[noemon]

I am not peddling anything, you are tacitly supporting project fear & loathing against me. Theresa May is not a Bremainer, she is expressing the most radical Brexit position possible and proliferating a kind of racism that has been unheard of. It is Theresa May who is explicitly peddling the position that my rights should be questioned and it is beyond ridiculous expecting from me to coalesce to that questioning.

You are becoming a pariah state that is already ruining people's lives. 1/3 of EU people's application for the right to remain have been rejected already and they have been sent letters to leave the country, other people are being deported as we speak after a lifetime in this country, you have broken all records of decency and if May is permitted to use us as bargaining chips, there is no end in sight in how far she would be willing to go to take over the racist UKIP voters.

[Heisenberg]

I am not peddling anything, you are tacitly supporting project fear & loathing against me.

I stopped paying attention right there. I am doing nothing of the kind. If you aren't going to discuss this issue like an adult, don't bother at all.

[noemon]

Your feelings about your personal image and your country's image are far less important that people's human rights. When you come to terms with that reality and become an adult then come and talk to me again.

"Tacitly" is an important word in my statement and your previous posts are all tacitly supportive of May's plan.

[Heisenberg]

"For what it's worth, I'm happy the House of Lords has done this. It should have been in from the start, just to get this stupid fake "debate" over with."

"Of course there is no popular mandate to get rid of European citizens already here."

"All the government is doing at the moment, is pretending to be "tough" for no good reason."

Yes, these are all tacitly supporting project fear and loathing against noemon. Never mind what they explicitly say, of course. Let's read Heisenberg's mind! Crimethink!

Your feelings about your personal image and your country's image are far less important that people's human rights.

I don't care about "my country's image". I know that fashionable opinion paints us as Worse Than Hitler right now. As for my personal image, I really don't give a damn what an anonymous internet stranger thinks of me. What I do care about, is arguing based on what someone says, rather than what you wish they had said. Given that I have now explicitly said several times the government should drop this silly act now and guarantee EU citizens' rights - and that I support the House of Lords in what it has done! - I think you should stop claiming I support kicking you out of the country or using you as a "bargaining chip".

[noemon]

That is not all that you said, you also said:

Both sides want them, and there isn't any reason to believe that'll change soon. I know that it's fashionable in politics these days to pretend to be "scared" all the time, but let's be realistic for once.

The edit you added later and you did it precisely because you too realised that your statement quoted here is tacitly supporting Theresa May's plan to use us as bargaining chips, you are now telling me off explicitly for not accepting this because according to you I should trust the Tories to use me as a bargaining chip "mildly" or something and that I should trust that "all is going to be fine", otherwise I'm not being "realistic".

I'm glad you agree with the Lords but that does not change the fact that you take no issue with it either way and that you would prefer it if us EU people were more sheepish to being used as bargaining chips because complaining makes the UK looks bad and ourselves allegedly "hysterical". You want to play the centrist, "everyone is right card" and that's fine, I did not take any issue with your position until you demanded that I endorse that position, otherwise I'm not being "rational".

[Heisenberg]

The edit you added later and you did it precisely because you too realised that your statement quoted here is tacitly supporting Theresa May's plan to use us as bargaining chips, you are now telling me off explicitly for not accepting this because according to you I should trust the Tories to use me as a bargaining chip "mildly" or something and that I should trust that "all is going to be fine", otherwise I'm not being "realistic".

I'm amazed at how well you can read my mind, noemon. Now you know the reasons for my edits! I'm trying to hide my true opinions by clarifying them for everyone!

I'm not telling you to trust the Tories. I certainly don't. I'm saying that it's vanishingly unlikely that a reciprocal rights deal will not be reached, given that all sides of the debate say it is what they want to see, and despite popular belief, Britain and the EU are not actually at war with each other. The Lords is saying that we should take the first step - which the EU, despite its pretense of moral superiority, has not done for UK citizens in the EU* - and I'm happy they've done so. Something to bear in mind when you see Theresa May pretending to take a super-hard line on this, is that she is doing so because her position is not at all secure.

*Saying "you can always apply for German citizenship!" is not the same thing. After all, EU citizens are already welcome to apply for British citizenship too.

