I just can't see the logic. As someone who has another home outside of the UK (in the EU) I would feel much more confident of my position if the UK had unilaterally given an undertaking to those foreigners living in this country. Wouldn't you?
Actually I think it makes the government position trickier than if it had not been bought up at all. If the government overturns the HoL it looks heartless and that brutal negotiating stance could backfire. "So Mrs May, I think the first item on the agenda should be do you wish to treat EU citizens like Mexicans in Trump's America" If the Government doesn't - well there are 27 other countries, primarily Spain that have a superior hand before we begin.
A difficult position for May indeed. I'm content to let the Lords & Commons have democracy run their process, whatever the outcome. After all that is what 'taking back control' is all about. The central point of Art 50 has been ceeded, as is correct.
Well that ship has already sailed as MPs voted down a similar amendment in the Commons.
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
And everyone in this country (citizen or not) has a direct interest in giving the govt the best negotiating position.
Having a house in the EU doesn't make one morally superior or more right to opine on this issue. If anything, it could make one's thinking muddled and open to emotional influence.
I just can't see the logic. As someone who has another home outside of the UK (in the EU) I would feel much more confident of my position if the UK had unilaterally given an undertaking to those foreigners living in this country. Wouldn't you?
Actually I think it makes the government position trickier than if it had not been bought up at all. If the government overturns the HoL it looks heartless and that brutal negotiating stance could backfire. "So Mrs May, I think the first item on the agenda should be do you wish to treat EU citizens like Mexicans in Trump's America" If the Government doesn't - well there are 27 other countries, primarily Spain that have a superior hand before we begin.
A difficult position for May indeed. I'm content to let the Lords & Commons have democracy run their process, whatever the outcome. After all that is what 'taking back control' is all about. The central point of Art 50 has been ceeded, as is correct.
Governments look heartless all the time, at least from certain perspectives. In a resource-constrained country, difficult decisions have to be made (*), and such decisions will always negatively affect someone in some way.
Overturning the HoL's decision is the sensible action. Yes, other governments may try to play that line publicly (though I doubt it), but privately they will understand why it was made: they'd do the same in the circumstances.
The alternative is much worse and illogical.
(*) Which is why the Blair government got away with so much: they derided good economics in an attempt to free up resources, i.e. money.
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Using this gesture politics whilst disregarding the rights of British citizens in Europe is shameful in the extreme.
By voting Leave, the British people (who also elect the Government you are expecting to protect you) decided to throw the rights of all British citizens living in Europe into question. Don't blame the Spanish Government
THey also threw the rights of EU citizens living in the UK into question - but the unelected House of Lords chooses to prioritise EU residents rights over Britons.....
Last time I checked, the House of Lords didn't have jurisdiction over Spain
Nevertheless Spain must be smiling at the developments in both houses. Pre referendum I took the same position as Leadsom (briefly on this) - I was under the naive impression that EU citizens/British citizens already living in other countries could not be affected by this.
Richard Nabavi asked me if I was mad, and made me realised we'd have a brutal negotiation where literally nothing could or should probably be ruled out before heading to the table. The utter naivety of Gisela Stuart and Andrea Leadsom not to realise this same point struck home then, and even more so now.
It was one of several points that changed my mind. I think the gov't has no option but to try and overturn the Lords in the commons. It is a corollary to the original leave decision, which itself was wrong.
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
And everyone in this country (citizen or not) has a direct interest in giving the govt the best negotiating position.
Having a house in the EU doesn't make one morally superior or more right to opine on this issue. If anything, it could make one's thinking muddled and open to emotional influence.
That's twice already this morning that you've shown you can't read.
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
I am married to an EU27 national myself. I think this issue should be taken off the table straight away in negotiations, but simultaneously on both sides.
Do you really think people won't be deported? I'd assumed that at least some EU citizens will be - certainly those who haven't got permanent residency and don't meet an income threshold... I might be totally wrong on this though.
No. I dont. I think it would be too controversial. It would be much more fair and equitable to put EU citizens on the same basis as non-EU citizens with Indefinite Leave to Remain, specifically they can stay, work, pay taxes, but not "be a burden on the state", and can be deported if they commit a criminal act. Then, after five year with a clean record they can apply for citizenship if they are so inclined.
Do you really think people won't be deported? I'd assumed that at least some EU citizens will be - certainly those who haven't got permanent residency and don't meet an income threshold... I might be totally wrong on this though.
No. I dont. I think it would be too controversial. It would be much more fair and equitable to put EU citizens on the same basis as non-EU citizens with Indefinite Leave to Remain, specifically they can stay, work, pay taxes, but not "be a burden on the state", and can be deported if they commit a criminal act. Then, after five year with a clean record they can apply for citizenship if they are so inclined.
Actually ILR gives you full access to the benefits system. The only real differences between. ILR and being a UK citizen are:
1). You can't vote or have a passport 2). If you leave the UK for more than 2 years, you lose your residency
and you can be thrown out if you are a crook.
So do you support giving EU citizens already here ilr if it includes access to benefits system etc.?
And if not... Then presumably the alternative is deportations at some point?
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
I am married to an EU27 national myself. I think this issue should be taken off the table straight away in negotiations, but simultaneously on both sides.
I think the argument boils down to ... Do you trust Juncker and co to behave honourably?
I suspect the negotiations will be carried out in a business-like way. You take any advantage you're given to ensure you achieve the best result. Giving up bargaining positions makes you honourable, but naïve. Edit: or mendacious.
In November 2015 the pro-Remain, Cameron led government produced this data on EU nationals:
"...... in March 2013, “between 37 per cent and 45 per cent of the EEA nationals (excluding students) who were resident in the UK having arrived in the preceding 4 years were in households claiming either an in-work or out of-work benefit or tax credit” (DWP 2015b). This analysis looked at both in-work and out-of-work benefits together (excluding child benefit), "
Also on the perils of unilateralism (yes, House of Lords, I'm looking at you)
‘Do they really believe that if we gave up Trident, the eight other nuclear weapons powers would say, “Good old Britain! They have done the right thing. We must follow suit”? Pull the other one!’.
Not just the HoL, seems to be a view shared by our more euro-enthusiast brothers and sisters here. Still, if Labour wants to support that view I am sure it will go down on their doorsteps as well as unilateral disarmament did.
I think better of the British than you do, clearly. Unilateral disarmament involved giving up our ability to deter a military aggressor. Guaranteeing the rights of people who came to the UK in good faith under a regime that the UK had voluntarily signed up to does not.
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Labour are welcome to prioritise non-Britons over their fellow citizens if they think that's the right thing to do - but the Bishops aren't on their side - they voted 3:2 with the government...
How is this prioritising? It's treating equally, and fairly. I realise fairness has always been a concept Tories struggle with, Carlotta.
