Reform proposal would make life harder for Brits living in the EU

[john_b]

Another enlightened intervention by Farage's Reform party that, if implemented, would disadvantage British citizens living across the EU.

Of course it's by no means certain, if even likely, that they will come to power in the UK, but I have occasionally met UKIP/Brexit/Reform inclined clowns here in Berlin who would, ironically, lose out if Farage's shower were in power...

.

[warsteiner70]

Unfortunately, with the mess the UK political system is in (7 PMs in the last 10 years) I can see Reform getting into power. Maybe not in the next General Election but possibly the one after that. We have already had BoJo as PM so Farage wouldn't surprise me.

A bit like the AfD here in DE. They will become more and more powerful the more the other parties argue (and getting nothing done) when in a coalition and trying to govern the country.

[Eric7]

I very much doubt Reform will be able to implement something like that.
What will happen with all the 'immigrants' currently claiming benefits? There will be riots.
It's just another one of their false promises to get dummies to vote for them. Once they are elected, it suddenly won't be possible, etc. etc.

[Fraufruit]

Farage, the Temu Trump.

[pappnase]

To be honest if Reform get into power it will probably finally be worth my while renouncing my UK citizenship. I don't want to be part of a country that could vote that way.

[john_b]

To be honest if Reform get into power it will probably finally be worth my while renouncing my UK citizenship. I don't want to be part of a country that could vote that way.

Presumably you already have German citizenship?

But all is not well here, either. Unlike Reform, the AFD is not dependent on a single personality and their share of the vote seems to be increasing across the whole country, not just the East. Don't forget that Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and the AfD were allies in the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy group, but in May 2024 Le Pen ended that cooperation on the grounds that the AfD had become too extreme...

[Eric7]

To be honest if Reform get into power it will probably finally be worth my while renouncing my UK citizenship. I don't want to be part of a country that could vote that way.

That's a ridiculous overreaction IMO.... they're basically just re-badged Tories with clickbait policies!

If you are already so disconnected from the UK that you are prepared to renounce your citizenship, I struggle to see how Reform getting in would affect you either way. It definitely wouldn't affect me, so giving up my citizenship would make zero difference to anything in my life.

[pappnase]

Indeed John, I didn't trust the Germans not to make life tough post Brexit so I got my papers before the cut-off date, but I kept both nationalities because I couldn't see any reason not to, and it cost ~£500 to renounce.

I agree about the AfD and I'm really quite upset about them too, but if I have to pick a right-wing hell-hole to live in, then the one where I own my own house and have a good job and a pension seems like the better one.

Really I don't think I'm the target for either Reform or the AfD, but you are correct, the drift to the right across the world is a worry.

[Eric7]

To be honest if Reform get into power it will probably finally be worth my while renouncing my UK citizenship. I don't want to be part of a country that could vote that way.

Presumably you already have German citizenship?

But all is not well here, either. Unlike Reform, the AFD is not dependent on a single personality and their share of the vote seems to be increasing across the whole country, not just the East. Don't forget that Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and the AfD were allies in the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy group, but in May 2024 Le Pen ended that cooperation on the grounds that the AfD had become too extreme...

I say this every time AfD comes up in conversation... if the established parties want to counter the 'threat' of the AfD, they need to actually listen to the population and implement some of the AfD's proposed policies. Cameron did the same thing to counter UKIP (Farage again) when they were pushing for the referendum and basically nullified them.

[pappnase]

That's a ridiculous overreaction IMO.... they're basically just re-badged Tories with clickbait policies!

I think rather than an over-reaction its a tipping point.

Its more about feeling like with a right-wing power over all of Europe, having dual nationality feels like a risk.
Its not about giving up my UK citizenship its about settling on one or the other to reduce the attack surface.

[Eric7]

That's a ridiculous overreaction IMO.... they're basically just re-badged Tories with clickbait policies!

I think rather than an over-reaction its a tipping point.

Its more about feeling like with a right-wing power over all of Europe, having dual nationality feels like a risk.
Its not about giving up my UK citizenship its about settling on one or the other to reduce the attack surface.

I feel that having dual nationality gives me options, without costing much.
Ideally, the 2nd nationality would be from somewhere far away from Europe...

[john_b]

I say this every time AfD comes up in conversation... if the established parties want to counter the 'threat' of the AfD, they need to actually listen to the population and implement some of the AfD's proposed policies. Cameron did the same thing to counter UKIP (Farage again) when they were pushing for the referendum and basically nullified them.

“Listen to voters” and “implement AfD policies” are not the same thing. Established parties should take people’s concerns seriously—about insecure work, housing, migration, public services and political powerlessness—but they should offer effective answers of their own, not accept the AfD’s diagnosis and scapegoats.