Let me be clear that I am also certain that UK citizens will be allowed to stay in the EU once negotiations begin, since a reciprocal guarantee is in both sides' interest. However, until they make the guarantee, I suppose I can pretend to be "terrified" for their human rights with just as much justification as you can claim that the UK is a "racist pariah state" on par with Iran or North Korea.

I'm glad you agree with the Lords but that does not change the fact that you take no issue with it either way

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Once again, you are trying to read my mind so you can imagine I hold a position that I do not hold.

you would prefer it if us EU people were more sheepish to being used as bargaining chips because complaining makes the UK looks bad and ourselves allegedly "hysterical".

I'm not telling EU people to be sheepish. I'm telling you to be realistic. And yes, saying that we are a "racist pariah state" because of a transparent negotiating gimmick that will be dropped as soon as negotiations begin - as everyone knows perfectly well - is indeed "hysterical". We aren't going to be deporting 3 million legal residents. Apart from the fact that it is morally wrong, it is wildly impractical in a country of our size for obvious reasons.

You want to play the centrist, "everyone is right card" and that's fine, I did not take any issue with your position until you demanded that I endorse that position, otherwise I'm not being "rational".

I haven't "demanded" anything of you, noemon. Believe what you like. I'm just trying to bring a bit of balance to your insistence that we're a "racist pariah state".

[noemon]

I'm not telling you to trust the Tories. I certainly don't. I'm saying that it's vanishingly unlikely that a reciprocal rights deal will not be reached,

You don't seem to get 2 things here:

The status of existing people is not up for negotiation at all. This is something that should be clear at all times. Even the mere mention otherwise is extremely ridiculous. The Tory insistence to make it part of the negotiations is extremely disgusting. Aside from causing stress and uncertainty, it does make the UK a pariah because that is exactly the definition of pariah states, states that cannot be trusted to honour legally binding agreements. People who have already moved into the UK and from the UK into the EU they have done so under legally-binding contracts and based on these contracts they have taken out mortgages, loans and have a whole host of liabilities to worry about. Questioning their status is extreme by all accords, even if we can all expect some resolution to this subject this does not change the fact that even starting the debate and regardless of outcome, the whole thing should not be done.

The Lords is saying that we should take the first step - which the EU, despite its pretense of moral superiority, has not done for UK citizens in the EU* - and I'm happy they've done so.

The EU cannot do it because the EU is not even questioning the rights of Britons in the EU and she is right in keeping this position both from a moral point of view and from a technical point of view as she technically cannot say anything before Article 50 is triggered.

However, until they make the guarantee, I suppose I can pretend to be "terrified" for their human rights with just as much justification as you can claim that the UK is a "racist pariah state" on par with Iran or North Korea.

One does not need to reach Iran's and North Korea's levels to become pariah, currently there are several states in the EU who are already pariah's, each for different reasons but the main thing that makes one pariah is what I mentioned earlier and that is questioning legally-binding agreements about the human rights of people.

I'm not telling EU people to be sheepish. I'm telling you to be realistic. And yes, saying that we are a "racist pariah state" because of a transparent negotiating gimmick that will be dropped as soon as negotiations begin - as everyone knows perfectly well - is indeed "hysterical". We aren't going to be deporting 3 million legal residents. Apart from the fact that it is morally wrong, it is wildly impractical in a country of our size for obvious reasons.

Worrying about the future of your own person and your family is one of those things in life that cannot be termed "hysterical" however one goes about looking at this and your assumptions about the possibilities are quite naive. It is highly unlikely that the UK will use the EU citizens to get a guarantee just for Britons in the EU, nay, the Tories will use it to get that plus another host of demands to force the EU to decline and make her look as the bully. This is why the chip is so important to the Tories, they are hoping to use it for a plethora of demands and not just for Britons in the EU. Dealing with it now is the rational, humane and normal thing to do and it is only the UK that has to do it because it is only the UK questioning those rights in the first place.

[anarchist23]

It's seems that nothing is certain, nothing can be guaranteed after the UK leaves the EU. The rights of immigrants living in the UK and those of the British are dependent on the whims of the politicians.

The Great Repeal Bill will put EU law on the UK statute book. But what happens to it after that will often be down to ministers, who can use the ‘Henry VIII clause’ to amend or repeal legislation without the need for parliamentary scrutiny. Joelle Grogan argues that this is not only undemocratic, but may well lead to the loss of individual rights.

Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Great Repeal Bill is that ‘repeal’ is a misnomer: it will not repeal to a significant extent at all. Rather, the ultimate Act will initially convert the existing acquis of EU law into British law at the point of formal separation from the EU, following the completion of Brexit negotiations. This conversion will provide some degree of certainty and continuity in the inevitable turmoil which will follow UK withdrawal from the EU, as the (at least) initial changes of domestic law will be relatively minimal.

The element of ‘repeal’ in the Great Repeal Bill will instead take the form of the incorporation of a Henry VIII clause. Named for the king who forced the passing of the Statute of Proclamations 1539 empowering his decisions both to change and have the same force as legislative acts, such a clause enables government to repeal or amend primary legislation by means of a secondary act with limited or no further parliamentary scrutiny. [See House of Lords Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, HL 57 1992-93, para 10.] For the complexity, intricacy and sheer mass of EU law which forms part of UK law (for a cake analogy), delegating decisions to secondary legislation makes pragmatic sense: does parliament really need to be bogged down with issues such as labelling regulations when there are more important debates to be had, trade deals to be made, and economic and political crises to be resolved?

Beyond the answer: yes, executive action during Brexit absolutely should be monitored,- the consequence of a Henry VIII clause in the Great Repeal Bill from a rights perspective is that the question of whether rights based on EU norms are compatible with post-Brexit Britain could be decided by a minister, rather than through parliamentary debate and an Act of Parliament. In this post, I explore the ghost of Henry VIII’s tyranny in his namesake legal clause, and outline some of the possible impacts of a Great Repeal Act and a Henry VIII clause on human and fundamental rights through the (somewhat shoehorned) metaphor of the fate of King Henry’s six wives.

The ghost of Henry VIII

Henry VIII clauses are intrinsically problematic for democratic governance: they levy the convenience of a (relatively) quick amendment against the scrutiny of parliamentary oversight. Immediately after Henry VIII’s death in 1547, the Statute of Proclamations was repealed. No man, not even a king, should have such power to make, amend or repeal primary legislation without Parliament. For this reason, Henry VIII clauses have been subject to consistent criticism, and an emphasis on their use only when absolutely necessary: the 1932 Donoughmore Committee Report on Henry VIII clauses (for which only nine could be found in contemporary Acts) found that their use might only be when ‘demonstrably essential’ and must be justified by the Minister ‘to the hilt’. In a 2010-11 Report, the House of Lords Constitution Committee found that

‘the use of Henry VIII powers, while accepted in certain, limited circumstances, remains a departure from constitutional principle… [which] should be contemplated only where a full and clear explanation and justification are provided.’ [HL Constitution Committee 6th Report, HL 51 2010-11, para 6]
Henry VIII clauses are, however, not foreign to EU law in the UK. Article 2(2) European Communities Act 1972 is itself a Henry VIII clause, allowing the amending of UK law to comply with EU acts. The difference here, as has been pointed out, is that EU acts go through multiple layers of legislative checks before becoming law, and so not comparable in a situation post-Brexit.

The issue is scale: it is now beyond an academic debate to consider the scope and breadth of EU norms incorporated into British law. Simply enumerating some of the sweeping areas of influence indicates only a shadow of the sheer scale of replacement, repeal and revision ahead for Parliament: external trade; competition; financial and banking services; telecommunications and data protection; fisheries and agriculture; EU standards agencies; cooperation in matters of security and the criminal law; and the environment. This also does not account for rights based on EU law, including existing EU residents’, workers’ and consumers’ rights, or even the right to be forgotten. One of the Supreme Court justices hearing the appeal on the Article 50 judgment, Lady Hale, raised the question of whether a simple Act would be enough to authorise the government to give notice, or whether the 1972 Act would comprehensively have to be replaced prior to triggering Article 50. Though there was no elaboration in the speech, – speculating, this could perhaps be a contrast between the rumour of a ‘short three-line bill’ to authorise Brexit, and a more comprehensive bill clarifying the Brexit process, transition arrangements and the post-Brexit legal situation. However, the ECA 1972 cannot be repealed prior to the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement, as EU law continues to be applicable within the UK until that point. The (current) official stance is not such a comprehensive replacement, ostensibly leaning instead towards a do-now, fix-later approach.

