Send the buggers back
Discussion
Mrr T said:
You are wrong. When you deal with the “EU” you are dealing with three very separate heads, the Commission and the member countries as the Council of Europe, both of these deal with EU matters but in different ways, and the member countries as sovereign countries. If the UK leaves the EU and the EEA then the position of UK citizens living in the rEU is no longer covered by EU law but by 27 domestic laws.
A call by TM in a speech in the UK to preserve the rights of all EU migrants is hardly the best way of approaching 27 different nations and asking them to consider the rights of UK residents in their countries.
TM commitment on the rights of rEU citizens in the UK was also very vague. DD (leader of the brexit buffoons) spoke about rEU having the right to UK citizenship after 5 years. Is he suggesting rEU citizens in the UK will have to take UK citizenship. If he is besides being expensive, does he realise even now it takes about 9 moths for the applications to be completely processes.
Does he realise this is not an option, for example, retirees in Spain would want to take.
I'm starting to see why you like the EU so much MrrT. Problems where there is no need for them.A call by TM in a speech in the UK to preserve the rights of all EU migrants is hardly the best way of approaching 27 different nations and asking them to consider the rights of UK residents in their countries.
TM commitment on the rights of rEU citizens in the UK was also very vague. DD (leader of the brexit buffoons) spoke about rEU having the right to UK citizenship after 5 years. Is he suggesting rEU citizens in the UK will have to take UK citizenship. If he is besides being expensive, does he realise even now it takes about 9 moths for the applications to be completely processes.
Does he realise this is not an option, for example, retirees in Spain would want to take.
You think the heads of state are not listening when either side talks about Brexit? You think they will have zero input?
Yet it seems they have been prevented from even discussing it, either willingly or not. Who knows.
Arguably, maybe, it would have been better to discuss directly with heads of state...is that what you mean? But then haven't they all been told no dealing with the UK on matters related (which this is)?
On the flip side she's noted clearly that she would like to get it off the table for the good of the citizens of both sides. Details to be worked out. And they've (whichever one of the bodies or all of them jointly) said no. I don't see what there is to gain from them not allowing this to be discussed. It's small beer in the overall scheme of things but would remove an allegedly stressful situation for people from all over the EU. Why TM gets stick for this I do not know.
How do you think this should have been handled? One presumes if you can erect barriers you also have ideas for working around them?
Mrr T said:
...
Does he realise this is not an option, for example, retirees in Spain would want to take.
PS They may need to choose which they want most if sensible discussion cannot happen. It will not be what "they" want but what works best for the other 64m of us.Does he realise this is not an option, for example, retirees in Spain would want to take.
(Personally I'd be looking at the sense of allowing commuting of state pensions anyway. We need to make cuts in that bucket somewhere...).
This example seems particilarly stupid and small minded
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
///ajd said:
This example seems particilarly stupid and small minded
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
Reality is no one wants those already here deported, no one has plans for it, it wouldn't happen from even a practical standpoint or be allowed by the public, has no support from even one MP ( as far as I know ) and is seemingly very doubtful from a legal point of view too. We can't even deport some of the million plus illegals here, let alone adding another 3 million into the mix. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
This couple are nuts, because its going to be a formality. I appreciate that until its a signed and done deal people may have a doubt, but the PM isn't going to universally guarantee 3 million EU peeps a place here while not having the same deal for the 1 million Brits.
Its a shame the wonderful EU is the one dragging its heels and playing games when the PM has already said it could be settled before the triggering of Article 50. The EU says no pre negotiations though while they take a dump on their own citizens and use them as a bargaining tool, with almost zero criticism for doing so !
Single sides of stories are always helpful.
I wonder if the rejection of his first application was the only reason. ("Their decision to move to Scandinavia, where Bruno Pollet’s specialism in renewable energy can be harnessed").
Regardless, as noted several times above this is hardly the UK government's fault ad could be easily resolved (on matter how many of the hydra's heads need to be addressed
).
