Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Of course lots of Ex Pats (AKA migrants, immigrants to European Countries or Emigrants from the UK) are going to want to vote to stay in. Voting out could potentially screw up their lives. Seems totally fair.
Though I know a few british living in Germany who are just applying for German citizenship instead and abandoning their british citizenship.

 Da Boss wrote:
Of course lots of Ex Pats (AKA migrants, immigrants to European Countries or Emigrants from the UK) are going to want to vote to stay in. Voting out could potentially screw up their lives. Seems totally fair.
Though I know a few british living in Germany who are just applying for German citizenship instead and abandoning their british citizenship.

As I mentioned earlier, a Romanian guy at my church is doing the same.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 notprop wrote:
How peculiar?

Have you considered moving South?

Move South?

Never! Never! A thousand times never!

Aren't you Scottish?

Technically, I'm North British, but that's an argument for another day

Anyway, back OT.

I wanted to post some polling on the referendum so far, and here's some from the scot goes pop politics blog. It's a pro-Scottish independence blog, but it does do a lot of good polling anaylysis on other issues, such as the EU referendum.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/

Anyway, here is their poll of polls for EU referendum voting intentions, and although IN has the lead, it's going to be a pretty close result in June, if things stay the way they are.

SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

50/50 ONLINE/TELEPHONE AVERAGE :

Remain 45.8% (-0.1)
Leave 39.7% (+1.1)

ONLINE AVERAGE :

Remain 41.2% (+0.3)
Leave 40.0% (+0.2)

TELEPHONE AVERAGE :

Remain 50.3% (-0.5)
Leave 39.3% (+2.0)

(The Poll of Polls takes account of all polls that were conducted at least partly within the last month. The online average is based on ten polls - five from YouGov, three from ICM, one from ORB and one from BMG. The telephone average is based on four polls - one from ComRes, one from Ipsos-Mori, one from ORB and one from Survation.)

Pretty interesting. Is that general polling or just for scotland? Because it contradicts some of the other polls I've seen a bit. But not by much.

 Da Boss wrote:
Pretty interesting. Is that general polling or just for scotland? Because it contradicts some of the other polls I've seen a bit. But not by much.

Yeah, good point. I'm pretty sure that they're polls conducted in Scotland, but they might be drawn from the rest of the UK.

Another good source of polling is Lord Ashcroft. If you overlook the fact that Ashcroft is a Tory peer, his commissioned polls are a very useful source, as their sample size can often be up to 10,000 people. Most polls only do 1000 people.

Professor John Curtice's blog is another good poll source. Curtice is one of the UK's polling experts, in case you didn't know.

To clear up the point i was making;

I went on to the 'register to vote' thing on the governments website and was very surprised to find that someone who now lives abroad can still vote on domestic politics. i find that weird since it shouldn't affect them and my memories of the topic was that you lost your right to vote after 15 years of living abroad. Apparently this changed very recently.
The way it stands now, I'm cool with foreign nationals who live within the uk having a vote because it directly affects them, but always having a vote no matter where you live or how long it's been? Suspect.

The article i came across stated that there was a surprisingly large amount of ex-pats in Spain registering to vote since the referendum was announced - i saw this as being:

1. people who would like to not bother with passports when they want to convince family to come see them and see European union passports as an inevitable part of EU membership

2. people who see the potential for a beurecratic divide as another barrier for them to see friends/family.

and 3. gang members hiding out in Spain not wanting British police and interpol to have an official link-up.


A little angst-y i know, but after what my family said about how scotland was definitely going independent, and my community's confidence that the conservatives would never get elected again, i get concerned when there is a "clear majority" and then i see strange things like that previous article - just the type of thing that gets talked about in surprised tones after the vote.
The conservative party is even highlighting the fact ex-pats can register for the referendum vote using their websites...
http://www.conservativesabroad.org/campaigns/register-vote-eu-referendum

I suppose i have this opinion because i believe that if you move to a different country to live and work you are entitled to a vote in the politics and laws that affect you there, not the place you moved from - you left that place and your mark on it behind.

Sorry if that offends you, but i'm a bit pragmatic like that.


This seems relevant - lawyers for ex-pats claimed that excluding them from the referendum based on (then) current legislation "penalised them for exercising their EU free movement rights"
http://votes-for-expat-brits-blog.com/

That irks me - "i want to overturn existing rules because of my EU rights". And our judges actually listened to them.

Oh I agree. If you've decided to emigrate permanently and have been resident in a differently country long term you really ought to apply for citizenship. You should learn the language too and make an effort to integrate. That goes for immigrants to Britain as well as British ex pats.

Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?

That aside, we are talking about a very small community of people. Hardly enough to make a huge difference either way.

