EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

If they have bought property, travelled abroad, paid tax in that period, there will be records.

That is what a find a little strange about the windrusg cases.

It still doesn't prove an entitlement to remain, which is what the Windrush generation were told that they had.

 

[EM2]

Lest we forget the UK’s consignment of “child refugees” turned out to be military age males. At that point the policy lost all credibility.

An EU policy where we exercised our opt-out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...uses-EU-opt-out-to-refuse-migrant-quotas.html

David Cameron has rebuffed attempts by European leaders to force Britain to take quotas of refugees from the Mediterranean after one of the bloodiest EU summits in recent memory.

Mr Cameron was pressed by Germany, Italy and other nations to take some of the 150,000 migrants who have arrived in Europe after fleeing Africa and Syria.

The Prime Minister used Britain's opt out to block the demands, leaving European leaders descended into a furious and protracted debate.

After a revolt against plans for compulsory quotas, other European leaders eventually agreed to resettle 60,000 refugees arriving from the Mediterranean on a voluntary basis.

 

[HSTEd]

The EU doesn't give Freedom of Movement, it gives freedom of movement of labour. That is enough to restrict movement of people to the UK.

Successive UK Governments have never wanted to implement policies to enforce the EU Freedom of a Movement Regulations. We get the Govt we vote for.

THat is because without being able to exercise control on the border (and you are not permitted to deny an EU citizen entry for any of the reasons that you can deport an EU citizen relating to freedom of movement) you can't feasibly employ such controls in the UK.
We don't have to carry papers at all times to be ready to present to some random servent of the state who demands them for no reason than because he can.

And we can't make EU citizens register without building up an orwellian database of all citizens, which, like ID cards, is an anathema in Britain.

 

[AlterEgo]

But it doesn't affect one small part of the country, the deal affects everyone in the UK. They are the ones who prevented the Conservative's plan A for Brexit going through but at the same time demanded large sums of money to be sent to Northern Ireland in exchange for their 'confidence and supply' arrangement. I wonder how many Britons have used the Athens Metro at some point (one the most controversial projects to get EU funding) and I wonder what benefit UK taxpayers see from groups of Northern Irish people being given free money in exchange for not burning a flag.

“Britain” doesn’t give organised loyalist groups money not to burn Irish symbols.

Belfast City Council some years ago promised to award £100 extra in funding to community groups which didn’t burn symbols on their bonfires. This money came directly from the Belfast ratepayer.

I do not know if this arrangement exists any more and I suspect it does not.

 

[northwichcat]

“Britain” doesn’t give organised loyalist groups money not to burn Irish symbols.

Belfast City Council some years ago promised to award £100 extra in funding to community groups which didn’t burn symbols on their bonfires. This money came directly from the Belfast ratepayer.

I do not know if this arrangement exists any more and I suspect it does not.

I might not have found the latest figures but one set I found via a Google search suggests only 16% of Belfast City Council's money comes from 'Rates' with 64% coming from government.

You're partly right about the £100 no longer existing, it's now up to £1750 but they have to meet other criteria like not burning tyres: http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2018-05-03/bonfire-groups-reject-belfast-city-council-funding/ Obviously the DUP bribe is being spent.

 

[bnm]

If they have bought property, travelled abroad, paid tax in that period, there will be records.

That is what a find a little strange about the windrush cases.

Firstly. If.

Secondly. None of those are or were suitable to the authorities in proving citizenship. The state failed to accurately record and provide documentation for the Windrush generation. More than a few Windrush citizens had held a British passport in the past but had not renewed it after expiry, yet were still deported or threatened with deportation.

You say you find this situation a little strange. Are you suggesting that those who had been told they had the right to remain, had previously had legal protection (removed from 2014 legislation by the Tories) of a right to remain, are somehow complicit in the actions taken by the state against them?

These people had a legal right to settle in the UK and neither needed nor were provided documentation.

Is it your opinion that those who, despite being told they had a right to remain, despite previous legislation protecting that right, don't deserve to stay in their own country merely because they didn't buy a house, travel abroad or keep every bit of HMRC correspondence?

These people were quietly getting on with their lives as UK citizens, contributing to society, working, raising families after being welcomed here. Only since Theresa May became Home Secretary did their status become an issue. I'd like to think that the result of the legislation enacted in 2014, removing the clause regarding pre-1973 immigrants, was an error and not a deliberate action. With Theresa May ultimately responsible for said legislation I'm not sure though.

 

[nidave]

Except that it doesn’t really exist in any meaningful way - just look at the atrocities going on in North Korea and various other countries around the world. What is “international law” doing for those people?

