Nobody lost citizenship when the UK left because there's no such thing as EU citizenship. Only nations can issue citizenship, and the EU isn't one. I know you claim it is, and the EU itself likes to sometimes pretend it is, but no country on Earth recognizes the EU as a nation.
> 1. You're literally telling people who did the moving that our lived experiences don't matter.
Where do I tell you your experiences don't matter? I myself moved to Europe from Britain! What I'm telling you is that very few people have our experiences. Settlement abroad might have mattered a lot to you or me, but it didn't matter to the vast majority of people. And that's just a fact, you can check in old polls from that time if you like. Freedom of movement only ever came up in the inbound direction.
> I can also suggest a number of the 52% were primarily motivated by the false claims made about economic costs, c.f. that bus.
It's disappointing that this comes up so often, ten years later. That was a true claim, a true cost. The belief it was the wrong number revolves around a net vs gross calculation and the gross number is correct. Net spending reflects the EU's priorities, not the priorities of locals. If I am forced to give you $100 and you use that to buy me something that cost $20, but I didn't want that thing, you don't get to claim I only spent $80. I'm still $100 down from where I wanted to be. If I quit that arrangement the $100 is a genuine saving.
> The article under discussion itself that shows 6-8% GDP loss
There has been no GDP loss. Please read the actual paper and evaluate it critically. It is, like all claims there has been a negative economic impact of leaving, a lie. There's a thread starting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45934061
This claim of economic harm comes up every few months and the underlying research is always like this. Usually they compare the UK against an insane counterfactual scenario, like assuming economic growth would have suddenly 3x-d out of nowhere after voting to Remain whilst the rest of the EU didn't. Or they compare the UK to a non-EU country like the USA and then say, UK growth would have matched if it had stayed in. Or they compare to a fictional country they made up on a spreadsheet (e.g. Goldman). The authors know all this is deceptive and they also know it works on people already predisposed to being fans of the EU, because they won't read any papers telling them what they want to hear.
> Why do you insist that all the rights that in law depend on citizenship are not rights?
This is another semantic problem. A status can lead to a "right" in law. The status itself is not the same thing as the right. The law can change to say "citizens no longer have a legal right to X" and that doesn't affect whether anyone is a citizen or not. The two things have to be kept separate.
I didn't follow your argument in the last few paragraphs. The British government gives people a home even if they don't/can't pay taxes. It costs a few thousand dollars to apply for citizenship normally in most countries, a one off payment that isn't a subscription fee. Once you paid you got it and won't lose it. The costs cover the processing, they aren't a general tax in the way EU membership fees were.
To recap:
1. There is no such thing as EU citizenship. It's not a country that can grant citizenship. You know this. It's just playing with words to pretend otherwise.
2. Citizenship is a status that can lead to "rights".
3. "Rights" should be put in quotes because it's a messy and misleading concept when you try to pin it down. A "right" is normally argued to be something inherent that can't be taken away from you, but what you're talking about was contingent on subscription payments. It was more accurately described as a purchase.
4. My argument about fees isn't contingent on how large they are. It's about definitions.
5. There was no economic loss to the UK from leaving. Claims to the contrary are always playing with numbers to try and sustain a deceptive and dishonest narrative, as all such economic narratives have been from the start.
> 1. You're literally telling people who did the moving that our lived experiences don't matter.
Where do I tell you your experiences don't matter? I myself moved to Europe from Britain! What I'm telling you is that very few people have our experiences. Settlement abroad might have mattered a lot to you or me, but it didn't matter to the vast majority of people. And that's just a fact, you can check in old polls from that time if you like. Freedom of movement only ever came up in the inbound direction.
> I can also suggest a number of the 52% were primarily motivated by the false claims made about economic costs, c.f. that bus.
It's disappointing that this comes up so often, ten years later. That was a true claim, a true cost. The belief it was the wrong number revolves around a net vs gross calculation and the gross number is correct. Net spending reflects the EU's priorities, not the priorities of locals. If I am forced to give you $100 and you use that to buy me something that cost $20, but I didn't want that thing, you don't get to claim I only spent $80. I'm still $100 down from where I wanted to be. If I quit that arrangement the $100 is a genuine saving.
> The article under discussion itself that shows 6-8% GDP loss
There has been no GDP loss. Please read the actual paper and evaluate it critically. It is, like all claims there has been a negative economic impact of leaving, a lie. There's a thread starting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45934061
This claim of economic harm comes up every few months and the underlying research is always like this. Usually they compare the UK against an insane counterfactual scenario, like assuming economic growth would have suddenly 3x-d out of nowhere after voting to Remain whilst the rest of the EU didn't. Or they compare the UK to a non-EU country like the USA and then say, UK growth would have matched if it had stayed in. Or they compare to a fictional country they made up on a spreadsheet (e.g. Goldman). The authors know all this is deceptive and they also know it works on people already predisposed to being fans of the EU, because they won't read any papers telling them what they want to hear.
> Why do you insist that all the rights that in law depend on citizenship are not rights?
This is another semantic problem. A status can lead to a "right" in law. The status itself is not the same thing as the right. The law can change to say "citizens no longer have a legal right to X" and that doesn't affect whether anyone is a citizen or not. The two things have to be kept separate.
I didn't follow your argument in the last few paragraphs. The British government gives people a home even if they don't/can't pay taxes. It costs a few thousand dollars to apply for citizenship normally in most countries, a one off payment that isn't a subscription fee. Once you paid you got it and won't lose it. The costs cover the processing, they aren't a general tax in the way EU membership fees were.
To recap:
1. There is no such thing as EU citizenship. It's not a country that can grant citizenship. You know this. It's just playing with words to pretend otherwise.
2. Citizenship is a status that can lead to "rights".
3. "Rights" should be put in quotes because it's a messy and misleading concept when you try to pin it down. A "right" is normally argued to be something inherent that can't be taken away from you, but what you're talking about was contingent on subscription payments. It was more accurately described as a purchase.
4. My argument about fees isn't contingent on how large they are. It's about definitions.
5. There was no economic loss to the UK from leaving. Claims to the contrary are always playing with numbers to try and sustain a deceptive and dishonest narrative, as all such economic narratives have been from the start.