Brexit: Time to make your plans, UK IT biz The Brexit debate continues and, with the Leave and Remain camps neck and neck, it looks likely that the undecided few will carry the result. It seems that we can expect more headline-grabbing soundbites until the vote on June 23. The polarised nature of this debate is throwing up some interesting oddities, so you might be …
The UK government will likely follow the model adopted by British colonies as they gained their independence by preserving most existing laws until they are specifically replaced.
But what about other EU countries? What happens if some of them start treating the UK as ex-EU right away or make a retroactive change at some point in the future from some arbitrary date? If this happens and you're an expat or a British company with an office abroad, you could suddenly find yourself doing something illegal.
"But what about other EU countries? What happens if some of them start treating the UK as ex-EU right away or make a retroactive change at some point in the future from some arbitrary date?"
If the UK leaves the EU then it will only do so in 2018, not 2016, and it would be illegal for other countries to just treat the UK as if it had already left. As for retrospective changes in law, these are generally frowned upon by most countries' courts, and if you are in a country where the courts don't mind retroactively making something illegal, then you might want to leave anyway.
No need for this kind of scaremongering: legally nothing will have changed on June 24th. Ex-pats probably have little to worry about, though applying for dual nationality might not be a bad idea where possible (permanent residency has been granted).
However, what we are already seeing is investors trying to deal with the uncertainty will no doubt accompany the process.
In the legal sense, nothing should happen (outside of administrative hasles; existing expats are allowed to work and would likely have to go through the working permit paperwork like non EU nationals.
Bit will your company keep an office in that country? Or in the UK for that matter? Your UK office will no longer be your European office; this wil be the main change.
But what about other EU countries?
In EU countries EU law will stand. Not sure what you're asking, the law isn't going to change in these countries simply because the UK left, and it's probably going to take decades for UK law to diverge too much.
I made my plans about 2 years ago, and left.
If you're planning to leave now, it may be too late (because your freedom to live & work in Europe will likely vanish overnight if Brits vote for BRExit).
I wanted to guarantee my family the protection offered by ECHR rights, including right to privacy/freedom of expression/freedom of association/right to effective remedy.
The Home Office/Police/Security Servics seem to regard human rights with complete contempt; they will ensure a British Bill of Rights is simply a worthless sham without enforcement.
I fear for the future of freedom in the UK. I don't expect I will ever return [voluntarily] sadly.
Anonymous because... I fear the UK Government.
I don't think there's another EC member that has made such a determined effort to roll out mass surveillance, allow undercover police to shag/marry/impregnate law abiding campaigners, censor lawful communications, torture prisoners, arrest & intimidate opposition MPs, allow corrupt police to protect murderers & child molesters from justice, to highlight but a few recent examples.
That's not a place I would choose to live, without the protection offered by the ECHR.
You can be certain that the ECHR provides no protection whatsoever in most parts of Europe. Sadly, corruption exists everywhere.
The dreadful abuses of process, the corrupt, feckless and stupid police "services", the open-armed welcome for the bogus "refugees" from Islamic countries, the misuse and misappropriation of public funds, the outrageous taxation charged to support the whole rotten mess.... Europe? You're welcome to it.
Any British Government with any guts should secede immediately from the EU on the basis that it's "too expensive" (a great excuse) and become a Free Port for Europe. The British economy would boom. Businesses could be attracted by lowered taxation, so manufacturing could start again and be competitive - with a primary market just 22 miles away. Britain could stop paying out to support lazy French farmers and Greek "retirees". Britain should also stop paying out "Foreign Aid" (I still can't understand why Britain pays Billions each year to India - a country with a space programme and nuclear weapons!)
Britain would have to rid itself of the "gimmegrants" that are bleeding the Social Security system dry - free repatriation with a small payment would persuade most to leave, and the ones who won't go voluntarily can be removed - none of them have "rights" to live in Britain. The drawbridge would have to be drawn up. The "religious militants" would have to be told to shut up or leave - their choice!
AC because I'm a "government" employee in the UK!
"I wanted to guarantee my family the protection offered by ECHR rights, including right to privacy/freedom of expression/freedom of association/right to effective remedy.
The Home Office/Police/Security Servics seem to regard human rights with complete contempt; they will ensure a British Bill of Rights is simply a worthless sham without enforcement.