There will always be people with a vested interest no matter what the vote is about, you can't legislate them out, if you could, then for a start we may see a few less tory governments as we ban the over 65s from voting because of their protected pension rights.

 r_squared wrote:
Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?

Funnily enough, that wasn't enough to let Scottish people living outside Scotland vote in their referendum.

I'm still kinda grumpy about that, by the way...

 r_squared wrote:
Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?

That aside, we are talking about a very small community of people. Hardly enough to make a huge difference either way.

There will always be people with a vested interest no matter what the vote is about, you can't legislate them out, if you could, then for a start we may see a few less tory governments as we ban the over 65s from voting because of their protected pension rights.

I don't think that you can strip someone of citizenship can you? maybe if you seek citizenship with an enemy nation? It's a bit weird to me that someone would live in a country for over 15 years and not sought citizenship there.
I don't think financial arrangements matter that much now - you just pay tax where you are rather than UK taxes as far as i am aware.

I hope i'm barking up the wrong tree and the ex-pats want the UK out too.

This place says that the world bank says that there are between 4.5 and 5.5 million britons living overseas.
https://www.statslife.org.uk/social-sciences/1910-how-many-british-immigrants-are-there-in-other-people-s-countries

I reckon emigrants should retain their voting rights for a while. 15 years seems pretty fair to me. The Irish government denies the right to vote pretty much immediately (after 6 months, but that's effectively immediate given electoral cycles, and you have to physically travel home in that time frame). I think that's wrong.The way the UK does it has always seemed much fairer and pro-citizen to me.

I wasn't aware they'd changed the rules to make it indefinite though - that is interesting. I don't think it should be indefinite and 15 years seems like long enough. It can take up to 8 years to get citizenship, and it may not be automatic, so giving a generous allocation seems like the right thing to do, to me. I'm an immigrant though, so I guess I am biased.

Surprised scots outside of scotland didn't get a vote on independence. That is wrong. Democracy should be inclusive, and independence would have been a serious thing for those Scots.

I'm pretty sure that the 15 year limit still stands because there was an article last week about it being challenged for this referendum.

 r_squared wrote:
Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.

Actually being able to claim your state pension (and private pension for that matter) that you have earned after you leave the UK has nothing at all to do with being in the EU. It happened long before the EU even existed and we pay out to everyone who emigrated even if they emigrated to a non EU country.

 SirDonlad wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?

That aside, we are talking about a very small community of people. Hardly enough to make a huge difference either way.

There will always be people with a vested interest no matter what the vote is about, you can't legislate them out, if you could, then for a start we may see a few less tory governments as we ban the over 65s from voting because of their protected pension rights.

I don't think that you can strip someone of citizenship can you? maybe if you seek citizenship with an enemy nation? It's a bit weird to me that someone would live in a country for over 15 years and not sought citizenship there.
I don't think financial arrangements matter that much now - you just pay tax where you are rather than UK taxes as far as i am aware.

I hope i'm barking up the wrong tree and the ex-pats want the UK out too.

This place says that the world bank says that there are between 4.5 and 5.5 million britons living overseas.
https://www.statslife.org.uk/social-sciences/1910-how-many-british-immigrants-are-there-in-other-people-s-countries

That is an interesting link, particularly at the end...

Changing attitudes in the immigration debate is a monumental uphill battle when you consider how far perception is from reality. As part of a survey the RSS commissioned from Ipsos MORI last year, people were asked what percentage of the British population they thought were immigrants? The collective answer was 31%. The actual figure is 13%.

Even more confusing, another poll from Comres asked if all citizens of other EU countries should have the right to live and work in the UK? Only 36% agreed, against 46% who disagreed.

The pollsters then asked a different question, should British people be free to live and work anywhere in the EU? This time 52% agreed with only 26% disagreeing. It seems the British want to have their gâteau and eat it.

If there are 5 million British living abroad, a fair chunk of them appear to be in Australia, but I would surmise that of those who are living and working in a fellow EU nation, their insight might be quite useful. Especially if you consider the hobbit hole mentality of some resident members of the UK. ;-)
It was a shame about Scotland, I imagine that this precedent will extend to their next referendum.

That seems to imply that those who want out want an end to immigration, which my own experience is not the case. Immigration between the countries of Europe existed before the EU, and it’ll continue long after we vote to leave the EU (assuming we do). The difference? The countries (both the UK and of the EU) will be free to choose who they want in, rather than accepting anyone who shows up on your doorstep- regardless of if they will benefit your country or not.

Now to challenge the concept that appear to have been arrived at that everyone from outside the UK will vote to stay in.