Cameron is hardly a reassuring precedent. His referendum promise did not initially nullify UKIP: after he made it, UKIP topped the 2014 European elections and won 12.6% at the 2015 general election. UKIP subsequently declined largely because its defining objective had been achieved and Farage moved on to new vehicles. Meanwhile, Britain left the EU, Cameron lost his premiership, the Conservatives adopted an increasingly hard Brexit, and Farage eventually returned with Reform. Cameron may temporarily have neutralised the UKIP brand, but he mainstreamed its central demand and strengthened the political current behind it.

There is also little evidence that copying the radical right reliably defeats it. It can validate its framing—telling voters that it identified the problem correctly—while allowing it to respond that the establishment’s imitation does not go far enough. The result is a ratchet further to the right.

The better response is to understand why these parties attract support and then present a credible alternative: affordable housing, secure and decently paid work, functioning public services, regional investment, competent and humane immigration administration, and greater democratic accountability. That also requires someone capable of communicating a positive direction rather than merely managing decline.

Whatever one thinks of Burnham, he already manages to convey that kind of political purpose more effectively than Starmer.

[Eric7]

“Listen to voters” and “implement AfD policies” are not the same thing - They can be though.

This is the problem John, you seem to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) completely and totally dismissing any solution to any problem if it's AfD that's suggesting it, even if that solution is the clear and obvious answer.
As an example of the current government actually listening and making a change (after a public outcry & AfD saying they would make this change), the law regarding a mandatory renewable energy share for new heating systems was reformed, allowing new oil & gas systems to be installed. I think this is a good thing - not every house is suitable for renewables & not every homeowner can afford it anyway.

All the CDU/CSU or SDP need to do is cherry-pick from the 'moderate' policies which are drawing in the AfD voters. If all AfD have to separate them from the other parties are the more 'extreme' policies then they will struggle as I really don't believe that most of their voters are actually right-wing.
It's the same with Reform. Get a proper grip on immigration & whatever else the chancer is bleating about & he will finally go away.

Cameron took away the main differentiating policy that UKIP had. Yes, it all went Pete Tong in the end but I'm sure that he was only focussed on winning that election & never thought in a million years the public would actually vote to leave the EU .

[john_b]

I’m not arguing that a proposal automatically becomes wrong because the AfD supports it. If you cherry-pick individual policy details, there will obviously be areas of consensus. The heating law is a reasonable example: if a measure is unaffordable or unsuitable for certain buildings, revising it and providing workable alternatives is democratic responsiveness. Policies should be judged on their merits.

But that is different from treating the AfD’s programme as a menu from which established parties should select policies in order to neutralise it. That strategy risks accepting the AfD’s framing of the problems—and confirming to voters that it was right all along—while the AfD simply moves to a more extreme demand.

The party’s history matters here. It began in 2013 primarily as a Eurosceptic, economically liberal party. Since then, successive comparatively moderate leaders—Lucke, Petry and Meuthen—have lost internal struggles or departed, while the völkisch-nationalist tendency associated with Björn Höcke has increasingly determined the party’s direction. The “Flügel” may have been formally dissolved, but its politics were not. Höcke’s influence continued to grow.

“Remigration” illustrates the danger. The reassuring public version is that it concerns rejected asylum seekers, illegal migrants and foreign criminals. But once “remigration” becomes an accepted organising principle, who belongs in the category can be steadily expanded. AfD figures have already associated with discussions in which the target was reportedly broader than criminals or people without residence rights, extending towards people of immigrant background—including naturalised Germans—judged insufficiently “integrated.”

That is the slippery slope: today the criterion is criminal conduct or legal status; tomorrow it may be ancestry, culture or political conformity. I’m not claiming every AfD voter wants that. I’m saying the party’s internal development gives us very good reasons not to assume that its most moderate formulation represents its ultimate destination.

The Cameron example actually reinforces my concern. He may have weakened UKIP as an electoral vehicle, but only by conceding its central demand. UKIP then declined because its purpose had largely been achieved, while Brexit happened, Cameron’s premiership ended and Farage eventually returned with another party. Calling that “nullifying” Farage confuses defeating an organisation with allowing it to determine the country’s political direction.

And the suggestion that Cameron was merely trying to win an election and never expected Leave to win is not much of a defence. It is an excellent warning against adopting radical demands as short-term electoral tactics while assuming their consequences can always be controlled.

[Fraufruit]

A bit off topic but Trump and his cronies have suggested stripping U.S. citizenship from any U.S. citizens that hold dual passports. No, I haven't gotten my German one yet. It is all chaos.

One of my English friends calls the Reform party the Deform party.

[Eric7]

I’m not arguing that a proposal automatically becomes wrong because the AfD supports it. If you cherry-pick individual policy details, there will obviously be areas of consensus. The heating law is a reasonable example: if a measure is unaffordable or unsuitable for certain buildings, revising it and providing workable alternatives is democratic responsiveness. Policies should be judged on their merits.

But that is different from treating the AfD’s programme as a menu from which established parties should select policies in order to neutralise it. That strategy risks accepting the AfD’s framing of the problems—and confirming to voters that it was right all along—while the AfD simply moves to a more extreme demand.