I wonder if the rejection of his first application was the only reason. ("Their decision to move to Scandinavia, where Bruno Pollet’s specialism in renewable energy can be harnessed").
Regardless, as noted several times above this is hardly the UK government's fault ad could be easily resolved (on matter how many of the hydra's heads need to be addressed
).Murph7355 said:
Single sides of stories are always helpful.
I wonder if the rejection of his first application was the only reason. ("Their decision to move to Scandinavia, where Bruno Pollet’s specialism in renewable energy can be harnessed").
Regardless, as noted several times above this is hardly the UK government's fault ad could be easily resolved (on matter how many of the hydra's heads need to be addressed).
Where is this country called Scandinavia anyway? Last time I checked it was a name for a collection of sovereign states, one of which (Norway) will require the filling in of a big form if you want to move there permanently. I wonder which one it is they went to and why the Guardian chose to not mention it?I wonder if the rejection of his first application was the only reason. ("Their decision to move to Scandinavia, where Bruno Pollet’s specialism in renewable energy can be harnessed").
Regardless, as noted several times above this is hardly the UK government's fault ad could be easily resolved (on matter how many of the hydra's heads need to be addressed
).///ajd said:
This example seems particilarly stupid and small minded
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
Oh dear. I do hope you are a https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
SUPPORTER Slasher? GIVE just £5 a month to save the Guardian from oblivion!
The Guardian.
Brexit Brexit Brexit, anything Brexit (anti, of course) and their bias lefty journalism will Brut it (splash it all over!).
The (not even fit for loo) paper, which they say is now read by more and more people, but fewer and fewer are paying for the privilege.
Does it not ever cross your mind why it's nearing oblivion?
For just the price of a coffee, save the GRAUNIAD!
Nah, like the majority, we prefer coffee.
Guardian. It can't be long.davepoth said:
Where is this country called Scandinavia anyway? Last time I checked it was a name for a collection of sovereign states, one of which (Norway) will require the filling in of a big form if you want to move there permanently. I wonder which one it is they went to and why the Guardian chose to not mention it?
Pretty sure they mentioned Sweden... Or I could have made that up. As soon as their car is set on fire and their kids beaten up by immigrants they'll be back in the London visa queue
sugerbear said:
If you really want to live in a country then best to get yourself registered and fully signed up. Dont leave it to chance, dont leave it until you are nearing retirement age etc. etc. Maybe you can't have your proverbial cake and eat it after all.
Guardian said:
More than a quarter of EU citizens are having their applications for permanent residency in the UK rejected since the UK voted to leave the EU, according to new analysis of the government’s migration data.
In the last two quarters of 2016, more than 12,800 EU citizens had their permanent residency requests refused with a further 5,500 declared invalid, a rejection rate of around 28%, analysis by the Liberal Democrats found. To qualify, EU nationals need five years of continued residence in the UK.
Computer says no.In the last two quarters of 2016, more than 12,800 EU citizens had their permanent residency requests refused with a further 5,500 declared invalid, a rejection rate of around 28%, analysis by the Liberal Democrats found. To qualify, EU nationals need five years of continued residence in the UK.
Been following this from the other side (half my family are in Singapore) and the bit she says about ..
“If I go to Singapore nobody will accept me there because they see me as a British woman. I wear Western clothes and my whole culture is here.”
is total b0ll0cks.
There is no strict dress code - it's not a Muslim country - and people wear the same sh8t from M&S at al as we do in the UK. She doesn't look like the sort of woman who hangs outside clubs in her thongs so not sure what her concern is other than to sell a sob story to immigration.
“If I go to Singapore nobody will accept me there because they see me as a British woman. I wear Western clothes and my whole culture is here.”
is total b0ll0cks.
There is no strict dress code - it's not a Muslim country - and people wear the same sh8t from M&S at al as we do in the UK. She doesn't look like the sort of woman who hangs outside clubs in her thongs so not sure what her concern is other than to sell a sob story to immigration.
