| The Comments |
Right, so all the EU states that are less intelligent than the UK can manage migration from within the EU but somehow the UK can't. It looks like we have alot to learn from our neighbours, like how to run a country. If we had only joined the Euro none of this would have happened.
0
Like
|
According to this it appears an exercise to get everyone registered does it not?
https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/overview
0
Like
|
Part of what you say maybe true, but who is at fault? The EU or ourselves the UK.
Of course the UK NHS is going to be a target for free healthcare for EU and non EU people. We have let in every Tom, Dick and Harry for no questions asked for free treatment. Refused to implement EHIC system and claim back treatment costs. Non EU health tourism (especially Nigeria) has made the UK a laughing stock.
WHY?
_______________________
NO SNIDE COMMENTS PLEASE. STICK TO THE THREAD SUBJECT.
0
Like
|
Perrypower,
I'm sure you know that the in-work benefits and tax credits and housing allowances were not intended for EU migrants and that the EU prevent us from discriminating. So would you prefer that these nationals be denied the right to such benefit as a means of assistance back to work, or for those who are living in poverty rise up and proliferate unrest, when these benefits were intended to assist and tackle poverty for nationals in our own country?
It is hypocritical to on the one hand talk of peace and unity in Europe and then not take into account such real practical issues. Differentials must be better factored into the equation if fairness is to prevail given the major differences across member states and the good intent and differing measures employed within each member state, each with its own differing cost of living and differing debt to tackle, differing levels of unemployment etc etc.
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
This message was last edited by ads on 28/02/2017.
This message was last edited by ads on 28/02/2017.
1
Like
|
Although my next comment is not Brexit based, it relates to immigration and residence to the UK, which includes everyone, EU nationals equally. My question is the inabilty for the UK government to satisfactorily deal with immigrants and their breaking of UK regulations and laws, and then promptly getting them out of our country?
The case in question that highlights this perfectly is the case of Abu Hamza, the hook handed cleric. He was held on remand, securely, on suspicion of terrorist activitie for some considerable time. During this time it was found there was good, sound , legal reasons why he should be deported, so his deportatiion was delayed due to his appeal. Once it was found he had a possible case against being deported into the American legal system and country, the UK government then had a major debate why they could or couldnt legally (on humanity grounds) deport him to Jordan, the country of his birth? This subsequently happened, and when all the hurdles were cleared he was booted out with no delay.
Surely when there is a legal reason to remove a immigrant, why do the governments legal officials not get their details regarding that individual in order so that the person in question can be quickly and efficiently removed from our shores?
0
Like
|
No-one is saying that the UK Govt doesn't need to reform its own system......it is in the process of doing so.....what you are failing to understand is the pace and impact of swift change and the need for proper evaluation of transitional measures and the timeframe to such change.
The UK Govt were endeavouring to get this timeframe adjustment and evaluation process reflected in the negotiations (DC proabably mad a hash of it!), but the bureaucrats were having none of it.
What is required is realism and for us all to stop being defensive for the sake of it and look to gaining mutually beneficial solutions, but not remain in denial in that process.
0
Like
|
So Germany,France annd Sweden are managing their immigrants well!. You're having a laugh. I wouldn't like to be a native Swede living in Malmo.
1
Like
|
Tenerife, are there ANY native Swedes still living in Malmo???
0
Like
|
Ads, Your quote, "what you are failing to understand is the pace and impact of swift change and the need for proper evaluation of transitional measures and the timeframe to such change." if this is in reply to my recent thread , i think you have missed an earlier one of mine , relating to triggering Article 50 by Theresa May. I understand it only too well, and unlike others here , i am not complaining about the time its taking to trigger Article 50, as in my View Theresa May, and the cabinet are using this time delay to construct reasonable objective transitional measures that will be to the satisfaction of the UK and EU both.
Additionally we have endured 40 years of the EU, i am sure we can manage a little more , but preparations must be well conceived, as after exiting, we have to live with those decisions for the forseeable future.
0
Like
|
Yes; last time i looked 47% are foreign born, of whom 90% are muslim, and nearly all don't work and are on benefits.
0
Like
|
Abu Hamza, situation created by ‘’do gooders’’ then exploited by the legal professions ‘’nose in trough’’.
_______________________
NO SNIDE COMMENTS PLEASE. STICK TO THE THREAD SUBJECT.