I fear for the future of freedom in the UK. I don't expect I will ever return [voluntarily] sadly.
Anonymous because... I fear the UK Government."
I assume you moved to another ECHR signatory, like Russia for example?
"You did know that the EU has nothing - absolutely *nothing* to do with the ECHR before you moved, didn't you ?"
Strictly, you're correct... the question posed will be "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".
However, practically? I suspect when/if the UK votes to leave Europe,... the pressure on politicians to derogate from ECHR will become completely intolerable. Many of the complaints about Europe centre on ECHR cases.
The British Bill of Rights - nb, a Conservative Manifesto commitment - will be a watered down, unenforceable, vacuous sham that will replace it.
... aside from that away treaties require member states to be a signatory of the ECHR and to follow its judgements.
People who don't like the ECHR would feel right at home in Belarus, the only European country that is not a signatory and where the security services is still called the KGB.
But the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU! It is part of the Council of Europe which is made up of 42 European states includng Russia.
Most European countries treat their citizens rights with contempt apart from Belgium who don't appear to bother spying on anyone, even the criminals.
because your freedom to live & work in Europe will likely vanish overnight if Brits vote for BRExit
Funny I'm not actually sure voting "get out, get out now" by a convincing margin will actually be enough to extract us from the EU - but even if it was there's no immediate legal or practical effect - all that's happened at that point is a vote has taken place. Government has to give notice and there's probably a period before that takes effect and even when it does neither side is going to boot out people working legally in-country.
For workers there's going to be compliance periods where they can apply for visas and I'm 99% sure on both sides there will be some sort of automatic right for people working there already.
Either way this will all be decided and won't happen "overnight".
I wanted to guarantee my family the protection offered by ECHR rights, including right to privacy/freedom of expression/freedom of association/right to effective remedy.
The Home Office/Police/Security Servics seem to regard human rights with complete contempt; they will ensure a British Bill of Rights is simply a worthless sham without enforcement.
But funny how the ECHR and ECJ has taken zero steps to remedy any of this contempt that the security services and government treat those documents with. Almost like they're not worth the paper they're written on.
Be fascinated to learn what country you're living in given most of the EU operates with similar contempt for privacy and security of the person.
This is ONLY about a few rich people, who stand to benefit handily, lying to racists and little Englanders.
It's Boris Johnson's (the British Trump) shortcut to being P.M.
It will result in "The Greek Model" of an economy. Mark my words now.
It will result in "The Greek Model" of an economy. Mark my words now.
I'm half inclined to say that the 'Greek Model' is preferable. If you ignore the fact that previous Greek governments were helped to cover up their national debt by multinational corporations, in an effort to join the Euro, and this is essentially the cause of their problems, then you'll see that the likes of Yanis Varoufakis, who made a valiant effort to extricate Greece from imposed 'austerity' from Germany, are at least intelligent and qualified economists, rather than ideologically led unqualified buffoons like own own beloved Gideon.
"Yanis Varoufakis, who made a valiant effort to extricate Greece from imposed 'austerity' from Germany, are at least intelligent and qualified economists"
Qualified economist he may be, but he was a terrible politician. Hence he fucked it up, and Greece is even more screwed than before him.
He had the dual properties of being an insufferable git and holding out the begging bowl; you can't generally get away with both of these. He pissed off all the other Eurogroup members by telling them what they had to do, which apparently was gift a few hundred billion Euros to Greece, in return for which they would get...nothing. Not even any guarantees that Greece wouldn't piss that lot up the wall as well.
That might even make the most sense, especially from Greece's point of view, but was a complete non-starter. It was never going to happen, and trying to lecture the other Eurogroup members into giving Greece the money was never going to work. He should have been benched after about the first couple of days of talks. But Mr Tsipras didn't do that, and so they ran out of money.
"Yanis Varoufakis, who made a valiant effort to extricate Greece from imposed 'austerity' from Germany, are at least intelligent and qualified economists"
"Qualified Economist". That'll be the 'science' where the economics teachers are still spouting the same theories that prevailed before the last crash which they didn't see coming and can't explain. Hence the current uproar of some students who have realised that what they are being taught may be complete bollocks.
