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

[bethannbitt]

My Armenian-Germerican grandchildren (3,7, and 10) are culturally and linguistically Armenian, as is their mother. They were born and are being raised in Yerevan and have thus far not set foot in the US, but via my son have US passports. This affords them privileges, like automatic 90-day stays in the EU, that their peers don’t have. It’s nothing to do with identity.

[Fraufruit]

Trump has no authority to do most of the things that he does yet nobody stops him.

[kaffeemitmilch]

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 ?

Citizenship ought to mean much less. Basically, you're a citizen of the place in which you live and participate in life. This whole other realm of loyalty and country of origin BS is archaic.

BTW, when people ask you where you are from, YOU decide where you're from and what you want to tell them. You have a complex identity, as do many people. I, for instance, was born in country X to immigrant parents with citizenship from country Y, and was never a citizen of country X even though I wanted to be, and wanted to belong, but as an immigrant who obviously looked different, I would never really belong. We moved to the US eventually, and suddenly it wasn't even a question. I felt at home, I spoke English with a local accent, and I was American. So, now when people ask me, I am from California whether or not they like it.

It's your identity, so you decide what you are (obviously, you can't say you're Japanese, but you know what I mean )

[john_b]

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.

My point is simple: established parties must understand why AfD support is growing and address the underlying problems. But that does not necessarily mean adopting AfD policies. You keep treating those propositions as identical.

Governments should act on housing, wages, infrastructure, migration and the dysfunctional asylum system. Sensible proposals do not become wrong because the AfD supports them. But accepting its broader diagnosis allows it to set the agenda, claim vindication and move on to a more radical demand—as the AfD itself has repeatedly done.

What are the numerous “easy wins” Merz is refusing to take? The heating rules have already been made more flexible. Beyond that, “get a grip” is a slogan, not a policy; governing involves legal, financial and practical constraints that protest parties can ignore.

As for Cameron, UKIP won 12.6% in 2015 but only one parliamentary seat, so Farage becoming prime minister was highly improbable. Cameron conceded UKIP’s defining demand, lost the referendum, resigned and enabled Farage’s project to reshape Britain. UKIP declined because its principal objective had been achieved—not because Farage or his politics had been nullified.

The disagreement is therefore not about whether governments should act, but whether they should solve problems through a credible alternative or let the radical right define both the problems and the solutions.

[Franklan]

foWhatsApp Image 2026-08-21 at 16.15.19.jpeg (98.94 KiB) Viewed 17 times