Home » Special EU Status
Category Archives: Special EU Status
Should Theresa May Guarantee the ‘Rights’ of EU Citizens Living in Britain?
by John Brian Shannon | March 6, 2017
Many of Britain’s finest newspaper columnists, editors of some of Britain’s most prestigious publications, and even some British MP’s are calling for Prime Minister Theresa May to ‘guarantee’ the so-called ‘rights’ of EU citizens who live, work and play in the United Kingdom.
This might seem a noble idea at first — however, there is no ‘right’ for anyone to live or work in Britain — other than the rights that have been earned by British citizens. It was Britons who built the great nation we see today and they did it through hard work, determination and innovation. And older British citizens suffered through WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and various social upheavals and recessions to build the modern Britain. Well done, lads and ladies!
Why should similar ‘rights’ be conferred upon the citizens of other countries simply because they work, study or retire in Britain?
Do Britons have those ‘rights’ in the EU or in other countries? Why not?
The answer is; British expats will never be granted similar ‘rights’ to citizens in other countries no matter how long Britons live there. So why does this question keep coming up?
“It would be convenient for EU citizens and companies that EU citizens should be granted similar ‘rights’ to British citizens.”
Well yes, of course it would. And I view statements like that in the same context as;
“I would like a free Aston Martin delivered to my door today — and fresh-baked French bread delivered each morning.”
Righto. Allow me to get right on that.
How many other countries offer such ‘rights’ to the expats in their nations — as is being proposed by some in the UK?
Tourists are a completely different matter of course, and they are welcome anytime for stays up to 90 days. (This should be a standard rule in every country)
Britain’s tourism industry is a thriving enterprise — but it isn’t doing half as well as it might simply because Britons don’t see the attraction of Britain through the lens of foreigners. It’s a truly magnificent country that ranks first on practically every traveler’s bucket list.
Britain’s population of 65 million pales in comparison to Europe’s 439 million (for a pan-European total of 504 million in 2016) and it isn’t like continental Europe is running short of land, unlike the island nation of Britain. So why is London such a draw for EU citizens? Why do so many Europeans want to live in the UK?
Are there really 8 million foreigners in Britain?
According to widely circulated media reports there are 3.3 million EU citizens living in the UK, mostly in London, and without a firm border there’s likely to be double that amount by 2025 if Britain decides to award free (virtual) citizenship to EU citizens. There are many more non-EU nationals living in the United Kingdom but no UK government department knows that number.
Our Government has absolutely no idea how many EU citizens live in the UK but The Migration Observatory reckons it will take 140 years to process the 3.5 million EU citizens presently in the UK who may seek permanent residence.
It’s a privilege, not a right
It’s a privilege for anyone to visit, work, or to retire in Britain — not a right.
If some EU citizens are miffed at that statement, they should know that many Britons will rejoice when they return to their former neighbourhoods (which are presently overpriced because 3.3 million high-spending EU nationals live in London) and return to their former jobs when those EU citizens leave the UK.
I sincerely and respectfully urge Prime Minister Theresa May to give careful consideration to granting the citizens of any country any special ‘rights’ unless identical rights are legislated in those other countries for Britons. Although it seems reasonable to me that a slightly more favourable visa regime could be passed by the UK House of Commons for the citizens of Commonwealth nations.
But for nationals of any other bloc or nation, a yearly and easily renewable worker or consultant visa, student visa, retiree visa, family or medical reasons visa, or academic visa should be requiritur per UK imperium for those who plan to stay in the UK for longer than 90 days (e.g. ‘not a tourist or diplomat, but an expat’) and it should be available online for £100 annually at GOV.UK.
Do the math: Assuming 8 million expats x £100 annually = £800,000,000 in annual government revenue. Which would almost cover the costs of monitoring and protecting those 8 million foreign nationals, and covering their share of infrastructure costs.
Millions of Britons lived (and many died in combat) to build a better Britain, let’s not give it away for the sake of corporate convenience to those who won’t ever fight for Britain.
“Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone; They paved paradise and put up a parking lot!” — Joni Mitchell
- Ministers urged to protect rights of EU citizens in UK (BBC News–Mar 4, 2017)
- 6 Reasons Why Protecting The Rights Of EU Nationals In The UK BuzzFeed News–Mar 5, 2017)
- Theresa May must guarantee the rights of EU nationals in the UK (Business Insider–Mar 5, 2017)
- Theresa May faces fresh calls to guarantee rights of EU citizens (The Sun–Mar 4, 2017)
- Gove calls on May to guarantee EU citizens right to remain in UK (International–The Guardian–Mar 4, 2017)
- EU nationals in UK should have future rights guaranteed, MP’s say (International–Gibraltar Chronicle–Mar 5, 2017)
A Special EU Status for London?
by John Brian Shannon | February 14, 2017
It has become fashionable in recent weeks to talk about arranging some kind of special status for the City of London so that EU citizens can easily travel to London without the need to pass through UK customs.
Which would be convenient, wouldn’t it?
No pesky border guards to answer to, no briefcases opened and searched, and no wasted time for important EU-centric bankers and their European Union customers — and that applies whether they’re travelling for family vacations, to arrange financing for an EU business, or to meet their mistress in Calais.
Soon, bankers from every country will move to the UK to have all the advantages of EU access, combined with the privileges of living in Britain: A veritable banker’s paradise where the financial industry informs the UK government exactly how things will be.
Look now, it’s happening — just that it’s happening in slow-motion and nobody is seeing it for what it really is.
