My statement does not follow logically from the previous ones? I do not believe so, since the rule change was due to Brexit, which is a causal relation
Britain decided to stop being part of the free movement agreement with the EU because they didn’t want Eastern Europeans taking all their jerbs. Getting rid of that agreement was quite literally the goal of brexit.
Sure, but it can’t force Sweden to deport British people living in the EU; that’s a decision they made themselves. This is particularly clear when contrasted with literally every other country in the EU. From the article:
According to the most recent European Commission annual report on implementation of the WA, almost 4,000 applicants for post-Brexit residency status in Sweden were refused, out of 14,200 made.
By contrast, Bulgaria, which has a similar number of applicants at around 16,000, refused just five people, and Belgium, which had 13,000 applicants, refused 605, according to the same report.
According to FCDO analysis, Sweden’s refusal rate of 27.5% is three times higher than any other member state and considerably higher than the EU average of between 3% and 4%.
Bigots in Britain decided to throw British people in the EU under the bus, but that doesn’t absolve authorities in EU countries (in this case Sweden) for running over them with the bus. The Bulgarian example is particularly useful here; they got their excuse to deport the shit out of Britons in Bulgaria but just chose not to do so (presumably due to their center-left government).
No, be as unfriendly towards Britain as you want, but taking that out on people abroad who happen to be British is way out of line. I said this elsewhere, but we’re not in the Middle Ages; the tribe doesn’t get to own the individual in the 21st century. The British people affected by these policies (again effectively only implemented by Sweden in the whole EU) are overwhelmingly likely not to be the people who decided to slap everyone in Europe in the face. Taking this idea to its absurd conclusion, European countries should’ve deported refugees from Nazi Germany because the Nazis were making trouble for everyone. After all, it’s okay to be “unfriendly” to people who are from countries that did bad things to you (setting aside the absurdity of describing uprooting a woman nearly in her 80s from her home of 21 years as just “unfriendly”). The trend today is to be trigger-happy with deportation as if it’s a nothingburger punishment like community service, but it has very real and very significant consequences to the people being deported and is definitely not something to be done out of spite.
I’m not sure why you’re moving country-level politics to the personal level other than to create a strawman argument. Individual interpersonal friendlyness has little to do with the decisions of the British electorate and the Swedish parliament.
A state treating people differently according to how they voted would be the end of democracy. The rules must be the same for everyone.
That’s a complete non-sequitur, but yes.
My statement does not follow logically from the previous ones? I do not believe so, since the rule change was due to Brexit, which is a causal relation
I wasn’t talking about Brexit, though. Britain isn’t forcing and can’t force Sweden to deport people; that’s on the Swedish government.
Britain decided to stop being part of the free movement agreement with the EU because they didn’t want Eastern Europeans taking all their jerbs. Getting rid of that agreement was quite literally the goal of brexit.
Sure, but it can’t force Sweden to deport British people living in the EU; that’s a decision they made themselves. This is particularly clear when contrasted with literally every other country in the EU. From the article:
Bigots in Britain decided to throw British people in the EU under the bus, but that doesn’t absolve authorities in EU countries (in this case Sweden) for running over them with the bus. The Bulgarian example is particularly useful here; they got their excuse to deport the shit out of Britons in Bulgaria but just chose not to do so (presumably due to their center-left government).
“Just because Britain decided to slap everyone in Europe in the face doesn’t mean everyone gets to be unfriendly towards them”
Thst’s what you sound like
No, be as unfriendly towards Britain as you want, but taking that out on people abroad who happen to be British is way out of line. I said this elsewhere, but we’re not in the Middle Ages; the tribe doesn’t get to own the individual in the 21st century. The British people affected by these policies (again effectively only implemented by Sweden in the whole EU) are overwhelmingly likely not to be the people who decided to slap everyone in Europe in the face. Taking this idea to its absurd conclusion, European countries should’ve deported refugees from Nazi Germany because the Nazis were making trouble for everyone. After all, it’s okay to be “unfriendly” to people who are from countries that did bad things to you (setting aside the absurdity of describing uprooting a woman nearly in her 80s from her home of 21 years as just “unfriendly”). The trend today is to be trigger-happy with deportation as if it’s a nothingburger punishment like community service, but it has very real and very significant consequences to the people being deported and is definitely not something to be done out of spite.
I’m not sure why you’re moving country-level politics to the personal level other than to create a strawman argument. Individual interpersonal friendlyness has little to do with the decisions of the British electorate and the Swedish parliament.
A state treating people differently according to how they voted would be the end of democracy. The rules must be the same for everyone.