1
Like
|
Elsietanner, i agree totally with the comment you just made, but it doesnt matter who it is , if there is a reason to deport someone for whatever reason, it should never be delayed by anyone, for whatever ill thought out reason. The legal process should be completed without delay, and the verdict carried out as soon as possible. On the flip side if the Immigrant is found to have a case to stay, we should enable that person to have full access to what they have been found to be entitled. The system is broken..... totally
1
Like
|
i am not complaining about the time its taking to trigger Article 50, as in my View Theresa May, and the cabinet are using this time delay to construct reasonable objective transitional measures
All part of the contingency work that Mr Cameron should have put in hand as soon as the bill before parliament for a referendum was passed.
1
Like
|
TTeedd, at that point the referendum had not been held. What is the point in starting contingency work when the Government at that point did not know the outcome of the referendum? If David Cameron (or any other politician) had sanctioned such work it could quite likely have been a total waste of taxpayers money by doing that. I for one would not be happy that the government used taxpayers money for something they might lose with, the potential loss would be millions.
0
Like
|
My reference to the denial of a realistic timeframe was in relation to reform of the UK benefit system which was already in progress, but the UK Govt needed to do this within a timeframe that allowed UK claimants sufficient time to realistically adjust and find work (and until such time as their income levels improved sufficiently to no longer require assistance). Plus within a timeframe to build more housing schools etc.
When a more realistic timeframe to delay EU migrants from accessing these UK in-work benefits and child benefits was requested by the Govt in the negotiations prior to the referendum, the EU bureaucrats refused to recognise this need for a more realistic time delay.
The rest became history, as when the Eastern Europeans with their families were allowed earlier access to these benefits than the UK could cope with ( which were higher than their own benefit levels) the numbers of migrants soared. So this swift large scale increased migration together with the subsequent additional housing and educational pressures plus pressures on the NHS system etc all happening within an unrealistic timeframe left the UK incredibly vulnerable.
And the bottom line is that it didn't have to be this way if only the EU bureaucrats had been willing to heed the "pleads" from the UK Govt in the first place.
This message was last edited by ads on 28/02/2017.
This message was last edited by ads on 28/02/2017.
1
Like
|
Ads, that sounds like blaming the EU, again, for the UK failures. When Romania and Bulgaria were admitted into the EU in 2007, the EU allowed countries to apply a transitional restriction on movement for up to 7 years.
Only Sweden, Finland, Ireland and the UK allowed unrestricted movement straight away. All other countries applied the 7 year restriction and this also happened with those admitted in 2004.
So UK allowed unrestricted access to movement and benefits straight away without taking into account the EU allowed restrictions. No wonder they all started moving to the countries who opened up their doors and started giving away free money.
And the EU also agreed on a 4 year brake on benefits which could be applied for seven years but, as the UK voted to leave, this deal was never ratified. It was one of the things that would have come in if the vote had been to stay.
And they'll still be in UK once Brexit happens.
This message was last edited by mariedav on 28/02/2017.
0
Like
|
The UK were asking for 13 years in the negotiations prior to the referendum but were denied.
This message was last edited by ads on 28/02/2017.
1
Like
|
No, the BBC reported that Cameron was "hoping for 13 years" but toned this down and only asked the EU for a 4 year block on in-work benefits and this could be brought in for 7 years. None of the reports state that he ever asked the EU for 13 years.
Of course, if the UK had such a thing as a register of foreign workers and applied the EU rules, those not in work could have been asked to leave after the 3 month free movement period finished. However, they never did. They still have no idea (apart from inspired guesswork) on how many are actually in the UK.
0
Like
|
Mariedev is right about a register of foreign workers,after the three month "free Movement " period has elapsed a migrant is supposed to make themselves known to the authorities, and after 183 days (six months) is supposed to apply for residence in the country they have migrated to. Many UK expats do not do this in Spain, and live under the radar, so its no good bleating about the UK not enforcing the regulations. Still it will all change once they need to get redidence authority, or a visitors visa before entering the UK
Viva la Revolution!
0
Like
|
Oh, and as for David Cameron, he did a "Tony Blair", they both handed the reins of running the country to someone else, and ran like hell once the going got tough. They should both be summonsed before a government enquiry to answer their actions, which to me seem nothing short of scandalous.
0
Like
|