I’ve got a few friends who live in Spain – they have integrated, pay their own way (they all have decent pensions) pay their taxes and have learnt to speak Spanish so they can get on with the locals. These people are voting OUT of the EU, as they are fed up of seeing a bunch of Brits arrive in Spain who refuse to integrate, claim everything they can, avoid as many taxes as possible and expect everyone to fit around them.

The argument being that my friends can be fairly confident in the event of an EU exit that they will be allowed to remain in Spain, whilst those who may be asked to leave are the ‘undesirables’. Thus I wouldn’t be so quick to judge that those who are outside the UK and requesting the right to vote will all be voting to stay in – my sample may be quite small (5 friends living in the EU) but 80% of them will be voting out from what they tell me.

Stranger83 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.

Actually being able to claim your state pension (and private pension for that matter) that you have earned after you leave the UK has nothing at all to do with being in the EU. It happened long before the EU even existed and we pay out to everyone who emigrated even if they emigrated to a non EU country.

That's true. You can be living on the Moon, and you'll still be able to claim your British pension.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?

Funnily enough, that wasn't enough to let Scottish people living outside Scotland vote in their referendum.

Everybody agreed that using the current electoral roll was the fairest and most practical solution at the time.

@Stranger83: Thats good to hear - I hope my apprehensions turn out to be unfounded.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Asking us to pay the same fees for access to the single market as (for instance) Norway is a realistic consequence.

Sorry to bring up this old post (and I know you were actually trying to make a different point), but just getting up to date with this thread and seen this and wanted to point out why it is just plain wrong and as it seems to be one of the key arguments of the 'remain' side it's always good to show how their logic is wrong.

The EU is only the worlds largest trading block only if you include the value trade produced by the UK – if the UK were to leave the EU then the USA would overtake the EU as the worlds largest trading block, so if we were to leave and strike a better trade deal with the USA than we currently have this would be better for us than remaining in the EU. As a note I’m not saying we definitely will get a better trade deal than currently, just that it is a possibility, since nobody knows what will happen either if we leave OR if we stay in (which could suffer just as much as voting out) the only thing we can do is point out various possibilities.

With regards to getting a deal with the EU and the concept that ‘we’d have to deal like Norway does’ – this is unlikely, outside the EU we would be the 5th largest trading block in the world, making a deal with the second largest trading block in the world (see above why second). This would be an entirely different negotiating position to a trading block not in the top ten (I’d like to say where Norway are, but the top ten are the only lists I can find) to the largest trading block in the world (which the EU currently is).

The EU has in the past made concessions to it’s rules to get trading deals with large trading blocks, and there is no reason to believe that they would not do so if the UK were to leave also.

The entire argument from the pro side on the risk to trade of an exit is based on comparing an apple to an orange, which they can do all they want but I’d like to think the majority people can see through it. Far better countries to look at would be Japan and South Korea – as the UK would slot in between these two country on the scale of world trade in the event of leaving. In the case of South Korea the EU has a free trade agreement already in place, in the case of Japan negotiations are well advanced. Now I have not done an extensive investigation into what the trade deals the EU has with both these countries entails, but one thing that is evident is that they do NOT require the countries to follow all the EU rules (like the Norway deal does) – this is therefore a better example of what the UK should expect if we vote to leave, and not the 'Norway solution' that we keep getting told is all we could have.

I would point out that the US seems to be advocating for us to remain in the EU, so I doubt that us leaving would suddenly mean that we would get better trade terms with the US. There is still, after all, an ocean between us.

Oh I agree, hence why I said I'm not saying that we will get a better deal - just that it is a possibility, particularly considering that there will be a change in leadership in the US by the time we actually leave the EU.

Though the ocean doesn't mean much from an economic point of view any more, there is an ocean between the EU and South Korea - but they still have a free trade agreement. It's a global economy after all.

Despite what it might look like on my last few posts I'm not actually decided on if I'm in or out myself yet, I'm just trying to point out the flaws in the remain argument. A lot of what they say just doesn't add up ('Norway like deal', 'ex-pats forced to come home', etc) and it makes me worried that they have decided to use these arguments to convince us to remain than to give us the actual benefits of the EU.

As an example of something that definitely ‘could’ happen to get us a better deal with the USA.

Let’s assume Donald Trump wins (and I don’t want to pull this onto a USA election thread so let’s accept it is a possibility), Trump has already stated he wants to see a European country take a larger role of NATO. The UK is part of NATO and could take part of the £4BN pound NET saving made from leaving the EU to increase our NATO spending and take more of a driving seat position, if we agreed to do this in exchange for a better trading deal can anyone say for sure that the USA under Trump would say no?

Again, this is just a simple example – real trade deals are very complex negotiations, but we cannot be sure that we wouldn’t get a better deal, as we don’t know what is on the table. And what isn’t.

