that this will largely manifest itself as a restriction on the freedom to bring in and acquire non-EEA family members.

[terryw]

What is more important is how immigration will be controlled after the Brexit process is completed. That is how we will judge our politicians.

[stephenterry]

19 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I suspect that won't go down too well in some circles. Many people voted to leave to stop other countries workers coming to Britain, yet this "similar arrangement" seems to mean there will be little or no change in things. Good news for Brits working in Europe, but folks at home may not be so happy.

 

IMO, people voted to leave more so that potential terrorists could be stopped from entering and those hate preachers and the like in the UK could be deported without months of hassle with the EU Court of Justice. As for EU citizens looking for work, the UK badly needs these low-paid workers in service industries like the NHS, and probably wouldn't material affect UK citizens jobs. 

[jwest10]

1 hour ago, terryw said:

What is more important is how immigration will be controlled after the Brexit process is completed. That is how we will judge our politicians.

No Need to wait and the vast majority of so- called public figures are an absolute disgrace and only care about themselves. Nothing has changed upon decade and decades of Governments of all colours

[retarius]

Any EU migrants should be required to get a work permit or equivalent after March 2019. The Tories are all at sea over Brexit. Corbyn, I'm glad to say, seems to favor a 'hard' Brexit (whatever that term actually means). It might have been a good idea to have included some notion of what Brexit would mean in the referendum question. As it was people had to vote in ignorance of what it meant. I'm sure that if Brexit meant let all the immigrants come in, then why would anyone have voted for it? 

[stephenterry]

37 minutes ago, retarius said:

Any EU migrants should be required to get a work permit or equivalent after March 2019. The Tories are all at sea over Brexit. Corbyn, I'm glad to say, seems to favor a 'hard' Brexit (whatever that term actually means). It might have been a good idea to have included some notion of what Brexit would mean in the referendum question. As it was people had to vote in ignorance of what it meant. I'm sure that if Brexit meant let all the immigrants come in, then why would anyone have voted for it? 

Quite right. There still has not been any summation of the financial/non financial pros and cons of Brexit. UK citizens are as much in the dark today as when the referendum was voted on thirteen months ago. And as far as the recent negotiations go, the government are busy fudging their way through.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

Any EU migrants should be required to get a work permit or equivalent after March 2019. The Tories are all at sea over Brexit. Corbyn, I'm glad to say, seems to favor a 'hard' Brexit (whatever that term actually means). It might have been a good idea to have included some notion of what Brexit would mean in the referendum question. As it was people had to vote in ignorance of what it meant. I'm sure that if Brexit meant let all the immigrants come in, then why would anyone have voted for it? 

"Any EU migrants should be required to get a work permit or equivalent after March 2019."

 

I agree.  Nobody has a problem with well-paid workers that have been offered jobs (in sectors with a shortage of UK qualified applicants) being offered jobs in the UK.  Other than the obvious 'gripe' - why/how is there this shortage of skills in these sectors?

 

The grievances about the 'open borders' policy are centred around the unskilled from very poor EU countries arriving in the UK to work for (at best) minimum wage - which keeps wages at the 'bottom' very low as companies (particularly wealthy companies) make the most of the cheap labour on offer.

 

The effect migrates upwards to those on slightly higher wages etc. etc.  One of the reasons behind the stagnation/reduction of salaries - apart from those at the top of course whose salaries continue to increase and widen the salary differential between those at the top, compared to those at the bottom.....

[humqdpf]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Any EU migrants should be required to get a work permit or equivalent after March 2019."

 

I agree.  Nobody has a problem with well-paid workers that have been offered jobs (in sectors with a shortage of UK qualified applicants) being offered jobs in the UK.  Other than the obvious 'gripe' - why/how is there this shortage of skills in these sectors?

 

The grievances about the 'open borders' policy are centred around the unskilled from very poor EU countries arriving in the UK to work for (at best) minimum wage - which keeps wages at the 'bottom' very low as companies (particularly wealthy companies) make the most of the cheap labour on offer.

 

The effect migrates upwards to those on slightly higher wages etc. etc.  One of the reasons behind the stagnation/reduction of salaries - apart from those at the top of course whose salaries continue to increase and widen the salary differential between those at the top, compared to those at the bottom.....

The top end of the labour market will probably be able to look after itself, given that they have top lawyers and lobbyists to help them out.

The tough cases will be the lower end of the market in the jobs that British people just do not want to do. I am talking about fruit picking, very mundane factory work etc. Effctively the really dirty, deadly boring and hard work.