The party’s history matters here. It began in 2013 primarily as a Eurosceptic, economically liberal party. Since then, successive comparatively moderate leaders—Lucke, Petry and Meuthen—have lost internal struggles or departed, while the völkisch-nationalist tendency associated with Björn Höcke has increasingly determined the party’s direction. The “Flügel” may have been formally dissolved, but its politics were not. Höcke’s influence continued to grow.

“Remigration” illustrates the danger. The reassuring public version is that it concerns rejected asylum seekers, illegal migrants and foreign criminals. But once “remigration” becomes an accepted organising principle, who belongs in the category can be steadily expanded. AfD figures have already associated with discussions in which the target was reportedly broader than criminals or people without residence rights, extending towards people of immigrant background—including naturalised Germans—judged insufficiently “integrated.”

That is the slippery slope: today the criterion is criminal conduct or legal status; tomorrow it may be ancestry, culture or political conformity. I’m not claiming every AfD voter wants that. I’m saying the party’s internal development gives us very good reasons not to assume that its most moderate formulation represents its ultimate destination.

The Cameron example actually reinforces my concern. He may have weakened UKIP as an electoral vehicle, but only by conceding its central demand. UKIP then declined because its purpose had largely been achieved, while Brexit happened, Cameron’s premiership ended and Farage eventually returned with another party. Calling that “nullifying” Farage confuses defeating an organisation with allowing it to determine the country’s political direction.

And the suggestion that Cameron was merely trying to win an election and never expected Leave to win is not much of a defence. It is an excellent warning against adopting radical demands as short-term electoral tactics while assuming their consequences can always be controlled.

I'm not really sure what the point of your argument is any more to be honest...

The facts remain... AfD support is growing so established parties need to look at why and do something about it. The current government has the opportunity NOW to address those concerns and seems unable to do it, therefore support for AfD will continue to grow. Whether that is concerning for you is neither here nor there. There are plenty of 'easy wins' available for Merz but for whatever reason they aren't being taken.

Re. Cameron... who knows what would have happened if he hadn't called the referendum. UKIP support could have continued to grow and Farage could have been PM 10 years ago.

[Eric7]

A bit off topic but Trump and his cronies have suggested stripping U.S. citizenship from any U.S. citizens that hold dual passports. No, I haven't gotten my German one yet. It is all chaos.

One of my English friends calls the Reform party the Deform party.

Even though I hold dual citizenship I do understand the reasoning behind it being restricted - where do a person's loyalties actually lie?
Reasonable exceptions would be allowing country of birth plus citizenships of the parents. Naturalisation (like in my case) makes little sense really.

[kaffeemitmilch]

A bit off topic but Trump and his cronies have suggested stripping U.S. citizenship from any U.S. citizens that hold dual passports. No, I haven't gotten my German one yet. It is all chaos.

Nah just like most of his bullshit proclamations, he has no authority to strip US citizens, dual or otherwise, of their citizenship unless there is clear and provable misrepresentation during the naturalization process, or some sort of really hard to prove duplicity involving national security (in which case, goodbye Trump's citizenship). It's another of those things he's testing, and will lose.

Even though I hold dual citizenship I do understand the reasoning behind it being restricted - where do a person's loyalties actually lie?
Reasonable exceptions would be allowing country of birth plus citizenships of the parents. Naturalisation (like in my case) makes little sense really.

Eh, I have just one, and I have no loyalty to the country or any other

[bethannbitt]

AFAIK Trump wants to strip certain naturalized US citizens of their US citizenship, not eliminate dual. We paid attention, since Hubby is naturalized, but we are no longer worried. It‘s the rightwing nut job, Bernie Moreno, who proposed the no-dual citizenship law. Trump didn’t say boo about that. Then 4/5 kids would lose their second citizenships. So would a bunch of other billionaires. What can I say, except that I think right now it‘s pretty tough to be happy with this trend that I see there and here. I‘m not renouncing. It won‘t change who I am and it would have dire tax consequences for me. And I can, and do, still vote, at the local, state, and national level. When I receive German citizenship it won’t change who I am either, but it’ll make some facets of life, like the passport line, easier.

[yesterday]

Even though I hold dual citizenship I do understand the reasoning behind it being restricted - where do a person's loyalties actually lie?
Reasonable exceptions would be allowing country of birth plus citizenships of the parents. Naturalisation (like in my case) makes little sense really.

While I was on holiday I KOS some years ago I got into a conversation with some random stranger. Eventually he said to me where are you from, I did not know how to answer.
This is because I was born in the UK, but I’ve spent most of my life in Germany. I hold British and Irish citizenship as a result of Brexit, even though I’ve never visited Ireland. So how should I answer this simple question ?

I do not have any real loyalty to any any country, it just made my life easier to live with this solution.

I have loyalty to friends and family.

I am not sure if this is a good way to think or not, or if its representative of most people or not.


I think some people, think citizenship means far too much, rather than just a means to have an easier life, what wrong with that ?