Personally I do not want the U.K. to be governed by anyone other than the U.K. government. Why? Because I can see the danger inherent in hanging control over to an unelected bureaucracy with its own agenda.

Again, what rules do you have control over at the moment town/city rules, country rules and national rules. What will you get control over that you dont have control over now. Will you choose what day your bins are emptied? Will you choose how much tax you pay? Will you choose who runs the leasure centre? Give me one thing you will have more control over than you do now. Considering the UK has to agree to any EU laws and then enact them into UK law. ONE THIIG

 

[nidave]

I might not have found the latest figures but one set I found via a Google search suggests only 16% of Belfast City Council's money comes from 'Rates' with 64% coming from government.

You're partly right about the £100 no longer existing, it's now up to £1750 but they have to meet other criteria like not burning tyres: http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2018-05-03/bonfire-groups-reject-belfast-city-council-funding/ Obviously the DUP bribe is being spent.

The bonfires are getting so out of control they are a danger to lives and property - the police have had to be called in this week to remove dangerous bonfires which pose a risk to property. I dont agree with the money - the whole thing is stupid but how much is the cost of a fire engine and an ambulance.

 

[northwichcat]

The bonfires are getting so out of control they are a danger to lives and property - the police have had to be called in this week to remove dangerous bonfires which pose a risk to property. I dont agree with the money - the whole thing is stupid but how much is the cost of a fire engine and an ambulance.

There are better ways like making burning flags - whether they are the ROI flag, the NI flag or the Union Jack illegal and issuing fines for those caught breaking the law. I thought burning tyres is illegal anyway so a financial incentive to not break the law is just stupid.

 

[nidave]

There are better ways like making burning flags - whether they are the ROI flag, the NI flag or the Union Jack illegal and issuing fines for those caught breaking the law. I thought burning tyres is illegal anyway so a financial incentive to not break the law is just stupid.

Like everything in NI its not as simple as just banning things - its a bonkers country and I could not wait to get out of there. The sooner the idiots who prepetuate this rubbish on both sides die the better the country and the NI economy will be.

 

[EM2]

THat is because without being able to exercise control on the border (and you are not permitted to deny an EU citizen entry) you can't feasibly employ such controls in the UK.

But you are permitted to. Simply being an EU citizen does not give you carte blanche to walk in to the UK. See Geert Wilders as an example.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Except that it doesn’t really exist in any meaningful way - just look at the atrocities going on in North Korea and various other countries around the world. What is “international law” doing for those people?

Personally I do not want the U.K. to be governed by anyone other than the U.K. government. Why? Because I can see the danger inherent in hanging control over to an unelected bureaucracy with its own agenda.

Once again the EU is not totally unelected. We directly elect MEPs, we directly elect our government who deal with the EU on our behalf etc.
And if you really had a problem with "unelected bureaucracy", you'd also be against the house of lords, against the civil service, against the judiciary etc etc.

You are free to vote against the current government if you don’t agree with their policies. The solution should not be a “higher body” imposing its arbitrary rules on this country.

This isn't just about the policies of the current government though.
It is also about future governments too.
About tying countries to a set of shared values that we agree should never be crossed (or do you think that countries should be free to decide they want to commit genocide with no come back?).
Hell, the WTO trade rules that we keep hearing about are another example.

If they have bought property, travelled abroad, paid tax in that period, there will be records.

That is what a find a little strange about the windrusg cases.

Newer records yeah easily. But from decades ago? That becomes a lot more difficult to get hold of, and you forget that back then it was common for the women especially not to work (so wouldn't own property or pay tax etc). Plus once again, if you were told that you were fine and didn't need to do anything, why the hell would you have bothered to pull together any sorts of records to prove you were here? Basically the government messed up - and they have not admitted that. What they sadly haven't admitted is that it was a direct effect of their immigration policy.

Huh? You do realise EASA is an organ of the EU and was established by EC legislation? It is very much an EU animal.

And yet has members that are not in the EU. Indeed the governments white paper released today specifies our membership of the EASA as a non EU country through that mechanisms that already exist.

Yes the restrictions should have been imposed, but the fact they weren’t is no answer to criticism of freedom of movement as a concept.

The way I see it, you sort out your own house first before complaining someone else's is messy.
If there is an issue with freedom of movement and how it affects this country, then that is largely down to the UK and how we have implemented the laws (and decided not to add the restrictions we can).

Why should anyone have an inalienable right to reside and work in a foreign country?

Well luckily for you freedom of movement doesn't give that.

But of course, I would reply with why shouldn't you? Why shouldn't someone from France decide they want to live and work here, or why shouldn't one of my friends decide they want to work in The Netherlands? Especially (but not limited to) if they are contributing heavily to that country.

