Interesting fact: fear of immigration has evaporated after Brexit, despite that immigration to UK has increased. Maybe the Brexiters finally sleep well knowing that "they have control over their borders" or maybe the the media campaign of fear mongering died off.[0]
I'm very sorry that UK citizens lost their EU citizenship, British are part of Europe and have a huge positive impact. I'm sorry that you will need to pay fees, fill forms, get employment rejections due to non-meritocratic reasons like paperwork and visa.
Putting the government as the first line in the human resources is just beyond me. Feels like we are treated like cattle and persons need to prove worthiness to work and stay with us to the bureaucrats. It's not even the rules of immigration, which might make sense in certain situation but the act of working through the process itself is dehumanising. It's not enough to find a job that pays above certain amount or considered in demand, you need to spend money and time to expose yourself to someone who doesn't know you and has no business in your dealings and hope that they find you worthy.
Meaning British citizens are officially not EU citizens anymore. (barring dual citizens)
Yeah, no one likes a vote not turning out in their favour (in case it isn't obvious I voted to remain) but this feels a lot more life changing to me (a 27 year old) because I still have a lot of my life ahead of me.
Look, I left the UK 33 years ago, and am a dual citizen of the UK & US. I would never think of voting or in any way participating in regular UK politics - I left, my choice, that's over with.
But Brexit was different. It directly affected my rights as a citizen, to travel and work and live freely within the EU, and Cameron's fuck up and lies took that away from me (and my daughter) without my ability to vote on it.
I can't say for sure, but there are supposedly about 5.5M expat Brits. How many of them are over the 15 year limit for voting I don't know but I would guess that there are enough that it could have made a difference to the vote. I would also guess that an overwhelming of those (excluding the idiots on the Costa del Sol) would have voted against Brexit.
Many of the current ills in the UK are directly or indirectly caused by Brexit, from labour shortages to increased haulage costs leading to a trade deficit and rising food prices. The whole thing has just been an obvious disaster. Specifically, the Office of Budget Responsibility [1] "estimates that our GDP will be 4 per cent lower than it otherwise would be because of Brexit (even without any further deterioration in the UK/EU relationship) and Brexit disruption to supply chains has already contributed to 6 per cent higher food prices". Using the most recent figure for national GDP from the Office for National Statistics [2] of £616.870 b, that's a cost of ~£2.5 bn. Nothing in comparison to the £4bn that the Tories have spent on broken PPE that they propose to burn to generate power [3] but still, a hell of a lot.
I will probably vote labour at the next election. It angers me deeply that they aren't campaigning about rejoining the EU – but were I to vote for the lib dems, who are, I fear a Tory would get in. I feel deeply that now, EVERYTHING IS WORSE FOR NO PURPOSE. Why! It's an absolute head-meet-desk (or foot-meet-gun) moment and it just seems to have been...accepted. The Union is breaking apart, we are stuck with an incompetent government by even its own piss-poor standards, with no democratic recourse and no option for undoing the damage done. Urgh. No wonder I've essentially decided to emigrate (to Europe).
[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/05/the-economic-co... [2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp [3] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/10/4bn-of-nhs-c...
The consequences of the vote were clear 6 years back. The problem is since then, there have been endless attempts to deliver a different outcome. To muddy the waters and suggest that actually what people really wanted was prize A, B, or C.
We left the EU and articles like this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Being a part of the EU was the wrong call for the UK, in my opinion.
Brexit implementation was painful like a bandaid, but in the long term you will benefit from this.
The price you'll need to pay is just worse economy for a decade or two, and more difficult travel/work etc, but you will have more freedom as an independent nation. That has real value.
The only recourse here would be for UK citizens to apply for European citizenship in a member state of their choice, but that's a long, complicated process, not dissimilar to the process of becoming a recognised UK citizen. It's also incredibly difficult if you're not highly-skilled, already living abroad and/or have access to exchange programs that offer a way in, such as access to education.
For the person in question, this should be easy: France requires that you've lived there for five years, have knowledge of France and speak French, something I'd expect should be quite doable if you've lived there for fifteen years. The UK allows for double citizenship, so I think there's an easy way out for people in such situations without giving up any rights in the home country, much easier than for most people who come to France from outside the EU.
I'll never give up on the European Project personally, and it makes me deeply sad to cross the border and not have the Union Citizenship I always cherished. If it had been an option due to my ancestry, I would have gotten an alternative EU passport (as many if not most of my friends have). Brexit has made it infinitely more difficult to bring my fiancee into the country (in a bygone era we would have just Surinder Singh-ed as it's next to impossible for self-employed people to reunite with family in the UK), and has deeply degraded democracy in the UK (see proroguing parliament).
Realistic countries need to process citizenship for former EU citizens who have been living in their country for long enough to achieve citizenship.
In the UK any resident can vote in municipal elections - there is no citizenship requirement.
Of course that's a bit beside the point in the case though. I guess that option is only open to EU citizens. I find that odd, but I guess that's the law.
- omg! so unfair
I am not a lawyer, nor do I know more details, but I would guess it should not change anything for you, as your slovakian citizenship should suffice.