///ajd said:
This example seems particilarly stupid and small minded
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
There are a number of very material inaccuracies in that storyhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/scot...
It makes the good point that aside from the impact of Mays hard brexit on EU national nationals, what about the impact on Brits who have married EU nationals? Brits effectively who may face the need to leave their country as their country threatens to deport their husband/wife. What a caring society. Never mind the human cost and hurt caused, they are foreigners, thats all that seems to matter.
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
EEA/EFTA option.
Not going to happen if it necessitates FoM for all EU citizens. There's a coffee pot that way - >Since the current UK government plan is unworkable I suspect that will be the only option in the end which does not devastate the UK economy.
The UK government may get some limited restrictions or registration scheme but do not expect more.
Murph7355 said:
Single sides of stories are always helpful.
I wonder if the rejection of his first application was the only reason. ("Their decision to move to Scandinavia, where Bruno Pollet’s specialism in renewable energy can be harnessed").
Regardless, as noted several times above this is hardly the UK government's fault ad could be easily resolved (on matter how many of the hydra's heads need to be addressed).
The story has a number of inaccuracies. Bruno does like to tell a good story - he just doesn't always include ALL of the facts. I wonder if the rejection of his first application was the only reason. ("Their decision to move to Scandinavia, where Bruno Pollet’s specialism in renewable energy can be harnessed").
Regardless, as noted several times above this is hardly the UK government's fault ad could be easily resolved (on matter how many of the hydra's heads need to be addressed
).Mrr T said:
Why? If it only mattered to 34% of leave voters (according to the Ashcroft poll), that 66% of voters who do not care.
Since the current UK government plan is unworkable I suspect that will be the only option in the end which does not devastate the UK economy.
The UK government may get some limited restrictions or registration scheme but do not expect more.
I was expecting the heavily emotive rhetoric to subside over time. Yours seems to be getting worse! Since the current UK government plan is unworkable I suspect that will be the only option in the end which does not devastate the UK economy.
The UK government may get some limited restrictions or registration scheme but do not expect more.
Anyone trusting polls more now than 8mths ago is nuts. Sovereignty (for which read control amongst other things) is a key facet. May has confirmed as much. FoM flies in the face of that, and frankly is unnecessary and only ideologically desirable... As I've said before, if the benefits of it were universally positive more in the world would allow it, and the EU would allow it for more than 28 countries.
The government provide visas and rights to remain all the time. So to call it out as unworkable is plainly rubbish. It works for non-EU citizens already.
If you're thinking more widely and that we'll only end up with an unmodified (materially) EEA/EFTA across the board, I suspect you're going to be more disappointed than me in 2yrs' time. But you'll have had even more time to get used to that by then
To call that wider plan out as unworkable is merely opinion, and without wishing to be too brutal here, yours doesn't seem to have gained strength in the last 8mths. We'll know in a couple of years how workable it really was, and will likely have some decent indications in 6-12mths.
Murph7355 said:
To call that wider plan out as unworkable is merely opinion, and without wishing to be too brutal here, yours doesn't seem to have gained strength in the last 8mths. We'll know in a couple of years how workable it really was, and will likely have some decent indications in 6-12mths.
Which is only your opinion.Unlike the brexit buffoons currently leading our exit strategy, I call it strategy in the loosest terms. It actually makes even less sense than the SNP independence plans. I read those who do real research and publish intelligent posts with real links. I know team leave does not trust experts but that says more about team leave than experts.
The UK white paper is a joke, full of rhetoric, and no real substance.
I speak to a number of people in Europe they are not against the UK leaving but just cannot understand that those leading the leave team seem to know so little about the EU.
To go back to UK emigrants living in the rUK I get the impression TM does not even understand if the UK leaves the EU/EEA their status then falls under 27 different legal jurisdictions. Each might require separate legislation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff