UK votes on June 23 to stay in the EU.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Actually there was no difference between UK citizens in the UK and those in the colonies way back then.  Everyone was absolutely equally British.  Thatcher brought in BNO because of the handback of HK to China and there was a fear that millions would flee to the UK.

This is a very interesting issue. Thatcher did, and Cameron does, represent the Conservative Party (UK), and it seems to me to both want(ed) a "unequal" status for then some UK citizens, or today EU citizens.

Am I wrong? If I am, why?

If I am right, how do you envision the UK in EU as a "special case"? And can the EU survive with all the other "special cases" that will surely then arise from this precedence (if it is a precedence) and demand special case status? (Not least of which what may happen here in Hungary).

(P.S. So far everyone, and to all, a great discussion!)

klsallee wrote:

anns wrote:

You can't compare the UK to the US in any respect .

Of course one can compare*. 
......

According to Wikipedia, rankings on average population density are:

Bangladesh: 12 (I've been there several times and incredibly packed)

Netherlands: 30 (quite dense)

UK: 53 (not particularly populated)

Hungary: 102 (relatively empty)

USA:179 (sparse)

Unsurprisingly, all the top density ones (1, 2, 3 etc) are microstates, islands etc.   See here: Population Density @ Wikipedia

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

anns wrote:

You can't compare the UK to the US in any respect .

Of course one can compare*. 
......

According to Wikipedia, rankings on average population density are:

Sure, you are correct. But those are also national figures. But most people live in urban areas, so if one want to compare what is "human/socially" relevant to what most people experience one must adjust the data one uses. That was just my point. That is, comparisons must be weighted to their relevance, else they are just lies, damn lies and statistics...... 

klsallee wrote:

....both want(ed) a "unequal" status for then some UK citizens, or today EU citizens.

Am I wrong? If I am, why?

If I am right, how do you envision the UK in EU as a "special case"? And can the EU survive with all the other "special cases" that will surely then arise from this precedence (if it is a precedence) and demand special case status? ....

Actually that's a great point. 

I am not sure they are interelated though or even a replay or parallel in history.  No-one anticipated the internal EU migration would build up in the way it has.  But that what was wanted - to flatten out the differences between countries and thereby avoid more wars. There was a 7 year transition period on labour movements post-2004 when HU etc joined the EU so they (Government in UK) all knew what they were into.  That was the same for HU, SK, PL etc.  Austria in particular wanted this labour restriction as they are far more xenophobic than the UK.

But it's all really a storm in a teacup perhaps being used to divert attention from other goings on.  People are not really that bothered about immigration from Eastern Europe at all.  UK has always had a history of migration and has absorbed large numbers of people over the years without the sky falling in.  Some folks are just stirring it up artificially.

I guess most people are against the EU because of its perceived micro management/interference whereas it was supposed to be just a trade agreement.

So UK is at odds with the EU and in that respect, it is a special case.

klsallee wrote:

....But most people live in urban areas, so if one want to compare what is "human/socially" relevant to what most people experience one must adjust the data one uses. That was just my point. That is, comparisons must be weighted to their relevance, else they are just lies, damn lies and statistics...... 

Yes of course one could have urban specific densities but which one? capital cities?  If one took, Naypyitaw or Canberra and compared it to say, Mexico City or Tokyo, the numbers would be quite different.   One can flatten it out by averaging.  Governments could force people to spread out more.

fluffy2560 wrote:

[
Actually there was no difference between UK citizens in the UK and those in the colonies way back then.  Everyone was absolutely equally British.  Thatcher brought in BNO because of the handback of HK to China and there was a fear that millions would flee to the UK..

Except the  Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 removed the right of abode in the UK from HK citizens.
The misunderstanding of history is common because some political factions in the 1980s made a lot of propaganda out of the lie, and many people believed them without checking facts first
That isn't to say the later law didn't make changes to status, but it didn't remove the automatic right to live in the UK as that had already gone.

British citizens have full voting rights on the Euro question, so there's little point in following this path.

