CJEU confirms that UK citizens have lost EU citizenship
eulawanalysis.blogspot.com
eulawanalysis.blogspot.com
Interesting fact: fear of immigration has evaporated after Brexit, despite that immigration to UK has increased. Maybe the Brexiters finally sleep well knowing that "they have control over their borders" or maybe the the media campaign of fear mongering died off.[0]
I'm very sorry that UK citizens lost their EU citizenship, British are part of Europe and have a huge positive impact. I'm sorry that you will need to pay fees, fill forms, get employment rejections due to non-meritocratic reasons like paperwork and visa.
Putting the government as the first line in the human resources is just beyond me. Feels like we are treated like cattle and persons need to prove worthiness to work and stay with us to the bureaucrats. It's not even the rules of immigration, which might make sense in certain situation but the act of working through the process itself is dehumanising. It's not enough to find a job that pays above certain amount or considered in demand, you need to spend money and time to expose yourself to someone who doesn't know you and has no business in your dealings and hope that they find you worthy.
Meaning British citizens are officially not EU citizens anymore. (barring dual citizens)
Yeah, no one likes a vote not turning out in their favour (in case it isn't obvious I voted to remain) but this feels a lot more life changing to me (a 27 year old) because I still have a lot of my life ahead of me.
The young from the UK can still apply for a visa, like the young from many other countries not in the EU. They also have a higher chance of getting one, probably.
Another factor is that the core Brexit (and Conservative) voters are retired home-owners, who are less directly connected to the productive side of the economy. The media they consume keeps them in that fantasy bubble. Take the Daily Express for example, which has reality-defying headlines that would put the North Korean Ministry of Information to shame.
So other than some clues (rising prices that can be blamed on global conditions, longer queues at airports that can be blamed on staff shortages and so on) they probably believe Brexit is going just fine.
The weeping and wailing began the night of the referendum. By the next morning we were confidently told by the press, Reddit, and Twitter that millions of Leave voters were already regretting their vote (and, as per TimPC's claim, were only now trying to find out what Brexit is), and that another referendum was thus the only fair/democratic/correct thing to do. (That even if such millions of Regretters actually existed that does not mean that a revote would occur is a minor technicality.) All part and parcel of the relentless effort since the referendum to invalidate its outcome by any means necessary.
It's pretty clear in retrospect that what drove the Labour collapse in 2019 (In some Red Wall seats—seats that Labour had held with massive majorities for 50-100 years—the Tories didn't have to gain a single vote to win) is both Labour Leavers unhappy about their party not continuing its 2017 acceptance of Brexit coming, and Remainers who disliked the idea (whether explicit among Lib Dems, or implicit among much of Labour) of ignoring a democratic vote in 2016. That's why another referendum was so unpopular, because no one believed that it would not be rigged against Leave.[1]
Those who in other circumstances might have supported a "People's Vote" didn't, because they saw it as yet another attempt to delay and prevent Brexit via Neverendums. I think Leave would have won another referendum conducted under the circumstances of the first one, but Leavers understandably didn't trust the People's Vote folks to implement another referendum in any way that Leave can again win. Not after 3.5 years and counting of shenanigans such as the Miller case.
[1] Even supporters of same, no matter what they said. That's why they were for it.
The idea that only ignorant people could vote against the EU is a popular meme amongst Remainers but actual polls have shown consistently there's little difference in EU knowledge between the two camps and to the extent one side has an advantage, it's those who wanted to leave who knew more.
Being a part of the EU was the wrong call for the UK, in my opinion.
Brexit implementation was painful like a bandaid, but in the long term you will benefit from this.
The price you'll need to pay is just worse economy for a decade or two, and more difficult travel/work etc, but you will have more freedom as an independent nation. That has real value.
Because without content, a comment is useless, empty propaganda. If you have a position, feel free to argue it by stating your principles, the facts, and how applying the principles to those facts lead you to the position. Otherwise you're noise at best, and a bad-faith actor looking less to persuade others to your view and more to simply damage others by wasting their time, at worst. And frankly, certain positions, like yours, for example, are closely associated with bad faith actors, so you might have to work even harder to assure readers.
If you happen to be less keen on immigration, then the EU is also a bad place as the enforcement is pretty weak.
I think those are pretty reasonable arguments that come down to one thing: autonomy for nation states.