[edit] first version was missing a crucial „Not“
As Slovakia is a member state of the EU, this will not itself directly affect you.
The question that arose after Brexit was, whether British citizens would possibly retain this citizenship, which could have meant that they would retain the rights that come with it as well. There are different arguments why British citizens might have kept this EU citizenship, for example it might be argued that the withdrawal of a _state_ from the Union can not mean that _individuals_ loose their rights or it could be argued that such a loss of rights would be disproportionate.
The CJEU has now interpreted the treaties in such a way that the withdrawal does indeed mean that individuals loose their EU citizenship, arguing that "the authors of the Treaties thus established an inseparable and exclusive link between possession of the nationality of a Member State and not only the acquisition, but also the retention, of the status of citizen of the Union".
So this ruling might have had a big effect if the CJEU decided in a different way. The way they decided now, everything stays the same. If you are in possession of another EU member states citizenship (Slovakia) this will not change anything for you, you will remain an EU citizen.
[1] Technically many of those rights were already in the treaties before the introduction of the EU citizenship, so it is a bit "declaratory" in nature.
Long story short, EU citizens have certain rights in some member states. When the UK left, UK citizens are no longer entitled to any rights given to "EU citizens" in their country of residence.
In Sweden "Settled" people can only vote for local governments, not for the Riksdag (Parliament).. that privilege is for citizens only, for example.
But, it's hardly "weird" that British people do not have EU citizenship automatically anymore, EU citizenship is granted on top of your normal citizenship if your country is a member of the EU, which the UK no longer is.
The same mechanism that turned Brits to EU citizens in the 70s is the same process by which those rights are no longer applicable to British citizens today, what did people think they were voting for?
Surely this is Hardly "news", or maybe I'm too optimistic about how much people understand about the politics of the world around them.
I would expect expats to know more than the usual uninformed (or misinformed) British citizen living domestically.
Brexiters did, indeed, in general, think they were voting to strip the rest of us of our rights, and they succeeded in doing so - they thought that this was worth "protecting us from Brussels" or preventing immigration or that it would mean £350 million a week to the NHS or whatever else.
This court case (and a handful of similar ones) was a last-ditch attempt of people stripped of their rights to keep them.
Therein lies the crux of the problem - nobody knew exactly what a vote for Brexit would mean, beyond somehow leaving the EU and "sending Johnny Foreigner back".
Many politicians and the tabloid media spread many dubious claims, and plenty outright lies, about the purported benefits of Brexit. For example, fisherman were made to believe French and Spanish boats would no longer fish in their waters - which never came true. This particular one example is a good one, because it demonstrates well that this group, who rely on cheap foreign labour, didn't know what they were voting for.
I’m not sure that’s trivially obvious. The process of joining the EU is complex and extremely well documented and understood.
The process of leaving is a couple paragraphs with zero specifics.
Ultimately the question boiled down to, having been granted EU citizenship, on what basis was that citizenship revoked? If EU citizenship is just an extension of your national citizenship to an EU member, then reason for loss is clear.
But if your EU citizenship is distinct and additional to your national citizenship, then what basis was it revoked, and what gave the revoking entity the right to strip a person of their EU citizenship?
Clearly the courts strong believe that EU citizenship is directly tied to your citizenship of an EU member. But until the ruling was made, that answer wasn’t absolutely clear, and why shouldn't UK citizens make a Hail Mary attempt at preserving their EU citizenship? The down side of bringing the case and loosing is a lose of time and money, but winning would fundamentally change many peoples relationship with the EU.
In the UK the rules are the same as Sweden where any resident can vote. But it seems many countries have citizenship requirements even for the municipal elections.
Edit: Bit surprised at some of these responses. You absolutely can use the word “European” to mean “a participant in the political project that is Europe”. This has nothing to do with ethnicity.
Welcome to the not-so-united Kingdom of England and Wales. The Queen will die along with her Kingdom as a symbolic cherry on the cake.
2) The EU is not Europe. Leaving the EU did not stop British citizens from being European.
It's stunning to watch videos of Britons confused about why they've lost certain privileges, only a short while after voting to leave the place that gave them those privileges. It's like canceling your gym membership because it's too expensive, then wanting to fight the manager because they won't let you work out there anymore. I have so much sympathy for those that knew what Brexit meant, tried to fight it, and lost the vote.
I've been mentally comparing this to the 2016 US election where an (electoral) majority got Trump elected as President. But we still have large swathes of the US population that were VERY happy with all 4 years of his presidency. I'm curious how many Britons in 2016 were similarly as vocal for their support of the referendum, and are still just as happy today with the results.
Have you consided that some of the people who are confused about this DID NOT VOTE TO LEAVE? That they are confused because nobody explained, or could explain, at the time of the Brexit, that these wouldbe the consequences? The Leave campaign was (at best) disingenous about the consequences; the Remain campaign could not predict all the consequences because that would require an actual deal to analyze.
It's nearly six years since the referendum - who exactly is surprised by this "development"?