 

If you are worried that the influx of these foreign workers are going to drive down wages of the very lowest paid, there is a simple solution - increase the minimum wage and enforce it for all, with huge fines for companies and jail time for directors on the second offence.

 

Don't get me wrong - if I were British, I would be against Brexit but as a fellow European I am genuinely sorry to see our British chums leaving the EU. But we respect that this is the decision of the majority and that is that, although I do wonder whether every UK person who voted Brexit was able to clearly think through all the ramifications at the time of voting.

 

I also understand that some people put sovereignity above well-being or wealth - so it is not always a matter of money. But I would be concerned, if I were British, at the level of economic damage that will be inflicted as Britain moves from being a high-trade international economy to being a more local economy with few international trading links.

 

We all know or suspect that Brexit is mainly about immigration. But Brexit will never directly have any effect on the large non-EU immigration that occurs and has occurred in Britain in recent years. Opting out of Schlengen took care international migration and there will be no change. So Brexit is really about keeping the Poles and central Europeans out of Britain.

 

The sad part is that Brexit may have a strong indirect effect on immigration of all kinds, which is that the UK will not be as attractive to immigrants as the economy falters. Already I hear from British employers, who use  Polish workers because they cannot get British workers, that the Poles are asking for higher wages in Sterling because Sterling has fallen 30%. It is not that the Poles and Eastern Euripeans generally are desperate for work - they can work in any country in the EU and the demand for labour is high in Germany now.

[dunroaming]

5 hours ago, stephenterry said:

 

IMO, people voted to leave more so that potential terrorists could be stopped from entering and those hate preachers and the like in the UK could be deported without months of hassle with the EU Court of Justice. As for EU citizens looking for work, the UK badly needs these low-paid workers in service industries like the NHS, and probably wouldn't material affect UK citizens jobs. 

Well some people would have voted for that but as terrorists are very rarely from EU countries that would be a wasted effort.  I do agree that hate preachers should be prosecuted or removed easier than they have in the past but given that you are only really talking about two or three individuals it can't possibly be a reason for leaving the EU.

 

This announcement about still allowing the virtual free flow of EU immigrants after Brexit is just a softener by the government.  We desperately need EU citizens coming to work in the UK at all levels and crucially in the NHS.  Given that surely there should be scope for us staying in the single market as the stumbling block was the movement of people. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by dunroaming

[dick dasterdly]

50 minutes ago, humqdpf said:

The top end of the labour market will probably be able to look after itself, given that they have top lawyers and lobbyists to help them out.

The tough cases will be the lower end of the market in the jobs that British people just do not want to do. I am talking about fruit picking, very mundane factory work etc. Effctively the really dirty, deadly boring and hard work.

 

If you are worried that the influx of these foreign workers are going to drive down wages of the very lowest paid, there is a simple solution - increase the minimum wage and enforce it for all, with huge fines for companies and jail time for directors on the second offence.

 

Don't get me wrong - if I were British, I would be against Brexit but as a fellow European I am genuinely sorry to see our British chums leaving the EU. But we respect that this is the decision of the majority and that is that, although I do wonder whether every UK person who voted Brexit was able to clearly think through all the ramifications at the time of voting.

 

I also understand that some people put sovereignity above well-being or wealth - so it is not always a matter of money. But I would be concerned, if I were British, at the level of economic damage that will be inflicted as Britain moves from being a high-trade international economy to being a more local economy with few international trading links.

 

We all know or suspect that Brexit is mainly about immigration. But Brexit will never directly have any effect on the large non-EU immigration that occurs and has occurred in Britain in recent years. Opting out of Schlengen took care international migration and there will be no change. So Brexit is really about keeping the Poles and central Europeans out of Britain.

 

The sad part is that Brexit may have a strong indirect effect on immigration of all kinds, which is that the UK will not be as attractive to immigrants as the economy falters. Already I hear from British employers, who use  Polish workers because they cannot get British workers, that the Poles are asking for higher wages in Sterling because Sterling has fallen 30%. It is not that the Poles and Eastern Euripeans generally are desperate for work - they can work in any country in the EU and the demand for labour is high in Germany now.

Posts of this type rely on having little knowledge of the UK 'job market/legal system'.

 

My favourite was "If you are worried that the influx of these foreign workers are going to drive down wages of the very lowest paid, there is a simple solution - increase the minimum wage and enforce it for all, with huge fines for companies and jail time for directors on the second offence."  