It's in their DNA as Mike would say.....you make the very valid point that these people came in good faith and the UK leaving the EU was not their choice. The Tory government's behaviour is deplorable. Watch the clip of Tebbit in the HOL. It'll chill you but it's a good pointer of things to come.
Every country has the right to choose who lives there, if Spain decides its better off without our high spending ex-pats that's entirely Spain's choice.
F1: it's simulated wet track day. Hmm. Well, at least they might find out if the wet tyres actually work.
Oh, and it's World Book Day. And I still can't remember what that book I read but whose author died before finishing it was (neither The Aeneid, nor Thucydides' history of The Peloponnesian War. Maybe it was Ammianus Marcellinus' The Later Roman Empire...).
F1: apparently, Williams aren't running after Stroll's crash yesterday.
Vettel tested the wet tyres a bit a few weeks ago, and crashed. Pirelli reckon it was his fault, quiet murmuring suggests it may have been aqua-planing.
In November 2015 the pro-Remain, Cameron led government produced this data on EU nationals:
"...... in March 2013, “between 37 per cent and 45 per cent of the EEA nationals (excluding students) who were resident in the UK having arrived in the preceding 4 years were in households claiming either an in-work or out of-work benefit or tax credit” (DWP 2015b). This analysis looked at both in-work and out-of-work benefits together (excluding child benefit), "
Manchester Gorton is really a model constituency for what Corbyn Britain could look like, a majority rent, almost half have no car and are reliant on public transport and almost a third are Muslim and a third students. If Corbyn cannot win comfortably here where can he win?
For f*cks sake, can we all now drop this deportation charade, the question isn't about deporting people, its about paying benefit to people, paying tax credits to people, and giving free healthcare to people. When we leave the EU, why are we going to give those benefits to EU people when we don't to non-EU people that arrived at the same time.
Actually perceived threat of deportation IS the issue right now. People who have settled in another country without permanent residence status because they haven't needed it are at risk of being thrown out if they don't get PR. If they have PR however, their status won't change simply because the UK has left the EU. Residence is a national not an EUcompetence so there's nothing to negotiate. What's needed now is an efficient and quick way for people to formalize their PR without having to submit a hundred page form, ridiculous amounts of affavitted documentation, and without the high rate of false rejection. ie t the opposite of what we have now. If Spain and other countries put hurdles in front of UK citizens residing in their countries, the UK government can't do anything about it. But it can put its own house in order.
Manchester Gorton is really a model constituency for what Corbyn Britain could look like, a majority rent, almost half have no car and are reliant on public transport and almost a third are Muslim and a third students. If Corbyn cannot win comfortably here where can he win?
Oh he'll win. If Corbyn is heading for government, then you'd expect something like Labour 73%, Conservatives 2%, UKIP 0.5%, Lib Dem 17% however.
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Using this gesture politics whilst disregarding the rights of British citizens in Europe is shameful in the extreme.
By voting Leave, the British people (who also elect the Government you are expecting to protect you) decided to throw the rights of all British citizens living in Europe into question. Don't blame the Spanish Government
My problem with this is this. That the British government is refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK is being described as heartless. Yet, the Spanish et al who are not guaranteeing the rights of Brits in their countries are not heartless and it's the Leave voters who are to blame.
You can't have it both ways.
I consider both to be heartless (and stupid). Britain is not going to deport Spanish citizens en masse, Spain is not going to deport British citizens en masse. Both Britain and the EU27 could confirm the rights of residency of current residents and neither should see this as a negotiating card, since neither can make a credible threat.
This is absolutely right. One of the few errors I think May has made is not making it clear right from the start that right of residency is not a bargaining chip. She has already set a cut off date of the date she invokes Article 50 and she should make it absolutely clear that any EU citizens resident in the UK prior to that date should be absolutely guaranteed continued right of residency no matter what the rest of the EU decides.
For f*cks sake, can we all now drop this deportation charade, the question isn't about deporting people, its about paying benefit to people, paying tax credits to people, and giving free healthcare to people. When we leave the EU, why are we going to give those benefits to EU people when we don't to non-EU people that arrived at the same time.
Actually perceived threat of deportation IS the issue right now. People who have settled in another country without permanent residence status because they haven't needed it are at risk of being thrown out if they don't get PR. If they have PR however, their status won't change simply because the UK has left the EU. Residence is a national not an EUcompetence so there's nothing to negotiate. What's needed now is an efficient and quick way for people to formalize their PR without having to submit a hundred page form, ridiculous amounts of affavitted documentation, and without the high rate of false rejection. ie t the opposite of what we have now. If Spain and other countries put hurdles in front of UK citizens residing in their countries, the UK government can't do anything about it. But it can put its own house in order.
And the reasonable solution is an equal agreement covering all relevant people on both sides, which has been offered by this country and not accepted.
Yet Remaniacs in the Lords seek to send this country naked into the negotiating chamber. Not acceptable.
Perhaps we need to consider the words of Gerald Kaufman on unilateral disarmament:
"‘Do they really believe that if we gave up Trident, the eight other nuclear weapons powers would say, “Good old Britain! They have done the right thing. We must follow suit”? Pull the other one!’. "
EU politics has always been a bugger-thy-neighbour exercise. Do these fools really think that spots have been changed?
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
I am married to an EU27 national myself. I think this issue should be taken off the table straight away in negotiations, but simultaneously on both sides.
I think that is the hope/plan after A50.
I very much hope so - in the same boat myself. That's why the whole Brits vs foreigners debate is so poisonous and plain wrong. For families like ours, the question is simply whether we can continue to to live together where we want without extra hoops. The Lords have voted in favour of Brits like me and my son. I think Norman Tebbit may live in a very simple world!
I appreciate that Casino Royale is clearly in a different place, but the majority of similar families we know never wanted us to leave, let alone our families be threatened. That's the key argument I think about taking it out of negotiations, as it's just as tricky for U.K. Citizens married abroad.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
Even Paul Nuttall's stint in the Happy Mondays will not be enough to secure him votes in this constituency.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
That is not what it says at all. It is a very sensible piece of political advice regarding two individuals who are very unlikely to get much support in this particular constituency. For their own political good it seems sensible for Nuttall and Farage to take heed of that advice.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
This is not a seat where Nuttall should compete unless he wants to lose another by election in an even more disastrous fashion. Nigel Farage should keep well away unless he wants to spur turnout for opposing parties.
The scale of willfull ignorance on show vis a vis the economic contribution of EU nationals to our economy last night was breathtaking. I asked the would-be deporters several times whether they had looked up the comparative figures, yet still they failed/refused to do so. That their policy is too extreme even for Nigel Farage didn't seem to stop them either. The sycophancy towards May and her curtain twitching brethren is becoming rather sinister.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
Even Paul Nuttall's stint in the Happy Mondays will not be enough to secure him votes in this constituency.
The lords are doing their job by making suggested amendments to legislation, if it's an outrage for an unelected body to do that now then it was always an outrage. It will only become an issue if they persist even when the commons rejects the idea after due consideration.
On the point itself, it has to be recognised that government and international negotiation will by necessity involve some cold, practical decisions. I think it is unfair to condemn people or the government for trying to secure the best position for its citizens. That being said, I personally wouldn't mind if we acted unilaterally on this issue - there is a risk the goodwill is not rewarded, but unlike nuclear weapons the negative consequences would be less - but I don't think it reasonable to condemn it either.
It is in the interests of us and the eu to reach a mutually beneficial deal on all sorts of things, so much so you might think how could it not happen. But the problem, as ever, is people. All involved will at times be selfish or shortsighted trying to secure the very best outcome for their own citizens. We will all be playing silly buggers essentially. That's a shame, but I'm not about to rage at every instance of that, even if I could leave with conceding on this particular point.
Manchester Gorton is really a model constituency for what Corbyn Britain could look like, a majority rent, almost half have no car and are reliant on public transport and almost a third are Muslim and a third students. If Corbyn cannot win comfortably here where can he win?
Having driven through Rusholme's famous 'Curry Mile' (my Grandmother used to live nearby) I can only say thank God more of them don't drive!
On topic... The threat in this constituency may be the greens... They came second in 2015 and are rather unfairly excluded from OGH's table. They can also attack labour on EU I think.
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Using this gesture politics whilst disregarding the rights of British citizens in Europe is shameful in the extreme.
By voting Leave, the British people (who also elect the Government you are expecting to protect you) decided to throw the rights of all British citizens living in Europe into question. Don't blame the Spanish Government
My problem with this is this. That the British government is refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK is being described as heartless. Yet, the Spanish et al who are not guaranteeing the rights of Brits in their countries are not heartless and it's the Leave voters who are to blame.
You can't have it both ways.
I consider both to be heartless (and stupid). Britain is not going to deport Spanish citizens en masse, Spain is not going to deport British citizens en masse. Both Britain and the EU27 could confirm the rights of residency of current residents and neither should see this as a negotiating card, since neither can make a credible threat.
This is absolutely right. One of the few errors I think May has made is not making it clear right from the start that right of residency is not a bargaining chip. She has already set a cut off date of the date she invokes Article 50 and she should make it absolutely clear that any EU citizens resident in the UK prior to that date should be absolutely guaranteed continued right of residency no matter what the rest of the EU decides.
Utterly misleading as it will include all those Irish domiciled PE executives earning a lot and "managing" their taxes.
What is the median number? Much more relevant.
Note that the actual story begins "London’s 1.8m *full-time* migrant workers each contribute £46,000 to the capital’s economy every year. Well, of course the ones who make money, make money.
But not necessarily very much money, as you note. From the article:
"London’s construction businesses are particularly dependent on EU workers, who make up more than a quarter of the total workforce. Europeans also account for 15 per cent of staff in financial services, a third of all hospitality workers and 12 per cent of wholesale and retail workers across the capital."
So brickies and baristas and checkout staff, then. If we wanted to throw them all out (which of course no one does), you'd want to look at the net position over all throwees, inc part-time and non-working.
If you wanted to prove experimentally that a proportion of Remainers are automata programmed to moan "EU good, UK bad" in all possible circumstances, you would set up a situation where the positions of the two sides were absolute, utter and identical mirror images of each other and see who continued with the "EU good, UK bad" chant. I think this has now happened.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Does he have the power to do that? If not, then as a point of pedantry if the government said not would it really be overruling him? I feel like overruling requires someone making a decision then having it undone by a superior body.
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Using this gesture politics whilst disregarding the rights of British citizens in Europe is shameful in the extreme.
By voting Leave, the British people (who also elect the Government you are expecting to protect you) decided to throw the rights of all British citizens living in Europe into question. Don't blame the Spanish Government
My problem with this is this. That the British government is refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK is being described as heartless. Yet, the Spanish et al who are not guaranteeing the rights of Brits in their countries are not heartless and it's the Leave voters who are to blame.
You can't have it both ways.
I consider both to be heartless (and stupid). Britain is not going to deport Spanish citizens en masse, Spain is not going to deport British citizens en masse. Both Britain and the EU27 could confirm the rights of residency of current residents and neither should see this as a negotiating card, since neither can make a credible threat.
This is absolutely right. One of the few errors I think May has made is not making it clear right from the start that right of residency is not a bargaining chip. She has already set a cut off date of the date she invokes Article 50 and she should make it absolutely clear that any EU citizens resident in the UK prior to that date should be absolutely guaranteed continued right of residency no matter what the rest of the EU decides.
Given that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for citizenship, how many people are really affected?
At the date A50 is triggered, anyone here from 2012 or before is essentially okay. Given that there is a two year negotiation period, that will cover people who arrived between 2012 and 2014.
We are then left with the people who have arrived since 2014. We voted to leave in June 2016.
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
Also on the perils of unilateralism (yes, House of Lords, I'm looking at you)
‘Do they really believe that if we gave up Trident, the eight other nuclear weapons powers would say, “Good old Britain! They have done the right thing. We must follow suit”? Pull the other one!’.
Not just the HoL, seems to be a view shared by our more euro-enthusiast brothers and sisters here. Still, if Labour wants to support that view I am sure it will go down on their doorsteps as well as unilateral disarmament did.
Re gorton, the lds will absolutely need to come above the greens and come second. They should easily do better than last time, but given how strong they did in previous elections they should be getting close to those levels if they are genuinely recovering.
For f*cks sake, can we all now drop this deportation charade, the question isn't about deporting people, its about paying benefit to people, paying tax credits to people, and giving free healthcare to people. When we leave the EU, why are we going to give those benefits to EU people when we don't to non-EU people that arrived at the same time.
Actually perceived threat of deportation IS the issue right now. People who have settled in another country without permanent residence status because they haven't needed it are at risk of being thrown out if they don't get PR. If they have PR however, their status won't change simply because the UK has left the EU. Residence is a national not an EUcompetence so there's nothing to negotiate. What's needed now is an efficient and quick way for people to formalize their PR without having to submit a hundred page form, ridiculous amounts of affavitted documentation, and without the high rate of false rejection. ie t the opposite of what we have now. If Spain and other countries put hurdles in front of UK citizens residing in their countries, the UK government can't do anything about it. But it can put its own house in order.
And the reasonable solution is an equal agreement covering all relevant people on both sides, which has been offered by this country and not accepted.
Yet Remaniacs in the Lords seek to send this country naked into the negotiating chamber. Not acceptable.
Perhaps we need to consider the words of Gerald Kaufman on unilateral disarmament:
"‘Do they really believe that if we gave up Trident, the eight other nuclear weapons powers would say, “Good old Britain! They have done the right thing. We must follow suit”? Pull the other one!’. "
EU politics has always been a bugger-thy-neighbour exercise. Do these fools really think that spots have been changed?
