I don't believe this needs to be the case. Joining the EU gave British Citizens new rights by treaty. I think it should always be easier to grant more rights and more difficult to strip them.
I currently have the right to live & work in 28 countries. I do not know if I'll have that right in 6 weeks time.
(Still, today, 6 weeks out, no-one can tell me what will happen to those rights. Which is quite awkward for me personally, as I currently live & work in one of those countries. You can imagine I quite readily agree with the supposition that we can't trust the current system to handle this well.)
EU citizens have the right of residence for longer than three months if they
- are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State or are seeking employment (for a certain length of time);
- are not in employment or are students or trainees and have sufficient resources and comprehensive health insurance cover;
- have the right of permanent residence (following legal residence of five years).
- Family members, regardless of their citizenship, accompanying or joining an EU citizen who satisfies these conditions also have the right of residence for more than three months.
So the underlying idea is that in order to reside for more than three months in another Member State, EU citizens must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.
It is a fallacy to suppose British citizens gained rights by diluting their votes with tens of millions of European votes. That is a loss of rights, not a gain. As an elected official, I know first hand that the smaller the population of my constituency, the more responsive I can and must be.
The smaller the population of your constituency, the more responsive you can be to the individuals in your consistency, but the less money and influence you have to actually address their needs.
In the US, there's a reason national politics tends to get more attention and news coverage than state politics, much less city/county politics. (In this case, I genuinely think that local politics receives too little attention, but that's neither here nor there.)
A country deciding to join something like the EU should require a super majority, not a mere majority of those voting. It's a major obligation for everyone, and requiring a super majority helps ensure that the decision is not one that is due to a passing fancy.
The US Constitution recognizes this by requiring a 2/3rds vote in the Senate for treaties, as well as signature of the President.
The practice of having countries conduct votes on EU membership until a vote passes with a simple majority - this whole Brexit thing shows what a folly that is. Putting a bar of a 2/3rds vote for entrance, and for significant new treaties would help ensure there is actual buy in, and not just simple politicking.
15 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 529 ms ] thread(Still, today, 6 weeks out, no-one can tell me what will happen to those rights. Which is quite awkward for me personally, as I currently live & work in one of those countries. You can imagine I quite readily agree with the supposition that we can't trust the current system to handle this well.)
"Your host country can ask you to leave if you cannot prove that you have a realistic chance of finding work there.”
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-ri...
In terms of working some countries also apply restrictions on classes of jobs ( e.g. civil service ) or quotas on non-nationals.
It's not as laissez-faire as often portrayed.
- are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State or are seeking employment (for a certain length of time);
- are not in employment or are students or trainees and have sufficient resources and comprehensive health insurance cover;
- have the right of permanent residence (following legal residence of five years).
- Family members, regardless of their citizenship, accompanying or joining an EU citizen who satisfies these conditions also have the right of residence for more than three months.
So the underlying idea is that in order to reside for more than three months in another Member State, EU citizens must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.
https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/migration/law-on-foreigner...
In the US, there's a reason national politics tends to get more attention and news coverage than state politics, much less city/county politics. (In this case, I genuinely think that local politics receives too little attention, but that's neither here nor there.)
The US Constitution recognizes this by requiring a 2/3rds vote in the Senate for treaties, as well as signature of the President.
The practice of having countries conduct votes on EU membership until a vote passes with a simple majority - this whole Brexit thing shows what a folly that is. Putting a bar of a 2/3rds vote for entrance, and for significant new treaties would help ensure there is actual buy in, and not just simple politicking.