To shoehorn the metaphor, a Henry VIII clause in a Great Repeal Act will hand ministers an executioner’s axe to a range and breadth of law based on EU norms which is still not fully understood or accounted for. This is by no means an alarmist argument, as widening the scope of power under a Henry VIII-type clause to excise the influence of the EU has been advocated by a barrister for the Leave campaign. For all the heralding of taking control back to the UK Parliament, Henry VIII clauses, especially in the extended scope necessary to cope with large scale repeal, will be less democratic, create more legal uncertainty, and take the reins of control away from Parliament and (potentially) rights away from individuals. Even as the controls imposed on secondary legislation is an open issue, the latent threats to cornerstones of British constitutionalism, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, are evident: the power to amend primary legislation by Ministers acting independently of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight runs counter to democracy, legal certainty, and the ultimate supremacy of Parliament.

The ultimate irony is that, for all the rhetoric of democracy and a return to parliamentary sovereignty, the powers on which Government is relying to leave the EU are royal, not democratic. Beyond the use of a Henry VIII clause, the question of who is permitted to trigger Article 50 currently awaiting appeal before the Supreme Court, is a fight between a royal prerogative and parliamentary sovereignty. In the current approach to Brexit, there seems a concerning commonality with the character of Henry VIII beyond his namesake clause in the use of unchecked executive power.

The (possible) fate of fundamental rights

To sketch out some of the possible consequences of the Great Repeal Bill and the Henry VIII clause on rights, we can follow the rather grim framework provided by Henry VIII’s wives. Their fates followed a (tragic) pattern: divorce, beheaded, died, divorce, beheaded and survived. We should rightly be concerned for the fates of fundamental rights protections post-Brexit in the divorce between the UK and the EU which encompasses not only the likely biggest divorce settlement in history, but will also see the division and separation of significant rights and protections away from UK citizens and residents.

The right to complain to, or seek a decision from, EU institutions will be beheaded by Brexit. For instance, post-Brexit, citizens and residents will not have the opportunity to complain to the Commission for a breach of EU law or a violation of their rights by UK authorities. Under the current schema, if their complaint is upheld, the Commission can make a request to the UK that it respects the rights of its citizens and residents, or even bring proceedings in the Court of Justice for a violation of EU law. Referrals and the limited right of direct access to the EU’s court system could be similarly cut off by Brexit, relying on the domestic judicial system and common law and ECHR rights.

Notably, however, it would mean the death of the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the UK. The EU Charter, which can be relied upon in national proceedings when the subject-matter of the litigation falls within the scope of EU law has more normative clout than the comparable European Convention on Human Rights, operative in the UK under the Human Rights Act 1998. This means, for instance, that a violation of the EU Charter requires the disapplication of the offending law, while a violation of the ECHR under section 4 HRA 1998 can, at worst, only result in the issuing of a declaration of incompatibility or a signal to Parliament that it should consider amending the legislation.

Serious questions highlight the uncertainties which will arise as a consequence of the divorce between the CJEU and the UK judicial systems. This will cause issues for the interpretation for law which has been wholesale incorporated into UK law: should UK courts follow subsequent cases regarding the interpretation of laws by the Court of Justice? In situations where the similarity of the law is required for reasons of trade (for example, product specifications), this would follow. Should claimants then continue to plead EU case law before British courts as persuasive precedent? And if so, how far, and in which areas? The uncertainty which would arise from the contrary interpretation of a UK law based on EU norms would also need resolution: should a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice take precedence over a UK ruling? These are only some of the ‘known unknowns’ of Brexit, no doubt there are far many more currently unaccounted for.

Further, there will be the possible beheading of rights based on EU law, which can be replicated in UK law, but may be contentious in a new political regime: for example, consumer and workers’ rights. The existence of a Henry VIII clause endangers these rights and others, as they could be removed either accidentally or intentionally by amendment of the primary act by executive decision. As outlined above, there would be no recourse to EU institutions to challenge this, or to the Courts if there is not explicit protection for these rights at common law or in the ECHR.