* Already quoted I see. Great minds etc.
Residence is a national competency, individual countries decide who to allow, not the EU, with the proviso that any EU citizen who stays at least five years must be allowed residence. If we accept the five year rule as the definition of those that will be guaranteed residence after we leave the EU, there's nothing to negotiate.
The accrued welfare rights issues is a part of the A50 horse trading. As with much else to do with Brexit it will be mediocre, but that's what we voted for.
The research (allegedly) justifying this claim has the status of "seen exclusively by the Financial Times". Personally I don't give much credence to secret evidence.
Perhaps PWC gave it to an actor by mistake.
It looks like the old "press release on Monday, report on Tuesday" trick.
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Using this gesture politics whilst disregarding the rights of British citizens in Europe is shameful in the extreme.
By voting Leave, the British people (who also elect the Government you are expecting to protect you) decided to throw the rights of all British citizens living in Europe into question. Don't blame the Spanish Government
My problem with this is this. That the British government is refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK is being described as heartless. Yet, the Spanish et al who are not guaranteeing the rights of Brits in their countries are not heartless and it's the Leave voters who are to blame.
You can't have it both ways.
I consider both to be heartless (and stupid). Britain is not going to deport Spanish citizens en masse, Spain is not going to deport British citizens en masse. Both Britain and the EU27 could confirm the rights of residency of current residents and neither should see this as a negotiating card, since neither can make a credible threat.
This is absolutely right. One of the few errors I think May has made is not making it clear right from the start that right of residency is not a bargaining chip. She has already set a cut off date of the date she invokes Article 50 and she should make it absolutely clear that any EU citizens resident in the UK prior to that date should be absolutely guaranteed continued right of residency no matter what the rest of the EU decides.
Given that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for citizenship, how many people are really affected?
Snip
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
You are the one who is threatening EU nationals with deportation. How many are affected? You tell us.
Given that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for citizenship, how many people are really affected?
At the date A50 is triggered, anyone here from 2012 or before is essentially okay. Given that there is a two year negotiation period, that will cover people who arrived between 2012 and 2014.
We are then left with the people who have since 2014. We voted to leave in June 2016.
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
If there are that few people affected then what is the problem with the plan? The alternative seems to be using these people as bargaining chips which seems completely unacceptable to me.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Whether or not it would at least be a rallying call for those of us who are getting desperate about entering the dystopian future that Cameron Farage and May have mapped out for us.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Does he have the power to do that? If not, then as a point of pedantry if the government said not would it really be overruling him? I feel like overruling requires someone making a decision then having it undone by a superior body.
Hasn't he already made the suggestion though?
He was initially arm in arm with Sturgeon as they sought to present a united front to keep single market membership/free movement. His recent bizarre attack on the SNP is probably the end of that now though.
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Using this gesture politics whilst disregarding the rights of British citizens in Europe is shameful in the extreme.
By voting Leave, the British people (who also elect the Government you are expecting to protect you) decided to throw the rights of all British citizens living in Europe into question. Don't blame the Spanish Government
My problem with this is this. That the British government is refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK is being described as heartless. Yet, the Spanish et al who are not guaranteeing the rights of Brits in their countries are not heartless and it's the Leave voters who are to blame.
You can't have it both ways.
I consider both to be heartless (and stupid). Britain is not going to deport Spanish citizens en masse, Spain is not going to deport British citizens en masse. Both Britain and the EU27 could confirm the rights of residency of current residents and neither should see this as a negotiating card, since neither can make a credible threat.
This is absolutely right. One of the few errors I think May has made is not making it clear right from the start that right of residency is not a bargaining chip. She has already set a cut off date of the date she invokes Article 50 and she should make it absolutely clear that any EU citizens resident in the UK prior to that date should be absolutely guaranteed continued right of residency no matter what the rest of the EU decides.
Given that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for citizenship, how many people are really affected?
Snip
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
You are the one who is threatening EU nationals with deportation. How many are affected? You tell us.
Question - do any eu nations bar people from holding dual citizenship (not including EU citizenship)? I would presume not, but some surprising places do.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
That is not what it says at all. It is a very sensible piece of political advice regarding two individuals who are very unlikely to get much support in this particular constituency. For their own political good it seems sensible for Nuttall and Farage to take heed of that advice.
It is exactly what he says as the sentence comes without explanation or added context.
I accept your point and it may not be what he means - you have very probably translated the intent accurately.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Does he have the power to do that? If not, then as a point of pedantry if the government said not would it really be overruling him? I feel like overruling requires someone making a decision then having it undone by a superior body.
Hasn't he already made the suggestion though?
He should make the offer and ask the government to sit down with him. Regional visas work perfectly well in other countries (BC in Canada for example).
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Whether or not it would be a rallying call for those of us who are getting desperate about entering this dystopian future that Cameron Farage and May have mapped out for us.
Quite right. Although to be fair to Farage, this particular policy is too extreme for him (but supported by the May Brown Noses on here).
Will undoubtedly be celebrated as a major victory for labour.
a turning point after the disappointment of copeland.
I wonder why the Tories let it through? Cock up? (most likely) - or a trap for Labour in the Hoc?
Good luck with that 'turning point' - I'm not sure 'Labour prioritises foreigners over Brits' is the strongest platform to mount a relaunch from....
Using people who have lived, worked and paid taxes here - often for years - as a means to attack Labour is clearly what the Tories are seeking to do, I agree.
Using this gesture politics whilst disregarding the rights of British citizens in Europe is shameful in the extreme.
By voting Leave, the British people (who also elect the Government you are expecting to protect you) decided to throw the rights of all British citizens living in Europe into question. Don't blame the Spanish Government
My problem with this is this. That the British government is refusing to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK is being described as heartless. Yet, the Spanish et al who are not guaranteeing the rights of Brits in their countries are not heartless and it's the Leave voters who are to blame.
You can't have it both ways.
I consider both to be heartless (and stupid). Britain is not going to deport Spanish citizens en masse, Spain is not going to deport British citizens en masse. Both Britain and the EU27 could confirm the rights of residency of current residents and neither should see this as a negotiating card, since neither can make a credible threat.
This is absolutely right. One of the few errors I think May has made is not making it clear right from the start that right of residency is not a bargaining chip. She has already set a cut off date of the date she invokes Article 50 and she should make it absolutely clear that any EU citizens resident in the UK prior to that date should be absolutely guaranteed continued right of residency no matter what the rest of the EU decides.
Given that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for citizenship, how many people are really affected?
Snip
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
You are the one who is threatening EU nationals with deportation. How many are affected? You tell us.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Does he have the power to do that? If not, then as a point of pedantry if the government said not would it really be overruling him? I feel like overruling requires someone making a decision then having it undone by a superior body.
Hasn't he already made the suggestion though?
He should make the offer and ask the government to sit down with him. Regional visas work perfectly well in other countries (BC in Canada for example).
