How would you have phrased this headline?

She is ending EU citizens right to live and work in UK, with provisions to protect those already in the country.

Whether discriminating against lesser-skilled immigration from poorer countries is a moral thing to do is, of course, a separate subject for discussion.

Also, if I go visit my family on the continent, am I going to be able to come back ?

I agree that, if I were you, I'd be nervous about any trip abroad within the next 3 years.

I think you skipped this part:

> providing the same was true for UK citizens living in the EU.

That means your future in the UK is as safe as some bargain chips can be.

If she were going to kick EU citizens out, the headline would be "May to announce mass deportations" or something.

And secondly, do you really believe the uk government capable of distinguishing between people who have arrived before or after a date? They don't have a record of travel for everyone in the country. Are you going to be keeping bills in your name from before 15th of march to prove your residence history, the same as for a bank account proof of address?

I've been in the UK for close to 10 years now and I definitely feel like this applies to me. I'm considering either getting a green card and moving towards citizenship, or just moving out of the country. These decisions are frankly insulting.

Politics may be a bit screwy right now, but it's not insane, at least not yet in the UK, as much as people like to hyperbolise.

If you're currently living here, going abroad for a few weeks will be vanishingly unlikely to suddenly define you as no longer live here.

Oh yes it is. We have a nasty, dishonest and utterly incompetent government with free reign to do irreparable damage to this country, no thanks to our non-functioning and useless opposition party.

Meanwhile, our national press, who have never been anything other than dishonest and self-serving are in full frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria mode when it comes to Brexit.

I can't recall in recent memory a time in the UK when politics has been so dysfunctional and depressing as now.

All passports leaving the UK by official ports have been scanned by the UK Border Force for several years; at least five, from memory, and probably prior to their inception too.

They won't have a record if you departed in the dead of night from a small harbour using a yacht, but otherwise the database is fairly comprehensive. Even departures to outide the UK from my local flying-club airfield have UKBF in attendance ( I presume they charge for the 'service' ).

More likely everyone will have to prove their right to residence, and the border database will not be available to us.

However, I believe putting a control on immigration is the right thing to do.

Therefore, my presence is only temporary.

I would have gone with:

   Theresa May to end EU citizens' rights to move to the UK

"Theresa May poised to announce end of free movement for new EU migrants next month"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/26/theresa-may-poise...

A family watches the local news while awaiting their grandfather's arrival at Sunday dinner. The lead story is about a person causing chaos driving the wrong way on the highway. They quickly realize that the person is on the same highway that their grandfather usually takes to their house and call their grandfather to warn him.

"Grandpa, there's a person going the wrong way on the highway! Be careful!"

"_A_ person?" the grandfather replies angrily. "There's hundreds of 'em!"

You're just making assumptions about the time of this order going in effect to be right away which can't be deduced from the headline.

You'd be right if the headline read like this

"Theresa May ends EU citizens’ rights to live in UK"

Which implies immediate action taking place.

The fact that the headline gets the "to end", or in other cases "set to end", suggests that the subject of the sentence is expected to do something in the future and not in the present.

What abuse? People finding jobs in the UK?

Not the best way to start the negotiations and I suspect British nationals will experience reciprocal measures in Bulgaria/Romania.

Historically (read: empirically, as demonstrated by the real world regardless of what theories think), there are two ways to go about this, both having their set of issues:

- Socializing to some extent, but States are bad bad bad at anything economics (and overspend, mismanage, etc.)

- Non-profit legal statuses, with the appropriate amount of tax exemption, incentives, etc.; but then you enter a world of non-competition which produces abysmally low returns (and even if nobody actually profits, we still need these entities to remain efficient).

I think the ad industry, regarding the press for instance, is just one of the factors motivating the above top/general principle; i.e. that profit-seeking is detrimental to some missions/goals. Nonetheless necessary for said missions to be conducted in the first place (quality journalism, for instance, requires suitable compensation).

I certainly don't pretend to know the answer but a few empirically-motivated ideas emerge as we see this century unfold with its specific attributes.

1 - The creation of a legal status between companies and States: a "Citizen layer" of sorts which shares goals with States (not for profit, on a mission for the public good) but is managed just like regular companies (including competition/anti-trust, regular hiring without elections). This should allow "bad seeds" to die just like bad banks, and the good ones (which would actually make profit, and in time lower costs/increase quality) to thrive.

2 - Giving a "universal wage" to a pre-defined subset of some professions (e.g. N journalists) so as to ensure they exist and don't have to worry about profit (but the competition between journalists remains; as an individual you still have to actually be employed by a news outlet to receive said wages, it's not a right but a finite subvention, it's just removing the burden for that news outlet to make profit to pay you). Obviously there's still competition between news outlets.

There are many, many issues with these ideas, especially drafted hastily like that, but I think these are avenues worth considering. To put a few buzzwords into it, 1 is the idea of crowd-sourcing most of States' work and putting the management back into citizen control instead of elected/officials which are usually not qualified. 2 is just extending the notion of universal income to domains that would be deemed as essential as food or shelter for a population, e.g. information services (press). 1 is generally a weakening of the State where it fails historically, towards a more realistic economically-savvy model, with the added benefit of empowering citizenry as a whole. 2 is conversely a slight re-balancing towards a little dose of 'privately owned communism' when things are indeed of common good or interest (such as information), but limited to money transfers (States don't run anything, they just allocate funds they previously used internally).

Clickbait is just one symptom among many of an unbalanced system (let's not even talk about the general intellectual level of public debate at a time when more people are educated than ever in human history). There's a much larger picture to consider if we are to make our societies more efficient (information being key to democracy, and beyond that to a 'smart', 'informed' population, able to build progress).

> how the profits are distributed

There is on top of that the matter of conflicts of interest; i.e. shareholders with a political agenda etc.

They even have a whole site dedicated to clickbait crap: https://www.indy100.com/ ("A bagel started a brawl on a train and it was terrifying.")