Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

@saab,
Quote:
I certainly prefer a country where there is equality for all its citizens and people can afford to have a home, without being ruined.

The US has equality of opportunity. Discrimination is against the law in the US.

- The UK insists that British courts must enforce the agreement in the UK, while the EU wants the European Court of Justice to be the arbiter.
- The UK’s preferred cut-off date is 29 March 2017, when article 50 was triggered, whereas the EU wants it to be the day that Britain formally leaves.
- There is no clarity on whether students allowed to finish courses will be able to stay on to work after their studies.
- EU nationals who have already attained permanent residency status will have to go through another registration process.
- EU nationals who marry after March 2019 will lose their EU right to bring family members to the UK unless they pass the minimum income test required of UK citizens who want to bring in non-EU family members.

You should also know:
- The 27 remaining EU nations are competing to host the London-based European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority after Brexit.
- The UK economy faces slowdown amid a squeeze on living standards.
- A government-backed “red tape group” looked at post-Brexit dismantling of EU regulations on construction materials on day of Grenfell fire.
- Farmers have warned that UK soft fruit production may have to move abroad after a 17% fall in seasonal workers prompted fears of worse to come.
- Referendum winners and losers: consumers, UK-facing firms hit hardest; companies with major foreign earnings have fared well.
- London could lose out as ECB seeks control of euro clearing after Brexit.
- Unions and senior party figures urge Labour to fight “unambiguously” for membership of single market.
- Commons leader Andrea Leadsom draws mockery for call on broadcasters to be “more patriotic” in Brexit coverage.
- Archbishop of Canterbury calls for cross-party Brexit commission to “draw much of the poison from the debate”.
- UK businesses face serious skilled labour shortage over fall in value of pound and uncertainty about future of EU nationals in UK.
- Japan seeks early free trade talks with UK amid mounting concerns over impact of Brexit on Japanese firms with UK operations.
- A hard Brexit could halt plans for Heathrow’s third runway, the National Infrastructure Commission chair has said.

will lose their EU right to bring family members to the UK unless they pass the minimum income test required of UK citizens who want to bring in non-EU family members.

It is a law by the European Court of Human Rights

As it was against Human Rights in someone´s eyes so it was changed to include Danes by the ECHR.

On May 24, 2016, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in Biao v. Denmark, ruling that Danish immigration laws on family reunion were discriminatory. The complaint centered on the refusal of Danish immigration authorities to grant a married couple a residence permit for family reunion on the grounds that they did not comply with a provision of the Danish “Aliens Act” requiring that they not have stronger ties with another country (the so-called “attachment requirement”). The applicants claimed that this refusal constituted a violation of their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, the applicants claimed that an amendment to the Aliens Act lifting the attachment requirement for those who had held Danish citizenship for at least twenty-eight years (the “28-year rule”) resulted in discrimination between natural-born Danish citizens and those of foreign origin who had acquired citizenship, in contravention of Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination), when read in conjunction with Article 8. According to the press release, the Grand Chamber reasoned that Denmark’s justification for the 28-year rule (controlling immigration and improving integration) was largely based on “rather speculative arguments.” In the Court’s view, whether integration would be successful could not be determined solely by the amount of time an individual had been a citizen. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, when read in conjunction with Article 8, and that it was therefore unnecessary to examine the application separately under Article 8. In particular, the Court found that Denmark “had failed to show that there were compelling or very weighty reasons unrelated to ethnic origin to justify the indirect discriminatory effect of the 28-year rule.”

Following the EHCR judgement, immigration minister Inger Støjberg suspended the 26-year rule, immediately subjecting all foreign-based Danes and their partners to the attachment condition.

You saying that the ECHR makes Danish laws?

Quote:

You saying that the ECHR makes Danish laws?

I did not say that.

It is a law by the European Court of Human Rights

As it was against Human Rights in someone´s eyes so it was changed to include Danes by the ECHR.

Italy’s elections are the latest sign of many that populist insurgent parties are losing their grip. The European Union is growing stronger
[...]
As elsewhere in Europe, the Italian populists have found themselves grappling with the classic dilemma that arises when such parties join coalitions: do they make concessions in the interests of stability, hoping thereby to retain the support of moderates? Or do they threaten government stability so as not to lose the support of diehards?

They have suffered as a consequence, and the pattern is repeated elsewhere. In Norway, the Progress party has slipped back in opinion polls from the 16.3% of the vote it won in 2013, having been damaged by its unsympathetic response to the refugee crisis as well as its record in government. In Latvia, the National Alliance has seen a steady decline in its poll ratings, down to 9.1% from the 16.6% it won in 2014. In Finland, support for the Finns party dropped from 17.7% to 10.7% over just six months in 2015.

Though a number of western democracies have recently seen elections or referenda that have been widely dubbed as “populist revolts”, much depends, in interpreting the outcomes, on one’s chosen points of reference. Nothing makes this clearer than the result achieved by Corbyn’s Labour last month: yes he lost, but he has been immeasurably strengthened because he did so much better than expected. Trump, who by contrast won, did better than expected; but still, he lost the popular vote by some 2 million. Norbert Hoffer, Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen were all decisively beaten.

All these results have significant implications for the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and the future of Europe. On the one hand, governments under pressure from anti-establishment parties may be tempted to resist concessions to the UK in order not to encourage anti-European forces within their own borders.

On the other hand, if the growth of such forces has reached a peak, as recent results suggest they may have done, then the size of the obstacles in the way of European integration ambitions has been reduced. Either way, the European project is perhaps more secure than has been widely assumed; and it would still be relatively secure even if parties such as M5S were to find themselves doing better than they have done this week. In government, M5S would be uniquely badly placed to withstand the threats deriving from the capital flight and economic turmoil its promise of a referendum on Italy’s membership of the euro would probably bring. And it would have to overcome a whole series of constitutional obstacles (not least the ban on referenda on international treaties) in order to hold such a vote in the first place.

At a time of uncertainty, when even the smallest political shifts can seem portentous, last Sunday’s local elections in Italy bode well for Europe. The same cannot be said for the UK which now looks likely, in the event of Brexit, to find itself left out of an EU that is increasingly integrated, and increasingly powerful.

Campaign groups for Britons living abroad urge UK government to reciprocate EU proposals that would maintain status quo

British citizens settled in Europe have expressed concern that Theresa May is willing to sacrifice some of their rights post-Brexit to cement immigration limits on EU citizens coming to the UK.

They have renewed calls on the UK to reciprocate the proposals made by the EU rather than continue with the plan unveiled by May in the House of Commons on Monday.

“If May wants to be ‘fair and serious’, she should just agree quickly to everything the EU has already proposed. We are merely asking to maintain the status quo, with no degradation of our rights – it’s not a matter of generosity but of justice,” said Sue Wilson, chair of Bremain in Spain, which is campaigning on behalf of an estimated 300,000 Britons living in the country.

“If she is proposing to limit rights and freedoms in any way, then we deserve to know which of those rights she is prepared to sacrifice,” added Wilson.
... ... ...