Canada doesn't have Article 8.
Someone comes to the UK on a London visa, after a month or so they wander off to another part of the country, find a local girlfriend. Get their collar felt by immigration, claim Article 8, get allowed to stay indefinitely. It works for tens of thousands of people that fail their asylum appeals every year after all.
Question - do any eu nations bar people from holding dual citizenship (not including EU citizenship)? I would presume not, but some surprising places do.
I think Germany is pretty restrictive on their dual citizenship permissions for non-EU. It's not barred but there are a lot of criteria to meet.
A lot of EU countries have only fairly recently relaxed the laws on dual citizenship in the last 5 or so years.
Actually perceived threat of deportation IS the issue right now. People who have settled in another country without permanent residence status because they haven't needed it are at risk of being thrown out if they don't get PR. If they have PR however, their status won't change simply because the UK has left the EU. Residence is a national not an EUcompetence so there's nothing to negotiate. What's needed now is an efficient and quick way for people to formalize their PR without having to submit a hundred page form, ridiculous amounts of affavitted documentation, and without the high rate of false rejection. ie t the opposite of what we have now. If Spain and other countries put hurdles in front of UK citizens residing in their countries, the UK government can't do anything about it. But it can put its own house in order.
And the reasonable solution is an equal agreement covering all relevant people on both sides, which has been offered by this country and not accepted.
Yet Remaniacs in the Lords seek to send this country naked into the negotiating chamber. Not acceptable.
Perhaps we need to consider the words of Gerald Kaufman on unilateral disarmament:
"‘Do they really believe that if we gave up Trident, the eight other nuclear weapons powers would say, “Good old Britain! They have done the right thing. We must follow suit”? Pull the other one!’. "
EU politics has always been a bugger-thy-neighbour exercise. Do these fools really think that spots have been changed?
* Already quoted I see. Great minds etc.
Residence is a national competency, individual countries decide who to allow, not the EU, with the proviso that any EU citizen who stays at least five years must be allowed residence. If we accept the five year rule as the definition of those that will be guaranteed residence after we leave the EU, there's nothing to negotiate.
The accrued welfare rights issues is a part of the A50 horse trading. As with much else to do with Brexit it will be mediocre, but that's what we voted for.
I didn't comment on welfare rights.
Whether it is a national competence or not, the sensible approach is an equal negotiation of equals. The Lords amendment undermines that, and is not acceptable. Let the EU countries recognise the same principle and the question is solved. Did they do so?
Perhaps we should also note that this was an issue put into play last summer / autumn by the likes of Clegg, using EU citizens as a political football in the UK.
Mr. W, whoa there, crazy horse. It's far too early in the morning to write such things. If any ladies read that post they'll be swooning over their keyboards.
Mr. Bojabob, hurling new powers at London in that manner would be demented. Devolution should be done in a carefully considered way, not in a knee-jerk manner.
Mr. Tyndall, and if British citizens in the EU are used as a bargaining chip? The interest of the UK must be its own citizens. I entirely agree with you that those EU citizens here should be allowed to stay, and a reciprocal deal would be a very good thing, but it's EU leaders who have declined that, not us.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
That is not what it says at all. It is a very sensible piece of political advice regarding two individuals who are very unlikely to get much support in this particular constituency. For their own political good it seems sensible for Nuttall and Farage to take heed of that advice.
It is exactly what he says as the sentence comes without explanation or added context.
I accept your point and it may not be what he means - you have very probably translated the intent accurately.
Sorry but how does what he said get you to ghettos for white people?
It's not what is said or meant.
Yes Farage and Nuttall are both white. They are also both English, male, over forty etc... I think the relevant thing which everyone including you understands is that they are both UKIP politicians!
You keep spewing the same fake news bullshit because it suits your case. No government of any color, not even the purples are proposing to deport 3 million people, if for no other reason than the optics would be electoral suicide. So can we please stop with all this deportation bullshit, its not going to happen.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Does he have the power to do that? If not, then as a point of pedantry if the government said not would it really be overruling him? I feel like overruling requires someone making a decision then having it undone by a superior body.
Hasn't he already made the suggestion though?
He should make the offer and ask the government to sit down with him. Regional visas work perfectly well in other countries (BC in Canada for example).
Canada doesn't have Article 8.
Someone comes to the UK on a London visa, after a month or so they wander off to another part of the country, find a local girlfriend. Get their collar felt by immigration, claim Article 8, get allowed to stay indefinitely. It works for tens of thousands of people that fail their asylum appeals every year after all.
They can neither work nor claim benefits outside the region of the visa. It works well in other countries. We should launch it for London, which has a administratively defined boundary and its own devolved government. Not massively dissimilar in that regard to a Canadian province.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Does he have the power to do that? If not, then as a point of pedantry if the government said not would it really be overruling him? I feel like overruling requires someone making a decision then having it undone by a superior body.
Hasn't he already made the suggestion though?
He should make the offer and ask the government to sit down with him. Regional visas work perfectly well in other countries (BC in Canada for example).
Canada doesn't have Article 8.
Someone comes to the UK on a London visa, after a month or so they wander off to another part of the country, find a local girlfriend. Get their collar felt by immigration, claim Article 8, get allowed to stay indefinitely. It works for tens of thousands of people that fail their asylum appeals every year after all.
Given that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for citizenship, how many people are really affected?
At the date A50 is triggered, anyone here from 2012 or before is essentially okay. Given that there is a two year negotiation period, that will cover people who arrived between 2012 and 2014.
We are then left with the people who have since 2014. We voted to leave in June 2016.
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
If there are that few people affected then what is the problem with the plan? The alternative seems to be using these people as bargaining chips which seems completely unacceptable to me.
Spot on - they came to the UK in good faith under a system the British government entered into voluntarily. We are a better country than one that would treat people in that way. If others aren't, then that is something to be dealt with as and when it becomes apparent. The lives people have built in the UK should not be bargaining chips.
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
That is not what it says at all. It is a very sensible piece of political advice regarding two individuals who are very unlikely to get much support in this particular constituency. For their own political good it seems sensible for Nuttall and Farage to take heed of that advice.
It is exactly what he says as the sentence comes without explanation or added context.
I accept your point and it may not be what he means - you have very probably translated the intent accurately.
Sorry but how does what he said get you to ghettos for white people?
It's not what is said or meant.
Yes Farage and Nuttall are both white. They are also both English, male, over forty etc... I think the relevant thing which everyone including you understands is that they are both UKIP politicians!
Exactly! This is prime Corbynista territory not Faragist. That has nothing to do with both characters being white.
Mr. Observer, indeed. They shouldn't be. And nor should the live Britons have built in the EU. May was willing to reach a quick and simple reciprocal agreement on this. EU leaders declined.
Mr. Bojabob, you have more faith than (I would suggest) most here in our ability to deport migrants in the UK illegitimately.