(edited to add the example)

Stranger83 wrote:
Oh I agree, hence why I said I'm not saying that we will get a better deal - just that it is a possibility, particularly considering that there will be a change in leadership in the US by the time we actually leave the EU.

Though the ocean doesn't mean much from an economic point of view any more, there is an ocean between the EU and South Korea - but they still have a free trade agreement. It's a global economy after all.

Despite what it might look like on my last few posts I'm not actually decided on if I'm in or out myself yet, I'm just trying to point out the flaws in the remain argument. A lot of what they say just doesn't add up ('Norway like deal', 'ex-pats forced to come home', etc) and it makes me worried that they have decided to use these arguments to convince us to remain than to give us the actual benefits of the EU.

Even in a globalized economy most trade is inherently local. In or out of the EU, most trade for the UK will still occur with the rest of Europe. Distance, time zones, regulation differences, transport costs, they all limit intercontinental trade.

Trade yes - trade agreements no. We are talking about the trade agreements, not the amount of trade.

Distance is of cause relevant to trade - transport has a cost so the shorter distance you transport something the cheaper the cost, but it isn't the only factor.

And of cause even trade is less of a problem than it used to be. Look at how much China sells to the USA but it's hard to find countries that are further apart.

Another intesting find this one about economics worth the read to the end

http://www.cityam.com/237301/the-cbi-has-admitted-defeat-and-the-economic-case-against-brexit-is-collapsing

Hmmm, not terribly convincing. He talks about companies investing in the UK, but they are doing so whilst we are currently in the EU, and will remain so for the next 2 years minimum regardless of the poll results.
I'm not sure how that is an argument for Leave?

It just reads, as I would expect it to read, from the co-founder of Leave.EU

If you want to leave the EU, you'll nod your head in agreement, if you're against, you'll disagree vehemently.

The problem with the article is that it's broad and sweeping. Many of it's points need some sort of verification and source material, for example, his statement that the US are choosing the UK over the Azores as a centre for Intelligence probably refers to RAF Croughton
According to the Wall Street Journal there are a number of reasons, financial and logistical that Croughton is being selected over Lajes, none of which have anything to do with membership of the EU, or security.
Wall Street Journal.

I said intresting not a difinitive study. Its still extra info for the debate.

It can only be information if it's verifiable, otherwise you're heading into Anecdote and opinion territory.
Anecdotes and opinions might be interesting to the person relating the anecdote or opinion, and people who agree with them, but they are weak material in a debate, unless they are backed up with evidence or verifiable sources.
Unfortunately I don't have time to go through the rest of the article in order to try and find his sources and test the veracity of his claims. I'm sure he makes some convincing points, but TBH, I'm not convinced by his partisan bias without some serious back up to his claims.

Yep, a lot in that that doesn't add up (where has he got £12bn as the cost of the EU from?) However what we cannot deny is that a report commissioned by an 'IN' organisation (so no doubt using scenarios they set up) has been decided by PwC, one of the most respected financial organisations in the world, that the UK would be better off out of the EU.

Add that to the fact that Moodys yesterday said that the risk to our credit rating of leaving is 'small' then it really is starting to look like the IN crowd are losing the economic debate, and that must worry them as that is the battlefield they thought was easiest to win and that they have built their campaign in so far.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35862774

Latest poll makes for interesting reading. I wonder what effect the Brussels attacks will have on the vote in June?

Sample size 1003. Undecideds not included.

EU referendum poll:
Remain: 41% (-2)
Leave: 43% (+2)
(via ICM / 18 - 20 Mar)

I saw a painful interview on CH4 news last night where Peter Spiegel (the FT's Brussels man) a Belgium Journalist, whose name escapes me but she has an unfortunate grin on her face considering she was standing at the scene of a bomb blast!

Anyway I found what they were saying quite shocking. The gist of PS's comments were that the Belgium's had been slow off the mark, deliberately so to save money, in dealing with both immigration, internal security and defence spending; only starting to do anything just prior to the Paris atrocities.

I was surprised at this as Brussels is the de facto home of the EU and that so little had been done to protect the core of the EU project and more importantly the citizens there. All of the participants quite blasé about the prospect of attacks.

What was said next I found particularly shocking. The Belgium Journalist stated that Islamist elements were known to be present in Brussels/Moenbeek and in numbers but were not seen as an issue as Belgium was not thought to be a target for terrorism.

This is supposed to be the heart of the EU. Their inaction on this threat from within borders on complicity to me. They have sat on their hands for years allowing the situation to fester at the heart of the EU.

This seems all to prophetic to me. How could anyone want to be part of this shambles?