 

Although to be fair, Ernie Saunders was jailed for a short period of time - before being released (for some obscure reason) as suffering from Alzheimers - are other prisoners released for this reason?  Weirdly  he made a miraculous recovery upon being released !

 

Edit - Yes, I realise his case was about actual fraud!

 

Not just company employees being paid less than the minimum wage/deliberately keeping wages as low as possible at the bottom of the scale, whilst also deliberately increasing the salaries/benefits of those at the top in direct proportion to how those at the bottom have been reduced.... 

Edited July 29, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, humqdpf said:

The top end of the labour market will probably be able to look after itself, given that they have top lawyers and lobbyists to help them out.

The tough cases will be the lower end of the market in the jobs that British people just do not want to do. I am talking about fruit picking, very mundane factory work etc. Effctively the really dirty, deadly boring and hard work.

 

If you are worried that the influx of these foreign workers are going to drive down wages of the very lowest paid, there is a simple solution - increase the minimum wage and enforce it for all, with huge fines for companies and jail time for directors on the second offence.

 

Don't get me wrong - if I were British, I would be against Brexit but as a fellow European I am genuinely sorry to see our British chums leaving the EU. But we respect that this is the decision of the majority and that is that, although I do wonder whether every UK person who voted Brexit was able to clearly think through all the ramifications at the time of voting.

 

I also understand that some people put sovereignity above well-being or wealth - so it is not always a matter of money. But I would be concerned, if I were British, at the level of economic damage that will be inflicted as Britain moves from being a high-trade international economy to being a more local economy with few international trading links.

 

We all know or suspect that Brexit is mainly about immigration. But Brexit will never directly have any effect on the large non-EU immigration that occurs and has occurred in Britain in recent years. Opting out of Schlengen took care international migration and there will be no change. So Brexit is really about keeping the Poles and central Europeans out of Britain.

 

The sad part is that Brexit may have a strong indirect effect on immigration of all kinds, which is that the UK will not be as attractive to immigrants as the economy falters. Already I hear from British employers, who use  Polish workers because they cannot get British workers, that the Poles are asking for higher wages in Sterling because Sterling has fallen 30%. It is not that the Poles and Eastern Euripeans generally are desperate for work - they can work in any country in the EU and the demand for labour is high in Germany now.

I think this is a very well balanced and perceptive post and is very much in line with the opinion of all the people in the UK that I know. It may not seem it by the posts of many on TV but in Britain we are very worried about the economic consequences of Brexit.  The government releasing this latest statement confirming that EU migrants will be able to come to the UK unhindered after does help as we need our European friends as much as ever. 

[7by7]

7 hours ago, stephenterry said:

 

IMO, people voted to leave more so that potential terrorists could be stopped from entering and those hate preachers and the like in the UK could be deported without months of hassle with the EU Court of Justice. As for EU citizens looking for work, the UK badly needs these low-paid workers in service industries like the NHS, and probably wouldn't material affect UK citizens jobs. 

If people voted Leave "so that potential terrorists could be stopped from entering" then they voted for the wrong reason!

 

By 'potential terrorists' I assume you mean Muslims coming from the Middle East and Africa who have entered Europe as refugees (let's not get into an argument as to whether they are genuine refugees or not; that is immaterial to this point). 

 

As these people are not EEA nationals they do not and never have come under the Freedom of Movement Directive, unless they are qualifying family members of an EEA national,  and so have no automatic right to enter the UK. Even if they are already in another EEA state, they are subject to the UK's immigration laws and procedures. Soft or hard; Brexit will have absolutely no effect on this.

 

Tell me; if, as you seem to believe, refugees or economic migrants are able, under EU law, to travel freely to the UK, why are they all camped around Calais attempting to smuggle themselves into the UK hidden in the backs of lorries etc.?

 

The deportation of anyone from the UK is rightly subject to lawful procedures; the UK is a democracy and subject to the rule of law, not some tin pot dictatorship.

 

The EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice, does not rule on such matters as it has no jurisdiction over them as they are a human rights issue, not an issue of EU law.

 

Those subject to extradition or deportation may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights; which rules on matters covered by the European Convention on Human Rights; of which the UK was a founder member in 1950; well before the EEC was formed, let alone before the UK joined it!