Mr. W, whoa there, crazy horse. It's far too early in the morning to write such things. If any ladies read that post they'll be swooning over their keyboards.
Mr. Bojabob, hurling new powers at London in that manner would be demented. Devolution should be done in a carefully considered way, not in a knee-jerk manner.
Mr. Tyndall, and if British citizens in the EU are used as a bargaining chip? The interest of the UK must be its own citizens. I entirely agree with you that those EU citizens here should be allowed to stay, and a reciprocal deal would be a very good thing, but it's EU leaders who have declined that, not us.
Quite. As I say I'd not object if we did decide to be unilateral on this, but this is about us and the eu both playing hardball, on an issue it seems acknowledged no one really wants much change on. So while I'd be ok with settling the nerves of worried eu citizens, the idea the majority of people on here who do accept the government position of reciprocity are salivating at the prospect of deporting people would be a misrepresentation, and even presenting it as heartless and shameful rather than pragmatic and cold is a little unfair in my view.
You keep spewing the same fake news bullshit because it suits your case. No government of any color, not even the purples are proposing to deport 3 million people, if for no other reason than the optics would be electoral suicide. So can we please stop with all this deportation bullshit, its not going to happen.
Great. At least one of the PB Mayists now accepts that this nasty fiasco is a sham. Time to drop the charade and guarantee rights for the 3m.
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
I am married to an EU27 national myself. I think this issue should be taken off the table straight away in negotiations, but simultaneously on both sides.
I think that is the hope/plan after A50.
I very much hope so - in the same boat myself. That's why the whole Brits vs foreigners debate is so poisonous and plain wrong. For families like ours, the question is simply whether we can continue to to live together where we want without extra hoops. The Lords have voted in favour of Brits like me and my son. I think Norman Tebbit may live in a very simple world!
I appreciate that Casino Royale is clearly in a different place, but the majority of similar families we know never wanted us to leave, let alone our families be threatened. That's the key argument I think about taking it out of negotiations, as it's just as tricky for U.K. Citizens married abroad.
Sadiq Khan should make an offer to make London a free visa region for EU nationals. Dare this increasingly closed minded government to overrule him.
Does he have the power to do that? If not, then as a point of pedantry if the government said not would it really be overruling him? I feel like overruling requires someone making a decision then having it undone by a superior body.
Hasn't he already made the suggestion though?
He should make the offer and ask the government to sit down with him. Regional visas work perfectly well in other countries (BC in Canada for example).
Canada doesn't have Article 8.
Someone comes to the UK on a London visa, after a month or so they wander off to another part of the country, find a local girlfriend. Get their collar felt by immigration, claim Article 8, get allowed to stay indefinitely. It works for tens of thousands of people that fail their asylum appeals every year after all.
They can neither work nor claim benefits outside the region of the visa. It works well in other countries. We should launch it for London, which has a administratively defined boundary and its own devolved government. Not massively dissimilar in that regard to a Canadian province.
Other countries not subject to the European Convention of Human Rights.
I asked the would-be deporters several times whether they had looked up the comparative figures, yet still they failed/refused to do so.
I must have missed these "would-be deporters" so why don't you put a name to them?
Anyone who is failing to guarantee the rights of the 3m is such. That is the logical progression of the policy. If it is not, then the policy is a mere empty threat, and should be exposed as such.
Given that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for citizenship, how many people are really affected?
At the date A50 is triggered, anyone here from 2012 or before is essentially okay. Given that there is a two year negotiation period, that will cover people who arrived between 2012 and 2014.
We are then left with the people who have since 2014. We voted to leave in June 2016.
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
If there are that few people affected then what is the problem with the plan? The alternative seems to be using these people as bargaining chips which seems completely unacceptable to me.
Spot on - they came to the UK in good faith under a system the British government entered into voluntarily. We are a better country than one that would treat people in that way. If others aren't, then that is something to be dealt with as and when it becomes apparent. The lives people have built in the UK should not be bargaining chips.
It is the duty of any government to protect the interests of its law abiding citizens wherever they are. That duty comes before, but does of course not preclude, protecting the freedoms of foreign citizens who have chosen to reside here.
The handwringing on here is a sight to behold. No-one is talking about deportations, only one side has offered to take this off the table.
Handwringers: go and express your wrath towards Mrs Merkel; for she is the fool of this tragedy.
You keep spewing the same fake news bullshit because it suits your case. No government of any color, not even the purples are proposing to deport 3 million people, if for no other reason than the optics would be electoral suicide. So can we please stop with all this deportation bullshit, its not going to happen.
Great. At least one of the PB Mayists now accepts that this nasty fiasco is a sham. Time to drop the charade and guarantee rights for the 3m.
Which rights ? Residency ? Housing Benefit ? Working Families Tax Credit ? Free healthcare ? Educational subsidies ? Unemployment benefits ?
From the original post: This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now? Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there? Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over? That would be helpful.
That is not what it says at all. It is a very sensible piece of political advice regarding two individuals who are very unlikely to get much support in this particular constituency. For their own political good it seems sensible for Nuttall and Farage to take heed of that advice.
It is exactly what he says as the sentence comes without explanation or added context.
I accept your point and it may not be what he means - you have very probably translated the intent accurately.
Sorry but how does what he said get you to ghettos for white people?
It's not what is said or meant.
Yes Farage and Nuttall are both white. They are also both English, male, over forty etc... I think the relevant thing which everyone including you understands is that they are both UKIP politicians!
With apologies - a little light trolling before getting down to some serious work.
Somebody was called a cunt downthread so I thought a little logical leap into ghetto accusations would stay under the radar!
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
I am married to an EU27 national myself. I think this issue should be taken off the table straight away in negotiations, but simultaneously on both sides.
I think that is the hope/plan after A50.
I very much hope so - in the same boat myself. That's why the whole Brits vs foreigners debate is so poisonous and plain wrong. For families like ours, the question is simply whether we can continue to to live together where we want without extra hoops. The Lords have voted in favour of Brits like me and my son. I think Norman Tebbit may live in a very simple world!
I appreciate that Casino Royale is clearly in a different place, but the majority of similar families we know never wanted us to leave, let alone our families be threatened. That's the key argument I think about taking it out of negotiations, as it's just as tricky for U.K. Citizens married abroad.
See the petition to replace the unelected House of Lords has passed 56,000 on its way to 100,000
Well the issue needs debating, and settling, though not in kneejerk response as people for once notice it doing its job, for shame. It'll probably be picked up again in2020 rather than try doing it during article 50 negotiations.
Mr. W, whoa there, crazy horse. It's far too early in the morning to write such things. If any ladies read that post they'll be swooning over their keyboards.
Mr. Bojabob, hurling new powers at London in that manner would be demented. Devolution should be done in a carefully considered way, not in a knee-jerk manner.
Mr. Tyndall, and if British citizens in the EU are used as a bargaining chip? The interest of the UK must be its own citizens. I entirely agree with you that those EU citizens here should be allowed to stay, and a reciprocal deal would be a very good thing, but it's EU leaders who have declined that, not us.
To be fair to the EU leaders they haven't declined that at all. They have said simply that they will start negotiating when we invoke Article 50 which Cameron said would be the day after a Leave vote and yet we still haven't done yet.
It is morons in the British Parliamentarians who are holding up us invoking Article 50 and being able to negotiate this with the EU leaders as they've offered because they want this resolved beforehand.
There is nothing unreasonable from the EU here for once. It is only Britons who are suggesting this must be closed before negotiations start.
Mr. Observer, indeed. They shouldn't be. And nor should the live Britons have built in the EU. May was willing to reach a quick and simple reciprocal agreement on this. EU leaders declined.
Mr. Bojabob, you have more faith than (I would suggest) most here in our ability to deport migrants in the UK illegitimately.
We are not a country that goes back on the commitments it has made to people. If others are, then we deal with that - but not by removing rights those who came to the UK in good faith currently enjoy. There are other levers open to the UK government if EU member states choose to play silly buggers with the lives of British citizens.
F1: possible interesting divergence of views on downforce and following a car. Hamilton reckons it's not easy, but Hulkenberg/Verstappen have indicated they were pleasantly surprised.
This could mean the Mercedes struggles (relatively) in traffic compared to other cars. Won't make a difference at all circuits (Monaco tricky for everyone, Canada fairly easy) but at a place like Hungary it could make a difference.
I asked the would-be deporters several times whether they had looked up the comparative figures, yet still they failed/refused to do so.
I must have missed these "would-be deporters" so why don't you put a name to them?
Anyone who is failing to guarantee the rights of the 3m is such.
That is insane. People have explained their position and reasoning, I'm not even opposed to doing what you want, but you are in effect saying ' I don't care that they are very clear deportation is not on the table, they are would be deporters '. That makes not a lick of sense.
I asked the would-be deporters several times whether they had looked up the comparative figures, yet still they failed/refused to do so.
I must have missed these "would-be deporters" so why don't you put a name to them?
Anyone who is failing to guarantee the rights of the 3m is such. That is the logical progression of the policy. If it is not, then the policy is a mere empty threat, and should be exposed as such.
I asked for names, not hypothesising. So either name some "would-be deporters" or stop being stupid.
Mr. Observer, indeed. They shouldn't be. And nor should the live Britons have built in the EU. May was willing to reach a quick and simple reciprocal agreement on this. EU leaders declined.
Mr. Bojabob, you have more faith than (I would suggest) most here in our ability to deport migrants in the UK illegitimately.
We are not a country that goes back on the commitments it has made to people. If others are, then we deal with that - but not by removing rights those who came to the UK in good faith currently enjoy. There are other levers open to the UK government if EU member states choose to play silly buggers with the lives of British citizens.
You criticise Corbyn for being unpatriotic, but seem genuinely keener on the rights of foreign nationals here than the rights of British citizens abroad...
I asked the would-be deporters several times whether they had looked up the comparative figures, yet still they failed/refused to do so.
I must have missed these "would-be deporters" so why don't you put a name to them?
Anyone who is failing to guarantee the rights of the 3m is such. That is the logical progression of the policy. If it is not, then the policy is a mere empty threat, and should be exposed as such.
I asked for names, not hypothesising. So either name some "would-be deporters" or stop being stupid.
And stop waving your hands around and tell us WHICH rights you want to guarantee.
Interesting how it's the most ardent pb Remainers who are cheering the Lords decision most loudly.
Both @Roger and I have a direct personal interest in how the EU27 approaches this problem. Amazing how those posters (to be clear, I don't include you among those) who are very free with highly personal attacks have neglected to note that detail.
I am married to an EU27 national myself. I think this issue should be taken off the table straight away in negotiations, but simultaneously on both sides.
I think that is the hope/plan after A50.
I very much hope so - in the same boat myself. That's why the whole Brits vs foreigners debate is so poisonous and plain wrong. For families like ours, the question is simply whether we can continue to to live together where we want without extra hoops. The Lords have voted in favour of Brits like me and my son. I think Norman Tebbit may live in a very simple world!
I appreciate that Casino Royale is clearly in a different place, but the majority of similar families we know never wanted us to leave, let alone our families be threatened. That's the key argument I think about taking it out of negotiations, as it's just as tricky for U.K. Citizens married abroad.
A very persuasive post.
Why couldn't we have just nuked Hartlepool
Roger
You seem to have a bizarre and disturbingly hate filled obsession with Hartlepool.
Is there a particular reason for this or is it merely your shorthand for working class ?
The result in the HOL was a result of the large pro EU bias in the chamber and the dominance of remain voting peers.
It is clear that without Theresa May's determination to make Brexit work most any other politician would be overwhelmed by the remain lobby and exit would be seriously at risk
Comments
Having a house in the EU doesn't make one morally superior or more right to opine on this issue. If anything, it could make one's thinking muddled and open to emotional influence.
Overturning the HoL's decision is the sensible action. Yes, other governments may try to play that line publicly (though I doubt it), but privately they will understand why it was made: they'd do the same in the circumstances.
The alternative is much worse and illogical.
(*) Which is why the Blair government got away with so much: they derided good economics in an attempt to free up resources, i.e. money.
Richard Nabavi asked me if I was mad, and made me realised we'd have a brutal negotiation where literally nothing could or should probably be ruled out before heading to the table. The utter naivety of Gisela Stuart and Andrea Leadsom not to realise this same point struck home then, and even more so now.
It was one of several points that changed my mind. I think the gov't has no option but to try and overturn the Lords in the commons. It is a corollary to the original leave decision, which itself was wrong.
Dial it back a notch folks.
What is the median number? Much more relevant.
Bit surprised Dewsbury (whatever the seat's called) doesn't have a lower proportion of whites, but there we are.
Labour losing this would be a Heraclean feat.
And if not... Then presumably the alternative is deportations at some point?
I suspect the negotiations will be carried out in a business-like way. You take any advantage you're given to ensure you achieve the best result. Giving up bargaining positions makes you honourable, but naïve. Edit: or mendacious.
"...... in March 2013, “between 37 per cent and 45 per cent of the EEA nationals (excluding students) who were resident in the UK having arrived in the preceding 4 years were in households claiming either an in-work or out of-work benefit or tax credit” (DWP 2015b). This analysis looked at both in-work and out-of-work benefits together (excluding child benefit), "
The fact it won't ever happen is irrelevant.
Oh, and it's World Book Day. And I still can't remember what that book I read but whose author died before finishing it was (neither The Aeneid, nor Thucydides' history of The Peloponnesian War. Maybe it was Ammianus Marcellinus' The Later Roman Empire...).
"Car ownership in Gorton is relatively low" - Shami has the first of her excuses lined up then, if this Labour fortress should fall.
Vettel tested the wet tyres a bit a few weeks ago, and crashed. Pirelli reckon it was his fault, quiet murmuring suggests it may have been aqua-planing.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/how-many-eu-migrants-claim-benefits-in-the-uk/
Yet Remaniacs in the Lords seek to send this country naked into the negotiating chamber. Not acceptable.
Perhaps we need to consider the words of Gerald Kaufman on unilateral disarmament:
"‘Do they really believe that if we gave up Trident, the eight other nuclear weapons powers would say, “Good old Britain! They have done the right thing. We must follow suit”? Pull the other one!’. "
EU politics has always been a bugger-thy-neighbour exercise. Do these fools really think that spots have been changed?
* Already quoted I see. Great minds etc.
I appreciate that Casino Royale is clearly in a different place, but the majority of similar families we know never wanted us to leave, let alone our families be threatened. That's the key argument I think about taking it out of negotiations, as it's just as tricky for U.K. Citizens married abroad.
This is not a seat where Paul Nuttall should compete and Mr Farage should keep well away.
So we're accepting ghettos and no-go areas for white people now?
Nice. Who do we think is "acceptable" to set foot there?
Is there a neat boundary drawn that we can't step over?
That would be helpful.
Happy?
My views is that one of them - preferably both - should compete in Manchester Gorton - and get hammered!
The scale of willfull ignorance on show vis a vis the economic contribution of EU nationals to our economy last night was breathtaking. I asked the would-be deporters several times whether they had looked up the comparative figures, yet still they failed/refused to do so. That their policy is too extreme even for Nigel Farage didn't seem to stop them either. The sycophancy towards May and her curtain twitching brethren is becoming rather sinister.
On the point itself, it has to be recognised that government and international negotiation will by necessity involve some cold, practical decisions. I think it is unfair to condemn people or the government for trying to secure the best position for its citizens. That being said, I personally wouldn't mind if we acted unilaterally on this issue - there is a risk the goodwill is not rewarded, but unlike nuclear weapons the negative consequences would be less - but I don't think it reasonable to condemn it either.
It is in the interests of us and the eu to reach a mutually beneficial deal on all sorts of things, so much so you might think how could it not happen. But the problem, as ever, is people. All involved will at times be selfish or shortsighted trying to secure the very best outcome for their own citizens. We will all be playing silly buggers essentially. That's a shame, but I'm not about to rage at every instance of that, even if I could leave with conceding on this particular point.
Having driven through Rusholme's famous 'Curry Mile' (my Grandmother used to live nearby) I can only say thank God more of them don't drive!
But not necessarily very much money, as you note. From the article:
"London’s construction businesses are particularly dependent on EU workers, who make up more than a quarter of the total workforce. Europeans also account for 15 per cent of staff in financial services, a third of all hospitality workers and 12 per cent of wholesale and retail workers across the capital."
So brickies and baristas and checkout staff, then. If we wanted to throw them all out (which of course no one does), you'd want to look at the net position over all throwees, inc part-time and non-working.
If you wanted to prove experimentally that a proportion of Remainers are automata programmed to moan "EU good, UK bad" in all possible circumstances, you would set up a situation where the positions of the two sides were absolute, utter and identical mirror images of each other and see who continued with the "EU good, UK bad" chant. I think this has now happened.
Hasn't he already made the suggestion though?
At the date A50 is triggered, anyone here from 2012 or before is essentially okay. Given that there is a two year negotiation period, that will cover people who arrived between 2012 and 2014.
We are then left with the people who have arrived since 2014. We voted to leave in June 2016.
We have a real limbo window of April 2014 to June 2016 only.
The accrued welfare rights issues is a part of the A50 horse trading. As with much else to do with Brexit it will be mediocre, but that's what we voted for.
Perhaps PWC gave it to an actor by mistake.
It looks like the old "press release on Monday, report on Tuesday" trick.
Verstappen will now be listed as VER and not VES on the on-screen graphics.
[I'd guess it wasn't VER to start with because of potential confusion with Jean-Eric Vergne. Only thing I can think of].
I accept your point and it may not be what he means - you have very probably translated the intent accurately.
Or Englishmen wearing floral hats, chanting and waving sticks about ....
Someone comes to the UK on a London visa, after a month or so they wander off to another part of the country, find a local girlfriend. Get their collar felt by immigration, claim Article 8, get allowed to stay indefinitely. It works for tens of thousands of people that fail their asylum appeals every year after all.
A lot of EU countries have only fairly recently relaxed the laws on dual citizenship in the last 5 or so years.
Whether it is a national competence or not, the sensible approach is an equal negotiation of equals. The Lords amendment undermines that, and is not acceptable. Let the EU countries recognise the same principle and the question is solved. Did they do so?
Perhaps we should also note that this was an issue put into play last summer / autumn by the likes of Clegg, using EU citizens as a political football in the UK.
Mr. Bojabob, hurling new powers at London in that manner would be demented. Devolution should be done in a carefully considered way, not in a knee-jerk manner.
Mr. Tyndall, and if British citizens in the EU are used as a bargaining chip? The interest of the UK must be its own citizens. I entirely agree with you that those EU citizens here should be allowed to stay, and a reciprocal deal would be a very good thing, but it's EU leaders who have declined that, not us.
It's not what is said or meant.
Yes Farage and Nuttall are both white. They are also both English, male, over forty etc... I think the relevant thing which everyone including you understands is that they are both UKIP politicians!
During the exit negotiations, all of us will be "bargaining chips" to one extent or another.
Whilst I understand the desire to protect EU nationals' rights, the A50 bill should be about A50, nothing else.
Mr. Bojabob, you have more faith than (I would suggest) most here in our ability to deport migrants in the UK illegitimately.
Why couldn't we have just nuked Hartlepool
The handwringing on here is a sight to behold. No-one is talking about deportations, only one side has offered to take this off the table.
Handwringers: go and express your wrath towards Mrs Merkel; for she is the fool of this tragedy.
Somebody was called a cunt downthread so I thought a little logical leap into ghetto accusations would stay under the radar!
It is morons in the British Parliamentarians who are holding up us invoking Article 50 and being able to negotiate this with the EU leaders as they've offered because they want this resolved beforehand.
There is nothing unreasonable from the EU here for once. It is only Britons who are suggesting this must be closed before negotiations start.
This could mean the Mercedes struggles (relatively) in traffic compared to other cars. Won't make a difference at all circuits (Monaco tricky for everyone, Canada fairly easy) but at a place like Hungary it could make a difference.
And people wonder why the left isn't trusted?
You seem to have a bizarre and disturbingly hate filled obsession with Hartlepool.
Is there a particular reason for this or is it merely your shorthand for working class ?
It is clear that without Theresa May's determination to make Brexit work most any other politician would be overwhelmed by the remain lobby and exit would be seriously at risk