After such gruesome fates – one survivor will be the ECHR which, through the Human Rights Act 1998, does not depend on the EU for its continued application in the UK law. As I’ve hypothesised, it’s possible – if unlikely – that we could witness a new relevance and force with the ECHR to fill a gap in rights protection. The ECHR does not have equal normative clout as directly effective EU rights, as evidenced by Benkharbouche & Janah (wherein the Court of Appeal held that the embassies of Sudan and Libya could not rely on the State Immunity Act 1978 to bar employment rights claims under the EU Working Time Directive, as it would violate Article 47 CFR which in turn required the disapplication of the Act. The Court found a violation under Article 6 ECHR, but could only issue a declaration of incompatibility). Other survivors would be rights that have existed at common law, such as the rights to personal security, liberty, and property. It’s possible even, that there will be a new impetus for a ‘British Bill of Rights’ (pdf), however misplaced that optimism may be.

Whatever ultimately survives the Great Repeal Bill and a Henry VIII clause, it will be a shadow of a larger, and likely uneulogised, death. The last seven decades have been building a progressive narrative of strengthening and enhancing fundamental rights across Europe and the world. Hopeful and aspirational international declarations of human rights have led progressively towards the adoption and implementation of more robust and justiciable instruments for the protection of fundamental rights in the domestic sphere. Amid political, social, legal and economic crisis, – this narrative is dying. In the current climate, it is perhaps more than the ghost of Henry VIII that will haunt us.



http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/11/3 ... democracy/

[Nonsense]

The house of lords should be abolished & the political party that includes that policy in it's manifesto gets my vote.

Their amendment is irrelevant, it matters not one jot that there is a majority for it, it's a pyrrhic victory of absolutely no consequence.
The 'lords' may have their say, the government will have it's way.

I watched Question Time tonight on this question, right on cue, the audience clapped when an answer went in the direction of foreigners being allowed to stay here, having been here for decades.

They completely ignore the FACTS on many of these 'foreigners' , NOT all are here 'legally', EVERYONE has to have an established 'LEGAL' basis to be in this country, even 'British' people.

The time in which one has been here is not even relevant, 'IF' you are here 'illegally', you have to be 'entitled' to be here.. FULL STOP.
Remember the 2010 election run up to, there was an 'estimated' 1.5 MILLION ILLEGAL MIGRANTS HERE,GUESS WHAT, THEY HAVE LONG BEEN 'FORGOTTEN' & 'disappeared'.

The chips have to be put on the table, but NOT before Article 50, certainly NOT before they are then debated & 'settled' within the context of the negotiations as a whole.

Labour are the majority in the unelected 'Lords', democratically, Labour are a spent force, they committed political suicide under BLAIR, the treacherously betrayed- abandoned the sick, disabled, pensioners, the 'white' working class, men-women, in favour of GAYS, MIGRANTS & THE 'MIDDLE CLASS', let that party die.

It was once said of the 'Labour Party, "It's either a 'crusade', or it's NOTHING" & that is what it is now, NOTHING.

[Nonsense]

These people in their "cutsie little ermine decorated robes"..

these are unelected people, usually placed there

They are what I call, "VERMIN in ERMINE".

[Nonsense]

The Lords have done what Corbyn promised to do but failed to deliver. I guess this is still a victory for Theresa as she can blame the Lords and position herself as "I did my best but those Lords are at fault".

They are at 'fault', but they had no choice, because Labour are the majority in that unelected house, as such the result was a foregone conclusion.
It's an 'empty' chamber, in which the no hopers in Labour can only make 'NOISE' & no difference.

If Theresa MAY had half a brain, she would call the SNP's bluff, by having a second Scottish referendum on independence immediately & making the stipulation that Nicola STURGEON step down if she loses, WHICH SHE WOULD DO.

[ingliz]

the UK will use the EU citizens to get a guarantee

The EU cannot guarantee UK nationals' right to stay in Member States.

Immigration Policy

Legal Basis

Articles 79 and 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Competences

[...]

Member States retain the right to determine volumes of admission for people
coming from third countries to seek work.

Integration: the EU may provide incentives and support for measures taken by Member States to promote the integration of legally resident third-country nationals; EU law makes no provision for the harmonisation of national laws and regulations, however.

Edited for emphasis because B0ycey confuses competences.