We still have allot of room out in the US desert if anyone wants to give that a go.
Really the entire world is getting more crowded or so it seems,
People all want to live in just certain areas and move away from rural places.
I personally would like to see all gov. working to improve the lives of people world wide, going green etc. all working together to improve the lives of people in dry remote places, reducing smog  the whole bit. Until we stop spending so much on military and war this is a pipe dream.
I think I noticed the US gov.. spends over 56% of it's tax dollars on the military, just think how much good we could do with that much money being used to help people.
If everyone was happy where they lived no one would be a refugee and people could use their talents for better things then fighting.
I really don't think most people want to move away from their countries, have to change their way of life etc. they just give up n gov. that are against their own citizens.
Sorry, Hippie rant.
We traveled to Belize in 1995, formerly British Honduras, liked it very colonial style a bit sad though to see some of the forest areas all uprooted, all the stripping of lands. Belize city at that time still had open sewers human waste was being pumped into the ocean within Belize city limits, no one could swim or fish in that area. Won't even write about the smells...
Was I admit a bit angry at the UK for leaving the place in such a state. I am sure though that the US has also left countries in waste and ruin, hard to express how it was unless one sees it first hand.

Fred wrote:

British citizens have full voting rights on the Euro question, so there's little point in following this path.

No they don't. 

The criteria is the same as UK general elections. If you've been out of the UK for more than 15 years, you do not have the right to vote except in special circumstances.

Check out the BNO definition.  That's basically HK.   Whatever went before was superseded. It could be termed British Citizen "lite".   They do not have the right of abode in the UK.  So that's already about 3.6M people in HK who cannot have their say.

Wow that's not cool at all.
I do not vote but it's nice to know I have the right to if I chose to.
My mother's people were Mohawk Indian from Conn.
They didn't have the right to vote until sometime around the 1920's or 30's, have to look up the exact time line.
So unfair considering it had been "their" country, although natives really didn't believe in land ownership of one person, more of a community land use for their own nations.
I know the US constitution was loosely based on the 6 Nations,  ( Iroquois, later known as the 5 nations)
they left out the part about women  having rights until the 1920's.
Also the Mohawk sided with the British during the American revolution, lost their lands because of it, had to high tail it up into Canada.
Looked up the year the Native Americans gained US citizenship, 1924, the same year my mom was born in funny enough.

Brits will moan and groan but not many will turn out to actually vote. They could make it compulsory to vote  like in other countries. I predict they will vote for us to stay in . It could be a slim majority but people are afraid of major change.

This is a very interesting issue. Thatcher did, and Cameron does, represent the Conservative Party (UK), and it seems to me to both want(ed) a "unequal" status for then some UK citizens, or today EU citizens.

Am I wrong? If I am, why?

You aren't wrong, but you and others seems to be missing a point - Few the people you're looking at were born in the UK, are British by family, or have even visited the UK.
They used to be citizens because Britain ran their countries, but that is no longer the case.
Should they decide to return to British rule, I'm sure the law will be changed to allow them full rights.

However, the whole issue is moot because they don't have such rights, and they won't be getting them any time soon.

Fred wrote:

....However, the whole issue is moot because they don't have such rights, and they won't be getting them any time soon.

It's effectively government policy to allow all 5M British citizens overseas to vote but they probably won't make the changes by 23 June.   The government may even face legal action about it.  The extent of those rights is unclear and how that applies across the British citizen types - presumably those with right of abode or indefinite leave to remain will be able to vote.

See here: Government Minister discusses voting reform for expats

And stop the press, also here:

Expats fight back

Pathetic really anyone overseas lost their rights after 15 years. What were they thinking?

There was a trade off when we joined the EEC members were given the right to reside. Previous commonwealth members lost the right to reside.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Governments could force people to spread out more.

Well, sure, an authoritarian government certainly could.

But a law (human rights, etc. etc. etc.) abiding democracy? 

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Governments could force people to spread out more.

Well, sure, an authoritarian government certainly could.

But a law (human rights, etc. etc. etc.) abiding democracy? 

Well, yes, I think so.   There are times government has to intervene. What about racial or gender discrimination? 

Not trying to point the finger at the USA (and UK was no saint in this regard), we remember the civil rights issues in the South of the USA.