Immigration is beneficial and necessary, but it needs to be controlled. There’s no reason why the U.K. shouldn’t be able to control its own immigration and decide who is permitted to enter and who shouldn’t. Why on earth is it desirable for those decision to be made of us by the EU?

Some of us believe freedom of movement is a good thing, believe it or not.

I don’t suppose the majority of U.K. voters have any particular interest in the DUP since it only affects one small part of the country.

But it doesn't does it. It affects the whole country.
They are propping up a minority government that governs the whole of the UK. And have the ability to influence policy on a national level too.

THat is because without being able to exercise control on the border (and you are not permitted to deny an EU citizen entry) you can't feasibly employ such controls in the UK.
We don't have to carry papers at all times to be ready to present to some random servent of the state who demands them for no reason than because he can.

And we can't make EU citizens register without building up an orwellian database of all citizens, which, like ID cards, is an anathema in Britain.

Other countries manage it. Its in EU law that we are allowed to do it. The only three reasons I can think of why we haven't is either we couldn't be bothered to, we didn't think there was a need to, or we have kept it open to allow us to be able to point at freedom of movement as an EU problem so the UK government gets out of any blame.

 

[northwichcat]

Once again the EU is not totally unelected. We directly elect MEPs, we directly elect our government who deal with the EU on our behalf etc.
And if you really had a problem with "unelected bureaucracy", you'd also be against the house of lords, against the civil service, against the judiciary etc etc.

I already made that point to him and his response was

The civil service is accountable to parliament and to the electorate through them.

He seemed to ignore the point about the House of Lords!

 

[northwichcat]

The sooner the idiots who prepetuate this rubbish on both sides die the better the country and the NI economy will be.

I'm not convinced that will happen anything soon, especially considering the daughter of a loyalist became a new DUP MP in 2017 with her campaign funded by a paramilitary group.

 

[HSTEd]

But you are permitted to. Simply being an EU citizen does not give you carte blanche to walk in to the UK. See Geert Wilders as an example.

Sorry, you are not permitted to deny them entry for any but a small handful of reasons.

Other countries manage it. Its in EU law that we are allowed to do it. The only three reasons I can think of why we haven't is either we couldn't be bothered to, we didn't think there was a need to, or we have kept it open to allow us to be able to point at freedom of movement as an EU problem so the UK government gets out of any blame.

Because the only measures the EU permits the UK to carry out to exercise any significant control on free movement are things that English speaking peoples tend to decry as the instruments of a police state.

 

[nidave]

I'm not convinced that will happen anything soon, especially considering the daughter of a loyalist became a new DUP MP in 2017 with her campaign funded by a paramilitary group.

Its slowly changing - but I suspent it will be a very very long time. Thankfully I have my application for an irish passport - at some good came from being from NI

 

[EM2]

Sorry, you are not permitted to deny them entry for any but a small handful of reasons.

So the UK can deny someone entry if they don't want them in, then. There might be a very small number of reasons why, but it is permissible.

 

[HSTEd]

So the UK can deny someone entry if they don't want them in, then. There might be a very small number of reasons why, but it is permissible.

That is not what I was trying to say, and I will go back and correct the post to clarify that I mean you can't deny them entry because they have no job/study lined up.

 

[bramling]

But it doesn't affect one small part of the country, the deal affects everyone in the UK. They are the ones who prevented the Conservative's plan A for Brexit going through but at the same time demanded large sums of money to be sent to Northern Ireland in exchange for their 'confidence and supply' arrangement. I wonder how many Britons have used the Athens Metro at some point (one the most controversial projects to get EU funding) and I wonder what benefit UK taxpayers see from groups of Northern Irish people being given free money in exchange for not burning a flag.



The age being? Many countries have sent children to fight in war so there's not information there so say whether any credibility was lost.

I agree that the DUP deal leaves a sour taste, however this wasn't a consequence of Brexit, instead a consequence of May's bungled election, and the way Britain chose to vote.

 

[EM2]

That is not what I was trying to say, and I will go back and correct the post to clarify that I mean you can't deny them entry because they have no job/study lined up.

True, but you can boot them out later.

 

[northwichcat]

I agree that the DUP deal leaves a sour taste, however this wasn't a consequence of Brexit, instead a consequence of May's bungled election, and the way Britain chose to vote.

I didn't say it was a consequence of Brexit, I said the DUP are influencing how Brexit is being delivered. DUP politicians are getting significant power over things outside Northern Ireland (especially how taxes raised in England get spent) because of the arrangement they made with the Conservatives, despite no-one outside Northern Ireland voting for them. How is that any better than the EU parliament that you dislike so much?