Which are? I never see anything other than vague and vacuous emotional appeals in the positive column. By now people should be able to point at concrete positive outcomes.
Look, I left the UK 33 years ago, and am a dual citizen of the UK & US. I would never think of voting or in any way participating in regular UK politics - I left, my choice, that's over with.
But Brexit was different. It directly affected my rights as a citizen, to travel and work and live freely within the EU, and Cameron's fuck up and lies took that away from me (and my daughter) without my ability to vote on it.
I can't say for sure, but there are supposedly about 5.5M expat Brits. How many of them are over the 15 year limit for voting I don't know but I would guess that there are enough that it could have made a difference to the vote. I would also guess that an overwhelming of those (excluding the idiots on the Costa del Sol) would have voted against Brexit.
> But Brexit was different. It directly affected my rights as a citizen
You got some nice free perks at no cost to yourself and are now sore that the people who had had a less lopsided exposure (i.e. needed to shoulder costs for benefits you could enjoy without downside) decided, rightly or wrongly, the costs (non-existent to you) were not worth the benefits. I can see how that would be annoying to you personally, and I will not attempt to defend anything else about Brexit, but generally few decision making processes are improved by voluntarily involving more free-riders.
We don't. If you have not resided there for 15 years or longer, you have no vote. And I'm totally fine with that, it makes sense to me, for a variety of reasons, including that I pay no taxes in the UK, and that to a large degree nothing that happens in the UK affects me directly (it does affect my family, but they all get their own vote).
However, most democracies have a general policy of not taking away the rights and priviledges of citizenship without giving those affected a vote to at least nominally affect the decision. I remain a UK citizen and could return there to reside at any time. It is precisely because (a) this is a pivotal decision about the future and (b) it was a decision that would change the status of anyone with UK citizenship, whether or not they resided there, that I felt that someone like myself should have been able to vote. So for example, had Brexit actually been a vote on some sort of reconfiguration of the relationship with the EU that ended up with UK citizens still having the same individual relationship with the EU (unlikely, but you can half imagine it, I think), again, I don't think that people like me should have been able to vote. But when you're going to strip millions of people with the right to permanently reside in the UK of their relationship with the EU, it seems democratic and fair to me that you give them some say.
And Cameron apparently felt that way too, or at least voiced that opinion during his final election campaign, but then didn't follow through (not really a surprise).
I say this as an expat and a vote leave individual (flame away).
I'm not advocating for the rights of expats to be expanded, and I'd probably support some of them being shrunk somewhat, as a general rule.
I just think that a once-in-several-generational essentially constitutional vote is different, and that the normal rules (which I support) should be modified for such a thing.
The easy other point is people who haven't even stepped foot in the country in decades are dictating to people who still live there and drawing money away despite contributing very little when they did live there and absolutely nothing for the past 20 years in their hovel in Spain or whatever the current sufferer of British expats is.
Hindsight is 20/20; but this was Cameron's major oversight. The referendum should've been "more or less EU", not "yes or no EU".
He would've gotten a very strong mandate for less and the EU would've been forced to accommodate. (They wouldn't want to risk losing the UK.)
Alas.
On the other hand, had Cameron gone to the EU with a 90% "less EU" mandate in hand, the EU would either have to accede or kick the UK out. Kicking out a member state... pfffft. I would guess it can be vetoed by any member state - or at least any other (not being kicked out) member state. And some would - their EU track record is such that they could be next.
Basically, the EU had no choice whilst respecting sovereignty of Member States. A less/more vote would have put the onus of kicking out a member on the EU, something I don't see the member states reaching a unanimous decision on. Which would leave negotiation.
As for the EU being "forced" to accommodate, that tactic was also tried. That was Cameron's pre-referendum negotiations. It was a total failure, he was rebuffed on everything and hardly talked about his supposedly great deal after he returned because it was clear to all that the EU had compromised on nothing. Both during the process and after it, the EU's position was always the same and boiled down to "we don't care what voters think, you obey entirely or quit and accept that we'll blank you from then on".
I believe there was a referendum in Wales on more independence, with a stronger result (60+% in favor), which was basically ignored. (That is: much handwringing and discussion whether the mandate was clear enough). There was a link with Theresa May - she may have been in Welsh parliament.
Could be this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Welsh_devolution_refere...
If that recollection is roughly correct, political implications of the Brexit result would be "whatever suits you best".