 

One prominent case being that of Abu Hamza, who appealed his extradition from the UK to the USA to face terrorism charges. The ECtHR ruled that his rights were not being breached and he was, as we all know, extradited.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by 7by7

[dunroaming]

Many of the reasons to leave given by the Brexiteers are based on the lies or misinformation that they were fed by people like Farage.  No blame on them for believing the rhetoric at the time, we were all fed lies of one sort or another.  It is time though to look at the reality of what Brexit means although that is still difficult as nobody knows what we will end up with.  Never has there been a time when "Brexit means Brexit" sounded so hollow because we don't know what Brexit means at all.

[notmyself]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Well some people would have voted for that but as terrorists are very rarely from EU countries that would be a wasted effort.  I do agree that hate preachers should be prosecuted or removed easier than they have in the past but given that you are only really talking about two or three individuals it can't possibly be a reason for leaving the EU.

 

You only hear about 2-3 individuals but the true number is in the 100s. Don't know what the figure is right now but it put at around 600 people some months back and these were just people who had appealed to the EU for another judgement.... which takes years longer.

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, notmyself said:

 

You only hear about 2-3 individuals but the true number is in the 100s. Don't know what the figure is right now but it put at around 600 people some months back and these were just people who had appealed to the EU for another judgement.... which takes years longer.

Where does that figure come from?  You mean 600 hate preachers who have extradition orders against them but have appealed to the European court of appeal.  I am struggling to find details of this.  Please supply link.

[Jack100]

Mmmm  -  no change there then -   one year on -  - just the near 20% drop in my monthly  pension cheque . 1

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, Jack100 said:

Mmmm  -  no change there then -   one year on -  - just the near 20% drop in my monthly  pension cheque . 1

If Britain leave without a viable deal then it is estimated that the pound will drop by another 15 to 20%.  Not good for your pension cheque or for the steep increase in prices in the UK.

[Stargeezr]

Yes the rich people must have realized that their domestic help will cost more in the future.

  A bit late for this reason Britain.

Geezer

[humqdpf]

18 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Posts of this type rely on having little knowledge of the UK 'job market/legal system'.

 

My favourite was "If you are worried that the influx of these foreign workers are going to drive down wages of the very lowest paid, there is a simple solution - increase the minimum wage and enforce it for all, with huge fines for companies and jail time for directors on the second offence."  

 

Although to be fair, Ernie Saunders was jailed for a short period of time - before being released (for some obscure reason) as suffering from Alzheimers - are other prisoners released for this reason?  Weirdly  he made a miraculous recovery upon being released !

 

Edit - Yes, I realise his case was about actual fraud!

 

Not just company employees being paid less than the minimum wage/deliberately keeping wages as low as possible at the bottom of the scale, whilst also deliberately increasing the salaries/benefits of those at the top in direct proportion to how those at the bottom have been reduced.... 

Saunders in the famous Guinness case was about fraud, theft and false accounting. Fraud at that level (involving share price manipulation) is one of the hardest cases and most expensive cases to prove in any jurisdiction - hence the reticence of the Crown Prosecution Services to move on such cases. Which is why the Saunders case was so rare and why he ultimately got such a light sentence and everyone else effectively got off.

 

However, not paying the minimum wage is far easier to prove. Last year alone, 700 companies were convicted of breaking the minimum wages law. And that was without too much investigation and no whistle-blowing incentives. But only the company is fined a max of 5,000 pounds. Thats nothing - if you want to get the attention of directors of a company, make them criminally liable with jail sentences.

 

The big problem is legislation. Too many companies are getting away with various dodges or making their employees into temp contractors etc. Legislation would deal with that by creating a minimum rate for temp contractors of say 15 pounds per hour with an easy way for people to blow the whistle.

 

You might be surprised how much I know about the British labour market and Britain having lived and worked there for many many years.

[7by7]

On ‎29‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 0:08 PM, notmyself said:

 

You only hear about 2-3 individuals but the true number is in the 100s. Don't know what the figure is right now but it put at around 600 people some months back and these were just people who had appealed to the EU for another judgement.... which takes years longer.

 

As dunroaming asks, where did you get your figures from? I can find nothing to substantiate them.

 

Irrelevant to this topic anyway as extradition to non EEA states is nothing to do with the EU nor it's highest court, the ECJ.

 

See Extradition: processes and review

 

Those subject to a European Arrest Warrant or extradition to a non EEA member state may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if their human rights may be breached or they may be subject to the death penalty. But as explained earlier, the ECtHR and the ECHR have nothing to do with the EU.

 

Of course, such appeals may or may not be successful; Abu Hamza's wasn't!