In similar breaking news Phlogiston to be reintroduced to the chemistry syllabus and the four humors to be taught in med school.
"Qualified Economist". That'll be the 'science' where the economics teachers are still spouting the same theories that prevailed before the last crash which they didn't see coming and can't explain.
I won't argue the point that economics is a science, because it isn't. However, a qualification in economics qualifies one to be an economist (I thought I'd state that tautology to make it obvious). Our current Chancellor of the Exchequer has no economics qualifications; he did a degree in modern history and trained as a journalist. He has an 'O' level in maths. I'd be more inclined to listen to Yanis, especially as he appears to be more erudite in English than Gideon, who I'd love to hear interviewed on Greek television, in Greek.
Economics may not be scientific, but some principles hold nonetheless. Austerity being bad for a country's economy is one of those, which can be seen by the constant downwards revision of our country's growth.
The UK rich like the EU. It gives them cheap labour for their businesses and cheap servants for their homes.
The equalisation of living standards across the EU (due to free movement of goods and workers) disproportionately hits the working classes in the countries having them lowered.
>The UK rich like the EU. It gives them cheap labour for their businesses and cheap servants for their homes.
The UK rich can always get cheap labour from other countries, including the former Commonwealth, whatever is left of the Middle East, and the less developed countries in Asia.
They can also allow special residence for qualified Europeans.
If Brexit happens watch the howls of outrage when any or all of the above follow in short order, a flood of immigration continues, and even the most stupid little Englanders start to wonder if perhaps they were played.
However, I'm not expecting Brexit. I'm expecting a very close campaign with neck and neck polling, followed by a small but unexpectedly definitive win for Bremain, followed by questions for the pollsters asking how they got it so wrong.
And of course those from outside the EU are more likely to be immigrants rather than migrants (little point for EU citizens unless the country leaves the EU) and also will contain a higher proportion of the radical extremists that many of the exit campaigners are so worried about. (Can't see the logic myself 'send all the nice Europeans home so there's lots of space for all the radicals.')
It would be a relief if that were to happen. I hope you're correct. I am concerned that there is a big chance of an English exit. (I think Brexit as a whole is very unlikely.)
I would expect that give two years of opportunity (relocating all the EU headquarters back into the EU), but after that, not much.
I wonder how hard it will be to get Scottish Citizenship.
How to lose at arguing on the internet:
1: Google up some stuff that confirms your view on a difficult problem.
2: Stick your guns.. you're right after all!!
3: If you can't get your way shut down the conversation by accusing everyone that doesn't agree with you of being racists.
FYI: Boris (who I know personally, alas) Is an idiot pretending to be an intellectual pretending to be a buffoon. He should never be allowed anywhere near serious power - he's already screwed things up enough in London!
The EU club costs the UK (roughly) £55bn each year. Add to that the inordinate amount paid out in "Foreign Aid" (the UK even financially supports Mugabe FFS) and the Social Security payments to the unemployable "gimmegrants"....
If the UK cuts off these three wastes of their resources and actually has the guts to deal with the religious extremists, it'll become a nice place to live again. At the moment it's descending rapidly to 3rd-world shithole status......
AC because I'm a UK government wage slave.
Not really sure why you're getting downvoted.
I'd wager the vast majority of people in the "Leave" camp have little to no understanding of how the EU legislative process actually works.
Being "dictacted" to by Brussels is laughable when you realise that it's each Member State's government ministers that decide which EU laws and regulations get adopted
Jean Monnet's vision was of bureaucracy, not democracy. That was deliberate.
The EU today keeps his vision intact. He would be very happy with its ability to resist public influence via the medium of elected politicians functioning en bloc. Elected politicians functioning as a national bloc cannot alter the EU, which precisely matches M. Monnet's vision.
You're obviously in favour of his vision, which is fair enough. Personally, I prefer working towards democracy, not bureaucracy. The EU cannot ever convert itself to democracy, because democracy was precisely what it was invented to avoid.
Read some history books before 23rd of June please.
"Being "dictacted" to by Brussels is laughable when you realise that it's each Member State's government ministers that decide which EU laws and regulations get adopted"
I think it's in the British nature to distill everything down to "Them and Us". In the case of the EU, there seems to be this vague idea that the UK stands alone against the huge faceless mass of Brussels Bureaucracy, whose only function in life is to give good old Blighty a tough time. However there are three things to remember here.