What I really meant was not force (poor choice of words) but should really have said "encourage" movement of government institutions to other parts of the country  and take all the supporting services with them - shops, schools, hospitals.  That can incentives to move to other areas like tax breaks or cheaper land or better transport links, lower energy costs etc etc.  It's an age old method of promoting development.

I may be totally off track here but I believe the world has enough resources to support everyone on the plant, just need to rid ourselves of those who horde it all for their own profit or ego.
There really is a point when one has enough and should share.
How much is enough for some people is hard to say however.
How many dollar signs are enough in one's bank account, how many pairs of shoes can one person actually wear etc.
I am amazed here in the US when I see homeless people near the highway while we are stopped in traffic, so many people, everyday sorts handing out food, money and kind words to these homeless people. Makes me wonder really why they are homeless in the US though when  I notice so many job posting.
In Hungary life is harder for the average citizen and they can hardy fend for themselves, let alone afford to give away resources.
I often see one young man holding a sign that says, "Happiness is a Cheeseburger" people just hand him money.
My husband being a hard worker all his life has to be held back from yelling out to this guy, McDonald's is hiring! All the cheeseburgers he could ever possibly eat for free on his breaks.

It is the homeless, disabled, and poor who especially won't vote in any referendums because they need an address to be on the register. Every society has a proportion of people who are unable to work. Sometimes it is mental capacity.

I have always believed that EU Citizenship was - and is - a deliberate but unfortunate play with words. Certainly, the right of EU 'Citizenship', by right of nationality, entitles a national of an EU country to all the benefits and obligations that come with the combined EU treaties, directives, regulations, etc. However, I don't believe EU 'Citizenship' bears the same inalienable and personal rights as nationality. If you are a national of a country that leaves the EU then you automatically lose EU Citizenship - IMHO. The EU isn't - yet - a country.

Nevertheless, as mentioned elsewhere, The Vienna Convention 1969 appears to guarantee continuation of previously established rights for those affected after withdrawal from a treaty. However, this sounds like a bit of a minefield if we EU expats want to claim continuation of every dot and comma of EU rules after a Brexit. For example, consumer rights and tax rules when buying and selling online between UK and Hungary after a Brexit. Generally, however, I think Hungary has no reason to treat Brit expats here unfavourably after a Brexit. as there will remain a considerable diaspora of Hungarians living in Britain.

Correct !!
I will be voting
Left 4 years ago ....

angol wrote:

I have always believed that EU Citizenship was - and is - a deliberate but unfortunate play with words.

The concept of being an EU citizen was instigated with the Maastricht Treaty. See:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/

and:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizensh … pean_Union

Being an EU Citizen gives EU member state citizens extra rights. And that has even included standardization of many EU nation passports to include "European Union" on them. So, yes, I am not a lawyer, but if a country leaves the EU, I would expect its citizens loose EU citizenship.

And also see:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio … sh/citizen

citizen: a native registered or naturalized member of a state, nation, or other political community

The EU is a political community (e.g. EU Parliament), so from that definition EU citizen works fine. Words have multiple definitions.  But of course not everyone agrees on all their definitions.

Yes, it seems one can be a citizen of any political area. As EU citizenship is supplementary to and dependent on national citizenship, "there is a great variety in rules and practices with regard to the acquisition and loss of citizenship in EU member states" (Dronkers and Vink, 2012). Unfortunately, no chance Hungary would grant us Brit expats Hungarian citizenship and thus EU citizenship, unless/until we meet the national criteria.

I note from the Wikipedia article that the European Court of Justice holds entire responsibility for gradually expanding the meaning of free movement of persons. The original treaty referred only to freedom to take up work across the EU. The Court has progressively interpreted this as meaning freedom for EU citizens to move to any EU state for any reason and broadly receive equal rights and benefits. We expats appear to benefit from this, but I'm not convinced Brits would be banned from moving here for any reason even if UK left the EU.

I notice the Wiki article also states: "...residents of the Danish territory of Greenland who, whilst also outside the EU as a result of the 1984 Greenland Treaty [to leave the EU], do receive EU citizenship as this was not specifically excluded by the terms of that treaty."
I wonder what that does or doesn't entitle them to?