The Painfully Obvious Future of a ‘Special EU Status’ London
It’s so obviously in the EU’s interest to contrive a situation whereby London residents vote in a referendum to join the European Union, even as the rest of the UK continues to leave it (effectively sectioning-off London from the rest of the UK via the London Ring Road and Gatwick Airport) at which point the rest of the United Kingdom no longer held together by the economic gravity of London would probably dis-unite.
If Britain grants London ‘Special EU Status’ eventually it will become an EU City-state, Principality or Duchy, and Britons will need a passport to visit London.
Therefore, I can see why Brussels would want to contrive a ‘Special EU Status’ (SEUS) plan for the city of London, and I’m astonished at the innocent naiveté of Britons.
Recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel practically ‘mansplained’ to British Prime Minister Theresa May how “The UK will not be allowed to cherry-pick the bits of the EU it likes” — even as EU negotiators do their own cherry-picking — with London as the plumpest and richest cherry in all of Europe.
READ: EU negotiator wants ‘special’ deal over access to City post-Brexit
Allowing this plan to come to fruition will create a weaker and less-united United Kingdom and it will handover the ‘gold’ (London) to the EU. And there’s not a thing Britain can do to prevent it once the City of London is granted any kind of EU-centric special status.
Yes! It’s a wonderful plan if you’re a member-state of the European Union, a Europhile, or a London banker who wants to avoid the hassle of going through customs with the little people.
Apparently the thinking goes along these lines; The world already has a global ‘1 percent class’ who own more than 50 percent of the world’s wealth and will own 80 percent of the world’s total wealth by 2035, so it’s obvious that the world should have a distinct ‘banker class’ and their friends the global elites can accomplish that via alternately bullying and schmoozing the UK government into a customs-free zone with the EU. Which seems to be working.
“Oh, and a peon holiday every Monday in London, Elizabeth. We don’t like Monday morning traffic. Cancel their other holidays to make up for it. Sniff.”
I would like to ask the UK government; Where else in the world are bankers allowed to travel without passing through customs because the bankers arranged the passing of a law that allowed them to do so? And where else in the world would a country that is leaving a Union, leave behind their own capital city with most of the country’s wealth?
The answer is; Nowhere on Earth has this happened, and for obvious reasons!
Rather than incrementally handing Britain’s most historic and important city to the European Union, it would be smarter to simply invite the EU-centric part of London’s financial sector to leave. Ah, Paris in the spring!
READ: The language of love sweet-talks the City
Losing the EU-based financial sector that operates out of London is surely preferable to losing the entire city of London to the EU — which WILL happen over time if the Special EU Status zone is approved, resulting in the consequent dissolution of the United Kingdom.
Is There a Precedent for Integration that leads to Assimilation?
All law functions on precedent and there is a rather large precedent for this in business law — the case of the United States vs. General Motors in the 1960’s. It’s a fascinating story.
In the early part of the 20th-century many manufacturers built vehicles for the American public who were decidedly pro-automobile. Ford was the first company to utilize innovative automotive production line assembly techniques and the company grew exponentially — in fact, they couldn’t keep up with the demand for their car, the Model T.
At the time, General Motors built trucks and other vehicles for the U.S. military, and heavy industry vehicles for the mining and forestry sectors and GM was heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. Meanwhile, Chevrolet simply fed off the demand that Henry Ford’s company couldn’t meet.
It was a brilliant strategy for Chevrolet. They adopted Ford’s assembly line manufacturing innovations and met most of the consumer demand that Henry couldn’t.
So successful was the Chevrolet plan, that the first car to outsell the Model T was the 1934 Chevrolet Coupe, which was Chevy’s version of the Model T which was available in every colour imaginable — unlike the Model T that was only available in black. Henry Ford painted all his cars black because that allowed the largest number of cars to be built in the shortest amount of time and at the lowest cost-per-unit. (No fussing with colours)
Ford grew, Chevrolet grew, and General Motors grew.
By the 1950’s, Chevrolet decided to turn the tables on its main competitor (Ford) by taking a note from Henry Ford’s playbook — outsourcing. Chevrolet lowered costs by outsourcing some manufacturing to the massive General Motors Corporation which accommodated Chevy’s request to build a few hundred thousand engines per year at a lower cost than Chevrolet could have ever imagined.
GM even asked Chevy to send over their engine specs and said they would build Chevy’s engines exactly how Chevrolet wanted. And with higher manufacturing standards.
It worked so well for Chevrolet that they later asked GM to supply transmissions, window glass, seats and door panels, and finally car bodies for Chevrolet. And General Motors happily obliged.
One sunny morning, GM began a hostile takeover of Chevrolet. Chevrolet objected and so did the U.S. government — and understandably Ford, Chrysler, Studebaker and the other automakers strenuously objected to the hostile takeover.
But during the discovery process to verify which company owned what, and which company was most responsible for Chevrolet’s massive success — even Chevrolet’s legal team couldn’t make a clear distinction. Neither could the FBI or U.S. Department of Justice investigators. Nor could the U.S. Supreme Court judges deciding the case who were left with no recourse but to allow the merger to proceed, as nobody could tell them exactly what constituted Chevrolet and what constituted General Motors!
Everyone in the industry was furious. Yet Ford, Studebaker, Chrysler, the new American Motors Company (AMC) and others couldn’t do a thing about it. And the U.S. Department of Justice wasn’t happy either.
It took approximately 25 years for GM to absorb Chevrolet, but in retrospect they could have done it in 18 years if they weren’t so busy playing it safe. (To better ensure their assimilation plan worked)
Chevrolet became a victim of its own brilliant success, while General Motors had a stellar plan all along; Integrate until nobody can tell the difference.
Assimilate London is exactly what the European Union will do with a separate-customs-arrangement-London.
It would be criminally naive to think otherwise.