 

[WelshBluebird]

That is not what I was trying to say, and I will go back and correct the post to clarify that I mean you can't deny them entry because they have no job/study lined up.

EU rules do allow you to send them back after I think its 3 months though. The problem is the UK hasn't bothered implementing this. As we don't register immigrants as they come into the country (which again, we are allowed to do), we have no record of when they entered the UK and so cannot remove them from the country after that time period.

 

[bramling]

If the UK blocks free movement from the EU then even if the UK allows controlled immigration from the EU, EU citizens will not be particularly interested in coming to the UK, because they have many other countries to choose from where they know they can stay as long as they like with no hassle. Therefore, the UK will be forced into taking in large numbers of immigrants from third world countries.

The UK wouldnt be forced into doing anything, but it may choose to do so, and the public can give a verdict on that at the ballot box.

As for third-world immigration, do we not already have this from countries like Romania? If not third-world it's certainly close.

Where I am virtually every mechanised car wash has closed, being replaced by groups of Europeans hand washing cars in car parks. It strikes me as odd that this is one area where technology has retrenched. I'm not sure it's worth having to provide housing and services just to facilitate some people having their car washed not particularly well for a couple of pounds less.

 

[HSTEd]

True, but you can boot them out later.

Finding them to do that is quite difficult however.

EU rules do allow you to send them back after I think its 3 months though. The problem is the UK hasn't bothered implementing this. As we don't register immigrants as they come into the country (which again, we are allowed to do), we have no record of when they entered the UK and so cannot remove them from the country after that time period.

We aren't empowered to compel people to register with the authorities unless we also make non-immigrants do that.
And since compelling them to do that is an anathema in britain, we can't functionally do that.

Which reduces the UK to carrying out gestapo like dragnets of the streets and rounding up undesirables and then somehow confirming who they are before they can be deported.
Which again is an anathema.

 

[Howardh]

Finding them to do that is quite difficult however.
.

Which will be exactly the same after Brexit. ie. workers come in under *tourism* ane then stay - maybe finding an illegal job - or across the Irish border totally unchecked. How much does it cost to find, investigate and deport an illegal - especially if they chellenge through the courts?

 

[EM2]

Finding them to do that is quite difficult however.

Then maybe we should register them, like we're allowed to do?
The facility already exists - https://www.gov.uk/uk-residence-eu-citizens/apply - and EU citizens can already register themselves. All that was needed was to extend that.

 

[HSTEd]

Then maybe we should register them, like we're allowed to do?
The facility already exists - https://www.gov.uk/uk-residence-eu-citizens/apply - and EU citizens can already register themselves. All that was needed was to extend that.

You can't compel them (without compelling everyone), so the mechanism is worse than useless.

 

[nidave]

I agree that the DUP deal leaves a sour taste, however this wasn't a consequence of Brexit, instead a consequence of May's bungled election, and the way Britain chose to vote.

Did you have a say in the DUP Deal - nope it was made for you - so why is there an issue with any EU laws ratified into UK law - what do you have control over personally and what will you have control over after we leave that you dont already?

And what is your opinion on

Britain should accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal, senior Indian diplomat warns
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-deal-diplomat-warning-yk-sinha-a8073516.html

Turkey seeks free trade deal with Britain in exchange for freedom of movement
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...eresa-May-free-trade-deal-UK-freedom-movement

 

[WelshBluebird]

We aren't empowered to compel people to register with the authorities unless we also make non-immigrants do that.

Evidence of that? I haven't seen anything that suggests the registration process has to be implemented for citizens too.

Which reduces the UK to carrying out gestapo like dragnets of the streets and rounding up undesirables and then somehow confirming who they are before they can be deported.

Which is what we are pretty much doing at the moment anyway with non EU immigrants isn't it, and how every single country in the world deals with people who are in the country illegally. Hell, as a country we've already passed the point of deporting people who have the right to reside here.

I don't know why you are getting so upetty about registering immigrants and deporting them if don't continue to abide by the laws regarding immigration. Isn't that exactly what those against immigration have wanted anyway?

 

[EM2]

You can't compel them (without compelling everyone), so the mechanism is worse than useless.

Yes you can:
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citize...ormalities/registering-residence/index_en.htm

During the first 3 months of your stay in your new country, as EU national, you cannot be required to apply for a residence document confirming your right to live there - although in some countries you may have to report your presence upon arrival.

After 3 months in your new country, you may be required to register your residence with the relevant authority (often the town hall or local police station), and to be issued with a registration certificate.
...
If you are required to register, you may be fined for not doing so but may continue to live in the country and cannot be expelled just for this.

In many countries, you will need to carry your registration certificate and national identity card or passport at all times. If you leave them at home, you may be fined but cannot be expelled just for this.