You can definitely argue how far that argument holds sway - after all, any government could change its citizenship rules for expats. But Brexit clearly was a different case than regular elections. The government was embarking upon a sea change for expats - changing the rules of the game while playing.
Younger generations are thankfully easing up on this stuff, but eastern Europeans were not seen as "real Europeans" by western Europeans for a very long time. The same was true, though to a lesser extent of southern Europeans in the eyes of northern Europeans, something that stopped being so true a bit earlier.
Voting to remain meant voting for the status-quo, something many people weren’t happy with for perfectly legitimate reasons.
Voting to leave meant, well it meant all things to all people. The leave campaign focused on the boundless opportunities offered by leaving the EU and becoming a “more sovereign” nation, while ignoring the practical realities of life without the EU. So while Brexit certainly bring opportunities not available with the EU, it’s not clear the UK is in a position to capitalise on those opportunities, and loosing access to your largest trading partner certainly doesn’t make thing easier.
EU come with baggage, that’s undeniable, but it also brings tremendous benefits, which the UK had become used to, and no longer recognised as EU benefits. And when you offer people the opportunity to get rid of the baggage, and they don’t the benefits that they’re also getting rid off, it’s easy to see why people voted leave.
Can you elaborate on these legitimate reasons?
That stagnation has slowly eroded away peoples hope of a better future. Things aren’t getting better, they’re either staying the same or sliding backwards.
None of this of course has anything to do with the EU, if anything the EU development funding was they only thing preventing an even worse backslide. But the UK government deliberately refused to advertise when EU money was used to develop areas (something the EU has now banned), and has for decades used the EU as a scapegoat for the failure of national government. Do that for enough years, and it’s shouldn’t be much surprise that people started believing the rhetoric.
Additionally free movement of people brought it own issues, almost all of the self inflicted. A number of areas in the UK suffered greatly due to the abusive, and almost certainly illegal, practice of farmers hiring cheap imported labour that was underpaid, and abandoned outside of harvest season. The result of populations of starving abandoned Eastern Europeans forced into criminality in order to survive winter. Another catastrophic failure of national government, but when you’re being mugged by someone who doesn’t speak English, I doubt your going to take the time to understand why your mugger is mugging you.
The great irony of all this, is that the EU in its own way saw these issues, and gave members ways of limiting migration from newly joined member states, while those states completed their integration process and could create their own local opportunities with the help of the EU. The UK in its infinite wisdom decided to forgo all those controls and allow complete freedom of movement from day 0, and then blame the EU for the somewhat predictable results.
I don’t blame the EU for any of the above problems. They’re almost entirely the result of national government refusing to properly engage with the EU. But the problems had real impact on peoples lives, and the inability of UK government to acknowledge or tackle them meant there was no reason to believe they would get better while we remained in the EU. So I can see why leaving becomes an clear and obvious solution.
Quite frankly I think the greatest Brexit benefit is the removal of the fig leaf the EU provided for national failures of government. The UK government’s incompetence is on full display, and if we’re lucky, we finally get some competent politicians again.
I recall reading that it appealed to Brits with immigrant backgrounds because they felt like Europeans are having it too easy or something like that.
The other argument was about having a point system instead of letting anyone in, so the European engineers and Indian engineers for example would have the same rights and this will yield in more meritocratic system.
Somehow the companies are not good enough in picking the employees with the correct skillset, for example a British company is hiring unskilled Hungarians as engineers so to fix this the British companies first need to get a permission from the government which will evaluate the person, pay fees and wait a few month for processing to do the right kind of hires.
- Osborne: We will impose massive emergency taxes if you are naughty enough to vote leave (a lie).
- Cameron: I will definitely not resign as PM if I lose the vote (a lie which made the previous lie more believable, he resigned immediately)
- Cameron: I will trigger Article 50 immediately (a lie).
- HM Treasury: Voting leave will cause an immediate recession that will destroy 500,000-800,000 jobs according to expert modelling (wrong, baseless)
- Clegg: the EU army Brexit supporters talk about is a fantasy (a lie, the first post-brexit EU meeting was dominated by the sudden urgency of setting up an EU army)
- Obama in 2016: UK at the "back of the queue" for a US trade deal if voting for Brexit. A lie, turned out Cameron had asked him to say this, by 2018 US Treasury Secretary was saying "UK at front of the queue" for trade deal when ready.
- A vote to leave would cause Scotland to leave the union (didn't happen).
- John Major, Paddy Ashdown, Nick Clegg: The referendum vote is final and a once in a lifetime decision (a lie, all these politicians agitated for a second referendum)
- Cameron: my negotiations secured a "special status" for the UK in EU (a lie sent to every household in the UK via mailshot: everything Cameron got agreement on was either not new or not legally binding).
- Osborne: families will be exactly £4300 a week worse off if leaving the EU (an attempt to divide modelled reduction in GDP growth by population which is nonsensical, even the BBC rejected this one).
HN is flooded with self proclaimed "EU citizen" types so this perspective is rarely presented here, but the reality is that especially once they realized they might lose, a staggering number of influential media and political elites started lying their pants off to try and ensure they'd win. This probably backfired in the end, as their lies were often quite transparent and led people to wonder what they were all so afraid of.
The consequences of the vote were clear 6 years back. The problem is since then, there have been endless attempts to deliver a different outcome. To muddy the waters and suggest that actually what people really wanted was prize A, B, or C.
We left the EU and articles like this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Many of the current ills in the UK are directly or indirectly caused by Brexit, from labour shortages to increased haulage costs leading to a trade deficit and rising food prices. The whole thing has just been an obvious disaster. Specifically, the Office of Budget Responsibility [1] "estimates that our GDP will be 4 per cent lower than it otherwise would be because of Brexit (even without any further deterioration in the UK/EU relationship) and Brexit disruption to supply chains has already contributed to 6 per cent higher food prices". Using the most recent figure for national GDP from the Office for National Statistics [2] of £616.870 b, that's a cost of ~£2.5 bn. Nothing in comparison to the £4bn that the Tories have spent on broken PPE that they propose to burn to generate power [3] but still, a hell of a lot.
I will probably vote labour at the next election. It angers me deeply that they aren't campaigning about rejoining the EU – but were I to vote for the lib dems, who are, I fear a Tory would get in. I feel deeply that now, EVERYTHING IS WORSE FOR NO PURPOSE. Why! It's an absolute head-meet-desk (or foot-meet-gun) moment and it just seems to have been...accepted. The Union is breaking apart, we are stuck with an incompetent government by even its own piss-poor standards, with no democratic recourse and no option for undoing the damage done. Urgh. No wonder I've essentially decided to emigrate (to Europe).
[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/05/the-economic-co... [2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp [3] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/10/4bn-of-nhs-c...
Encouraged by the mass media. Brexit is one of the biggest ever newspaper campaigning successes. They simply had to lie about everything.
> EVERYTHING IS WORSE FOR NO PURPOSE.
Yes, and it's enraging; we're dealing with a delusional political class who care about nothing but themselves, and the press support them because otherwise the oligarchs who own the papers might face more tax or scrutiny.
The only recourse here would be for UK citizens to apply for European citizenship in a member state of their choice, but that's a long, complicated process, not dissimilar to the process of becoming a recognised UK citizen. It's also incredibly difficult if you're not highly-skilled, already living abroad and/or have access to exchange programs that offer a way in, such as access to education.
For the person in question, this should be easy: France requires that you've lived there for five years, have knowledge of France and speak French, something I'd expect should be quite doable if you've lived there for fifteen years. The UK allows for double citizenship, so I think there's an easy way out for people in such situations without giving up any rights in the home country, much easier than for most people who come to France from outside the EU.
I do hope the tensions around the northern Irish border situation won't impede UK citizens even more in the years to come. The way the UK seems to be coming back on their promises paints a grim image for things to come.
Headlines today say that the UK government will come out with a proposal next week that would violate the current border agreements. The current customs situation is an enormous hassle for the Northern Irish people, basically forming a customs border within the Kingdom, and the UK government want to cut through the red tape. That's not necessarily bad, it makes complete sense, but it's made difficult by the fact the easy solution (just putting a border between the two Irelands) isn't feasible.
If the UK decides to unilaterally alter the deal, Ireland may be required to enforce their customs policy along the border, which is feared to spark more violence in the area. After all, Ireland is either in the customs union or it's not, it can't become a free corridor for UK goods to enter the EU.
Sinn Féin and the DUP being at odds with each other after the latter lost the election certainly isn't helping. This whole situation is a mess and that's why I think the UK government altering their deal will only cause problems.
I hope that cooler heads prevail here. The rumoured proposal is still just that, a proposal. If it gets shot down, or if it gets held back until the situation has cooled down a bit, this might just turn into yet another round of EU negotiations.
A majority of people in NI recently voted for parties that support the NIP, and NI and London are the only regions in the UK that are currently experiencing growth. I think it might be more opportunity than hassle.
I'll never give up on the European Project personally, and it makes me deeply sad to cross the border and not have the Union Citizenship I always cherished. If it had been an option due to my ancestry, I would have gotten an alternative EU passport (as many if not most of my friends have). Brexit has made it infinitely more difficult to bring my fiancee into the country (in a bygone era we would have just Surinder Singh-ed as it's next to impossible for self-employed people to reunite with family in the UK), and has deeply degraded democracy in the UK (see proroguing parliament).
- omg! so unfair
There are many stupid things regarding Brexit (primarily, that it took place at all) but this was a worthwhile thing to try to resolve even if it was a bit of a long shot.
I don't really think that should be relevant to France's laws. Britain could after all change their laws.
But I do think this woman should be able to vote in these local elections as a legal resident. That should be the case regardless of citizenship. But it seems that would require changes to French law.
Of course that's a bit beside the point in the case though. I guess that option is only open to EU citizens. I find that odd, but I guess that's the law.
I, as a US citizen living in Ireland can vote in local council elections.
Realistic countries need to process citizenship for former EU citizens who have been living in their country for long enough to achieve citizenship.
It'll take them more effort, but after living in France for long enough to lose UK voting rights I should hope that the rest of the citizenship requirements should be easy.
This assumes the filer wants French citizenship, obviously: if they want to stick with permanent residence but still want to vote then there's no solution, you can't have it both ways.
In the UK any resident can vote in municipal elections - there is no citizenship requirement.
As Slovakia is a member state of the EU, this will not itself directly affect you.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I know more details, but I would guess it should not change anything for you, as your slovakian citizenship should suffice.
[edit] first version was missing a crucial „Not“
The only thing that changed is that UK nationals no longer have the status of "citizen" in the EU (unless they have dual citizenship, of course). What that means exactly differs per country.
IANAL but I don't think this changes much in practice, or was ever an unexpected outcome, really.
Long story short, EU citizens have certain rights in some member states. When the UK left, UK citizens are no longer entitled to any rights given to "EU citizens" in their country of residence.
The question that arose after Brexit was, whether British citizens would possibly retain this citizenship, which could have meant that they would retain the rights that come with it as well. There are different arguments why British citizens might have kept this EU citizenship, for example it might be argued that the withdrawal of a _state_ from the Union can not mean that _individuals_ loose their rights or it could be argued that such a loss of rights would be disproportionate.
The CJEU has now interpreted the treaties in such a way that the withdrawal does indeed mean that individuals loose their EU citizenship, arguing that "the authors of the Treaties thus established an inseparable and exclusive link between possession of the nationality of a Member State and not only the acquisition, but also the retention, of the status of citizen of the Union".
So this ruling might have had a big effect if the CJEU decided in a different way. The way they decided now, everything stays the same. If you are in possession of another EU member states citizenship (Slovakia) this will not change anything for you, you will remain an EU citizen.
[1] Technically many of those rights were already in the treaties before the introduction of the EU citizenship, so it is a bit "declaratory" in nature.
In Sweden "Settled" people can only vote for local governments, not for the Riksdag (Parliament).. that privilege is for citizens only, for example.
But, it's hardly "weird" that British people do not have EU citizenship automatically anymore, EU citizenship is granted on top of your normal citizenship if your country is a member of the EU, which the UK no longer is.
The same mechanism that turned Brits to EU citizens in the 70s is the same process by which those rights are no longer applicable to British citizens today, what did people think they were voting for?
Surely this is Hardly "news", or maybe I'm too optimistic about how much people understand about the politics of the world around them.
I would expect expats to know more than the usual uninformed (or misinformed) British citizen living domestically.
Brexiters did, indeed, in general, think they were voting to strip the rest of us of our rights, and they succeeded in doing so - they thought that this was worth "protecting us from Brussels" or preventing immigration or that it would mean £350 million a week to the NHS or whatever else.
This court case (and a handful of similar ones) was a last-ditch attempt of people stripped of their rights to keep them.
In the UK the rules are the same as Sweden where any resident can vote. But it seems many countries have citizenship requirements even for the municipal elections.
I’m not sure that’s trivially obvious. The process of joining the EU is complex and extremely well documented and understood.
The process of leaving is a couple paragraphs with zero specifics.
Ultimately the question boiled down to, having been granted EU citizenship, on what basis was that citizenship revoked? If EU citizenship is just an extension of your national citizenship to an EU member, then reason for loss is clear.
But if your EU citizenship is distinct and additional to your national citizenship, then what basis was it revoked, and what gave the revoking entity the right to strip a person of their EU citizenship?
Clearly the courts strong believe that EU citizenship is directly tied to your citizenship of an EU member. But until the ruling was made, that answer wasn’t absolutely clear, and why shouldn't UK citizens make a Hail Mary attempt at preserving their EU citizenship? The down side of bringing the case and loosing is a lose of time and money, but winning would fundamentally change many peoples relationship with the EU.
Therein lies the crux of the problem - nobody knew exactly what a vote for Brexit would mean, beyond somehow leaving the EU and "sending Johnny Foreigner back".
Many politicians and the tabloid media spread many dubious claims, and plenty outright lies, about the purported benefits of Brexit. For example, fisherman were made to believe French and Spanish boats would no longer fish in their waters - which never came true. This particular one example is a good one, because it demonstrates well that this group, who rely on cheap foreign labour, didn't know what they were voting for.
Edit: Bit surprised at some of these responses. You absolutely can use the word “European” to mean “a participant in the political project that is Europe”. This has nothing to do with ethnicity.
2) The EU is not Europe. Leaving the EU did not stop British citizens from being European.
I'm starting to understand how Americans get annoyed when people keep going "but the USA is not America"
2) Do you also insist on calling Venezuelans "American"? Because that's also technically accurate, in a way most people consider hair-splitting.
I find the distinction worth making because I refuse to let pro-EU people co-opt the European identity for their own purposes. I am British and European. Whether Britain is in the EU is irrelevant.
Of course they won't reapply any time soon, but that's nothing to do with Ukraine, Macedonia, Turkey, Bosnia, Serbia and all the other countries who are at various staged of the application process.
Not that it really matters, I think it would be unwise to readmit the UK unless EU membership becomes overwhelmingly popular, and I don't think that's going to take less than 15 years.
If I try to be optimistic, perhaps cheap holidays in the sun will keep another generation feeling as connected to Europe as those in the 17-40 range currently seem to be. But I'm not an optimist by nature.
Welcome to the not-so-united Kingdom of England and Wales. The Queen will die along with her Kingdom as a symbolic cherry on the cake.
It's stunning to watch videos of Britons confused about why they've lost certain privileges, only a short while after voting to leave the place that gave them those privileges. It's like canceling your gym membership because it's too expensive, then wanting to fight the manager because they won't let you work out there anymore. I have so much sympathy for those that knew what Brexit meant, tried to fight it, and lost the vote.
I've been mentally comparing this to the 2016 US election where an (electoral) majority got Trump elected as President. But we still have large swathes of the US population that were VERY happy with all 4 years of his presidency. I'm curious how many Britons in 2016 were similarly as vocal for their support of the referendum, and are still just as happy today with the results.
Have you consided that some of the people who are confused about this DID NOT VOTE TO LEAVE? That they are confused because nobody explained, or could explain, at the time of the Brexit, that these wouldbe the consequences? The Leave campaign was (at best) disingenous about the consequences; the Remain campaign could not predict all the consequences because that would require an actual deal to analyze.
It's nearly six years since the referendum - who exactly is surprised by this "development"?
Yes it wasn't perhaps my choice, but trying to relive the result repeatedly with the same vitriol anger isn't healthy. Even more so defining your identity around it e.g. FBPE (Follow back, Pro EU) on Twitter. It also doesn't help the rejoin cause to spew such negativity and hatred at the other 50% of the population.
Subsequent to light being shed, i find it to be about the most sinister and vile organisation it is possible to imagine.
Even then, ignoring my personal feelings, it is obvious these people over invested themselves with a fairly inconsequential team and are over compensating for it.
Look at the news on veto removal today. Only a hardcore shill would defend this organisation.