1. Most laws are passed in the EU by unanimous (not majority) decision. All countries (including the UK) have a veto. If one person says No, the vote doesn't go through.
2. All countries are in the same boat, so Germany could also see themselves at the mercy of the rest of the EU, or Belgium, or France.
3. Like all other countries, the EU elects ministers to Brussels, so some of those faceless bureaucrats are our faceless bureaucrats.
"I'd wager the vast majority of people in the "Leave" camp have little to no understanding of how the EU legislative process actually works.
Being "dictacted" to by Brussels is laughable when you realise that it's each Member State's government ministers that decide which EU laws and regulations get adopted"
You need to seriously clue up on how the EU actually works before it's too late friend.
If were down to the national governments that wouldn't be *quite* such a disaster. it isn't. When the directive is passed there is an obligation on the national governments to integrate it into their national law. There is no choice. If there was, what would be the point anyway.
"It is worth remembering that the data protection laws stem from the European Convention on Human Rights which Winston Churchill was heavily involved in devising and drafting. It’s unlikely the UK would even want to abandon data laws upon Brexit"
Would that be the same European Convention on Human Rights that Michael Gove and Theresa May were desperately trying to leave last year? The one that Cameron had to personally overrule them on? The same Cameron who's career is basically finished if he loses the referendum, leaving him likely to be replaced by either Boris Johnson or the same Theresa May...?
Cameron is in trouble whichever way this goes.
If he looses, then there will probably be a vote of no confidence in him due to his inability to seal the deal that he has invested so much in.
If he wins, then there is a real possibility that there will be a large split in the conservative party and if that cannot be reconciled, then there will probably be a vote of no confidence.
In either case, he has a tough job ahead of him.
on the flipside, Boris has a great opportunity to exploit. if Cameron is booted out (for whatever reason) then he can either claim to represent the voice of the people (if we vote to leave) or the voice of the conservative party members who wanted to leave, but were ignored / hard done by / etc if we vote to stay. The conservative party has always been split on this issue and it's something that they have never really got to grips with. Boris knows that and wants the top job.
Personally, i don't really like Cameron, but i give him credit for taking this on and i would rather have him than Boris as PM. I'm fairly certain that Cameron wasn't expecting to win the general election in 2015 quite as conclusively as he did and he might have included this referendum as something to get the vote out in the short term and that he could bargain away to the lib dems if they had to form another coalition. No thaving it would be something else that they could blame on the Lib Dems. Unfortunately for him, they were too good at that last time around meaning that all the current lib dem MPs can get to westminster in a small minibus...
Exactly, and AFAIK, being an EU member prevents the Tories from taking away these rights from us*. For now.
*The ECHR isn't an EU body, but the ECJ is, and this gives 'special significance' to the ECHR, which basically says that ECHR rulings should be obeyed. Withdrawing from the EU would mean withdrawal from the ECJ, and therefore the end of this obligation. An obligation which most people who actually think about it, believe to be a good thing.
To help put in perspective the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the ECHR places not only obligations but protections on its signatories.
If we were to leave the European Court of Human rights (confusingly, also known as the ECHR) without leaving the EU, the ECJ would still be able to impose the restrictions of the ECHR upon us, but without being signatories, we would have no recourse to the convention ourselves.
On the other hand, if we were to leave the EU, we could also leave the ECHR. This would then mean that our citizens would no longer get the protections from it in the UK. We would be relying on our government to provide legislation to re-implement those protections.
I'd recommend everyone go and read the Convention, at least in summary. These are the protections it gives us. Think how our Gov't might subvert one or more of these with their own weasel words:
- Right to life
- Prohibition of torture
- Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Dept of Work and Pensions I'm thinking of you).
- Right to liberty and security
- Right to a fair trial
- No punishment without law
- Right to respect for private and family life
- Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
- Freedom of expression
- Freedom of assembly and association
- Right to marry
- Right to an effective remedy (the right to be heard under the provisions of the ECHR)
- Prohibition of discrimination
- Prohibition of abuse of rights
There are also some provisions to restrict or reduce these rights in time of emergency, etc. in article 15, and to restrict the political rights of aliens in article 16.