[B0ycey]

The EU cannot guarantee UK nationals' right to stay in Member States.

The thing is, this is irrelevant. Even if the EU wanted to deport skilled labour and pensioners who are spending their 'pension money' and ultimately weaken their own economies, is it wise for the UK to do the same? I understand Mays reluctance to guarantee EU nationals rights, but common sense says she should for working EU nationals anyway. Why? To give certainty to working EU nationals, business confidence and to walk in with an olive branch for the start of EU negotiations. I mean, even if the EU was stupid enough to deport Brits back to the UK, what does May think will happen to the UK economy by reducing its workforce by 3 million? Would she seriously want to fall into the same trap just for sakes of continuity.

[ingliz]

Even if the EU wanted to deport

The wants of the EU don't come into it (Note the 'bolded' portions of the quoted text in my last post). It is up to each Member State alone to decide how they treat third-country nationals.

EU law makes no provision for the harmonisation of national laws and regulations.

[snapdragon]

Of course the EU wants will come into it. This "divorce" is a whole new ball game with everything up for negotiation.
British people living in other European states are not third country immigrants , just as members of other European states living in Britain are not third country immigrants.
Those rules don't apply to this situation until Britain has left the EU.

[ingliz]

everything up for negotiation.

Correct, but you will be negotiating with 27 countries each with their own interests.

Agreement is not certain. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the consequences of the loss of EU citizenship rights for EU nationals in the UK, and for UK nationals in other EU Member States, will be severe.

A recent investigation by the House of Lords:

28. The UK would become a ‘third country’ for the purposes of EU law on withdrawal from the EU.

'Acquired rights under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties' argument dismissed.

60. It is evident that the term ‘parties’ in Article 70 (1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties refers to States, not to individuals or companies. In no sense, therefore, can this provision be said to safeguard individual rights under EU law that will be lost as a consequence of the UK’s withdrawal, in the absence of a negotiated settlement.

[...]

Conclusions

71. The evidence we received makes very clear that the doctrine of acquired rights under public international law will provide little, if any, effective protection for former EU rights once the UK withdraws from the EU. The scope of acquired rights is limited to certain contractual and property rights which, even were they to coincide with EU rights, are highly unlikely to be enforceable. Reliance on the doctrine before the referendum as a means of protecting EU rights was therefore misplaced

“Individuals and companies are not ‘parties’ to a treaty, and Article 70(1)(b) says nothing about their rights, obligations or legal situation.” The commentary of the International Law Commission made clear that this was intentional.

[snapdragon]

Correct, but you will be negotiating with 27 countries each with their own interests.

Agreement is not certain. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the consequences of the loss of EU citizenship rights for EU nationals in the UK, and for UK nationals in other EU Member States, will be severe.

Which is why May should agree to guarantee the right to stay for all EU nationals before negotiations begin.

Those 27 countries will then be more likely to guarantee the right to stay to British nationals.

I don't think she wants to do it because that would be deeply unpopular with a large section of brexit voting morons.

She'd prefer to have that "foisted" on her, though she's trying to sell it as something the brexiters wanted all along, which they most certainly did not.

[Heisenberg]

I don't think she wants to do it because that would be deeply unpopular with a large section of brexit voting morons.

Polls have repeatedly shown overwhelming support for guaranteeing EU citizens' rights, including among leave voters.

[ingliz]

27 countries each with their own interests

Given that, post-Brexit, the British government would be highly likely to impose restrictions on the right of EU citizens to live and work in the UK, there are opportunities for a small state to put a spanner in the works notwithstanding the qualified majority vote in Council.

That agreement shall be negotiated
in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be
concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council,
acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament.

The UK would not be able to negotiate separate deals with each of the 27, the UK would have to negotiate with the EU as a whole, but any member-state would have the right to ask the Court of Justice whether the negotiated agreement was compatible with the EU treaties. Should the Court’s opinion be adverse, the agreement would not enter into force, unless it were revised or the EU treaties amended. This would of course heavily delay the process of negotiating a new relationship between the UK and the EU.

[snapdragon]

Polls have repeatedly shown overwhelming support for guaranteeing EU citizens' rights, including among leave voters.

That depends. 62% want low skilled workers out.