What Will Happen to EU Citizens in the UK in the Event of Brexit…?

Guest Post

The promised EU referendum, awarded the unfortunate moniker of ‘Brexit’ by the British press, is drawing nearer. Currently, there isn’t a confirmed date for the vote, but we do know that it will not be on 5^th May 2016, the day when the public will vote on the devolution of the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.

David Cameron promised in the run up to the 2015 election that the referendum will take place before the end of 2017, and a recent BBC News article speculated about the pros and cons of potential dates between now and then.

It’s certain that should the public vote in favour of leaving the EU there will be major changes. The debate rages on about whether or not these changes will have a positive or negative impact on the state of the nation.

However, one unavoidable point that has not been widely discussed in the media is that EU nationals who have made their home in the UK will find their circumstances change overnight if Britain decides to abandon the union.

Freedom of movement is one of the founding principles of the European Union and plenty of citizens from member states have taken full advantage of this perk, moving across the continent and settling outside of their sovereign nation.

It is estimated that there are currently within the region of 2 million EU nationals living and working in the UK who would face an uncertain future is the so-called Brexit came to be.
UK nationals who’ve made their home in the EU may also find themselves in a similar situation, suddenly being classified as illegal immigrants if the British public decides it’s time to leave the EU behind.

If the Brexit does happen, then hundreds of thousands of EU nations who have been living in the UK for years may find themselves very suddenly in need of a visa, or a plane ticket home.

At Carter Law, specialist Immigration Solicitors based in Manchester, our team have been keeping a close eye on the situation. Without a set date for the referendum, the serious campaigning hasn’t even started, but we’re keen to be in a position to help as many people as possible should the UK leave the union.

Hasty changes to the UK Immigration Law to accommodate for the outcome of the UK leaving could further complicate matters. Questions have been raised about whether citizens of more affluent states, such as Germany or France may be given preferential treatment over those from poorer EU nations, Bulgaria for example.

Many EU citizens who call UK home are anticipating something which, in their eyes is a worst case scenario, and asking “will I need a visa?”. Unfortunately, there simply isn’t enough information available to immigration solicitors currently, so we must wait patiently to see what happens.

Hopefully, as a date is confirmed and the time to vote draws nearer, there will be some consideration given to those who would be directly affected by the Brexit.

Allegations stack up against Intel

From the Financial Times 17/07/08:

Having carried out raids in 2005, the European Commission formally accused Intel last year of trying to do deals with PC makers to push AMD out of the central processing unit business.

Now, according to the regulator, Intel has been sent a supplementary charge sheet, alleging that it engaged in three additional elements of abusive conduct.

The first was to have provided “substantial rebates” to a leading European computer retailer, on the condition that it sold only Intel-based PCs. The second was that Intel made payments to induce a manufacturer to delay the planned launch of a product line using an AMD-based processor.

Thirdly, the Commission claimed, Intel had provided substantial rebates to the same manufacturer on the condition that it obtain all its laptop CPUs from Intel.

As a rooter for the underdog, I’ve always liked AMD and, if memory serves me correctly, have owned at least one computer with an AMD processor inside. Just one, mind, and that’s going back a few years; for a long time I haven’t recommended an AMD processor to anyone who has the option of going for an Intel Duo or Quad Core chip. After all, why the hell would you?

So while Intel are yet to be found guilty, there usually isn’t this much smoke without a substantial smouldering somewhere behind the scenes. If the allegations of foul play are justified, it makes it ironic that Intel went on to completely out-innovate their rivals, starting firstly with the Centrino line of chips and then the Core 2 Duo range which wiped the proverbial floor with their fledgling competitor. AMD, as it stands today, are nowhere in the processor market and the company is a complete mess; they’ve just got rid of their CEO for, as Paul Thurrott reported, “someone who hasn't (yet) botched the company's attempted comeback”.

So will Intel be (eventually) found guilty and slapped with a 10% global revenue fine? Probably.

Will that be enough to save the floundering AMD? Almost certainly not.

Speeder’s right to silence not infringed

I blogged about the case of O’Halloran and Francis v United Kingdom just over a week ago.

As you will no doubt recall, faithful reader, the Michael opined that their arguments would be given fairly short shrift. And so it was. The ECHR judges upheld the convictions for speeding offences with a 17-2 majority.

You might have thought the judges, impressed with the creativity of the applicant’s arguments, would have let them down gently. Oh no. The mincing of words and the softening of blows were not on the cards. Cases cited in favour of the applicant’s were distinguished from the instant case in almost rapid-fire succession.

The one concession to the appellants’ case, however, was a loose acknowledgement that the laws of member states should indeed operate without being self-incriminatory, nor should they infringe the basic right to silence. Err, yeah, thanks for that.

"On the one hand, it was self-evident that it was incompatible with the immunities to base a conviction solely or mainly on the accused's silence or on a refusal to answer questions or to give evidence himself. "On the other hand, the immunities could and should not prevent the accused's silence from being taken into account in situations which clearly called for an explanation."

With that out of the way, the judges, moved in for the kill. They categorically stated that Articles 2 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had NOT been infringed by s172 Road Traffic Act 1988.

"Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the special nature of the regulatory regime at issue and the limited nature of the information sought by a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the court considers that the essence of the applicants' right to remain silent and their privilege against self-incrimination has not been destroyed.”

The applicant’s case was destined to fail from the beginning. This was always going to come down to a policy decision by the ECHR and the appeal would have to have been dismissed. To have allowed it would have brought the entire system of policing speeding motorists in the UK crashing down. Further, while you may have a hard time persuading a convicted speeder that the system is reasonable and fit-for-purpose, try asking them to suggest an alternative means of policing the UK’s excessive speeders. And wait for the silence. They have got a right to it, after all.

O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02)

Two drivers, both having failed to successfully appeal against their convictions on a national level, have brought their cases to the ECHR.

"[E]ach applicant was subsequently informed that the police intended to prosecute the driver of the vehicle. He was asked for the full name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the relevant occasion or to supply other information that was in his power to give and which would lead to the driver’s identification. Each applicant was further informed that failing to provide information was a criminal offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

O’Halloran answered his letter confirming that he was the driver at the relevant time. Mr Francis, however, wrote to the police invoking his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination.

Francis was fined GBP 750 for failing to comply with s172(3) Road Traffic Act 1988. He maintains that the fine was substantially heavier than that which would have been imposed had he pleaded guilty to the speeding offence.

O’Halloran complains that he was convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he was compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself. Mr Francis complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of committing infringed his right not to incriminate himself. Both applicants rely on Article 6 ss1 (right to a fair trial) and 2 (presumption of innocence)."

Interesting. Still, I don't hold out much hope for them as to allow their arguments to succeed would set a dangerous precedent, not to mention the good ol' 'floodgates' effect.