What the hell are you on about?
We had plenty of those in your list BEFORE we joined the EU.. heck before most of europe for a couple.
You're falling for the scare mongering that says our country is so weak and badly led that it wont be able to exist with big mommy EU holding our hand.
@Boris - Have you been watching our government recently? Do you honestly think that they wouldn't try to take away several of those if they could?
Yes, we had freedoms before the ECHR. We had a big part in writing it to make sure everyone else gets those freedoms too. Being a signatory to the ECHR means we get to keep those freedoms even when our own government tries to remove them.
Might I remind you at this point, that the government we have now bears little resemblance to the post-war ones that drafted the ECHR. Our current government is on the record as stating that they wish to withdraw from the ECHR and replace it with some nebulous and no doubt poorly worded 'Bill of Rights'. Might I also remind you of the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". If we withdrew from the ECHR, but not from the EU, we would still be subject to the ECJ, which - tada! essentially enforces the ECHR, so in reality withdrawal properly from the ECHR would also require withdrawal from the EU.
Now take a look at those members of the Tory party who are anti-EU, and look at their stance on Human Rights. It doesn't fill me with confidence, and the thought of relying on their good nature for the rights that the whole of Europe (and the rest of the world) had to go through a long a bloody war for doesn't fill me with glee.
In reality, leaving the EU would also mean one of two things regarding all the regulations and trade agreements we inherit from that body:
1) Re-negotiation. How do you think that will go when we try to re-negotiate trade deals with the EU as a whole? What bargaining positions do you think we would have against the rest of the EU? I've not heard a good answer to this from the anti-EU crowd other than "scaremongering", which is the logical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la.
2) Keep the same regulations. Fine, but don't expect to have any influence on them, or their enforcement. "Dictated from Brussels" is exactly the argument given for leaving the EU, but in this scenario, this is what you would get (as opposed to being in the EU and actually having representation in Brussels, assuming your local MEP isn't one of those UKIP ones who takes the money and doesn't bother to sit in the EU assembly. You only have yourself to blame if you cry about lack of representation and then elect someone who has stated that they'll take the seat but not represent you.)
Nobody is claiming the European system is perfect - no political system is, but as the saying goes, "It's better to be on the train pissing out, than on the platform pissing in". Resorting to rhetoric, accusations of scaremongering* and name-calling doesn't strengthen the argument for standing on the platform getting wet.
*The only actual scaremongering I've heard is the anti-immigration stuff we've heard for years about immigrants coming here and taking our jobs. I've never met anyone who has lost their job to an immigrant, but oddly enough I have met plenty of hard-working individuals from Europe (and other parts of the world), who make a net contribution to the British economy. We see large numbers quoted in the right-wing press (I think we all know which publication I'm talking about here) in big headlines exactly designed to scare people. In reality, most immigration is a positive influence on national productivity, and pushes up standards of living.
The main problem with the ECHR is that it is drafted from a completely different tradition of law at odds with our own.
We start off with the assumption that you a free to do anything, but those things that are restricted by law.
The ECHR was written for restrictive contentinal systems of law largely written by an emperor who conquered the majority of europe, and it starts from with the assumption that you have no rights other than those granted by his laws.
The two cannot reasonably co-exist which is why so much of the ECHR is a problem when things that create rights such as "you have the right to a private life" is dropped into UK law where it is assumed that you had those rights.
Frankly, if the politicans were sensible then they'd draft two sets of every law for the differing legal systems. But they don't, and then gaze at the horrific mess it creates in surprise.
The two cannot reasonably co-exist which is why so much of the ECHR is a problem when things that create rights such as "you have the right to a private life" is dropped into UK law where it is assumed that you had those rights.
Why is that a problem? At worst, it has no effect. That's not the case, however, because it does have an effect: It prevents our government from passing a law that takes away the right to a private life. Maybe this is why Ms May wants out of the EU?
The Conservatives aren't to be trusted, but that's no argument for remaining in the EU.
You haven't elected the Commission, nor have you given them a policy of remaining a signatory to the ECHR. Nor can you. It's impossible.
The people you are trusting to safeguard this are not able to receive a mandate from you.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
