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.
Every time Parliament changes the law it changes the rights of people here in good faith.
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.
How does threatening the livelihoods of EU citizens who have come to live and raise families in the UK in good faith protect the interests of British citizens living 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.
That simply doesn't happen in those numbers, leaving aside the fact that the rules for asylum seekers and tourists are very different.
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 ?
Yes, all of them given they entered the UK in good faith that these would be provided.
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 ?
It can't be, home of Baron Mandelson of Hartlepool, the champagne socialist's, champagne socialist, the remainer's remainer etc
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.
Hopefully this is all hypothetical but if the EU kicks out UK citizens from the EU May is ruthless and tough enough to kick out EU citizens from the UK just as for every customs duty or equivalent imposed on UK goods May will respond with one on EU goods
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.
You didn't comment on welfare rights. Simply on rights to stay there isnothing to negotiate because it is a national not an EU competency so the Lords amendment and the UK apparent offer to pre negotiate are both spurious.
On the five year rule for guaranteed residence I don't think the EU will want to change that if it gives British citizens more rights in a particular EU country than citizens from another EU country. There's nothing stopping individual counties being more generous. The UK could lead by example of it wants to. But the pressing need is for the UK government to deal with its dysfunctional immigration service, so currently qualifying EU citizens can quickly, easily and accurately regularise their residence status.
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.
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 ?
Yes, all of them given they entered the UK in good faith that these would be provided.
I see. And when that Filipino Nurse or Indian Doctor files a judicial review claiming that they are being treated unfairly in relation to other non-UK citizens because they dont have access to those rights ?
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!
That was really weird.... I thought perhaps there was some net slang I wasn't familiar with. Their discussion seemed fairly civil until that insult came out of nowhere.
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.
Agree he needs that big a lead to be heading for government
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.
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 ?
Yes, all of them given they entered the UK in good faith that these would be provided.
I see. And when that Filipino Nurse or Indian Doctor files a judicial review claiming that they are being treated unfairly in relation to other non-UK citizens because they dont have access to those rights ?
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?
There's probably above average public sector employment and social security dependent as well.
Islington North would look very similar without the influence of the nearby financial services industry.
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.
The view that Leaving the EU was solely about Brits versus foreigners is only one held by Remainers.
Theresa May is correct in her stance to ensure that nobody from the current EU28 living anywhere in the EU is adversely affected by the decision of the UK to Leave.
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.
How does threatening the livelihoods of EU citizens who have come to live and raise families in the UK in good faith protect the interests of British citizens living abroad?
Turn it on it's head:
How does guaranteeing the livelihoods of EU citizens (insert emotive language about families here) protect the interests of British citizens living abroad.
That is the only fair question to ask, because this is an emotional amendment to a bill that says nothing at all about rights. And as you've indicated below: guaranteeing those rights does not protect British citizens abroad one jot. In fact, it likely weakens the position of the government in negotiating to assist them.
All this balls about deportations is just the sort of liberal overextension of the reality that people are bloody well fed up with.
Anyway, this was never about the rights of EU nationals. It was about throwing a spoke in the wheel of Brexit.
It wasn't even as respectable as that, there is no way the government doesn't overturn it in the commons. Its pure lowdown political point scoring, and attempting to embarrass the government. The bill with pass the Commons in day or two, the Lord's will decide to let things pass and the bill will move on to Royal Assent, and all this huffing and puffing will be yesterday's chip wrappings.
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 ?
It can't be, home of Baron Mandelson of Hartlepool, the champagne socialist's, champagne socialist, the remainer's remainer etc
All the chip shops in Hartlepool now sell guacamole.
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.
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 ?
Yes, all of them given they entered the UK in good faith that these would be provided.
I see. And when that Filipino Nurse or Indian Doctor files a judicial review claiming that they are being treated unfairly in relation to other non-UK citizens because they dont have access to those rights ?
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.
I understand where you're coming from with that, and have some sympathy with it. However I'm unsure its the right thing to do in practice.
Hopefully it's something that can be agreed very quickly and with minimal complications (yes, I know).
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...
And people wonder why the left isn't trusted?
I believe that countries that threaten the livelihoods of those who have come and settled in them in good faith and in full accordance with the law do immense damage to their international standing. The kind of damage that has severe economic, financial and reputational consequences. As a patriot, I want the UK to avoid that.
As a British citizen who has lived and worked abroad (and who is currently travelling abroad on business) I am very keen on preserving my rights and those of others like me. I would expect the British government to act decisively if those were removed. I also believe that there are more levers open to the government to do this than to threaten the positions of people who have built their lives in the UK.
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.
Hopefully this is all hypothetical but if the EU kicks out UK citizens from the EU May is ruthless and tough enough to kick out EU citizens from the UK just as for every customs duty or equivalent imposed on UK goods May will respond with one on EU goods
How would that help the UK or British citizens living abroad?
That is the only fair question to ask, because this is an emotional amendment to a bill that says nothing at all about rights. And as you've indicated below: guaranteeing those rights does not protect British citizens abroad one jot. In fact, it likely weakens the position of the government in negotiating to assist them.
Exactly, it would make it marginally harder to secure the rights of UK citizens living in the EU.
Really the only sensible thing to do is agree a reciprocal agreement with the EU, and to do so quickly after Article 50 is invoked, and then implement it in lockstep. That's the fairest way of securing the current rights of everybody.
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's right and I'd like the Lords to focus most on the genuine vote on the outcome of negotiations in two years. A reasonable Government response on this issue would be that they do intend to guarantee rights of EU citizens already here but want to do that as part of a package with reciprocal rights for Brits on the Continent. In reality I don't think there will be the slightest problem with that and both sides will see an advantage in clearing it up quickly as a "good start" in negotiations.
Where I think the Government and some posters here go wrong is in tone - the element of swagger (which generates counter-swagger in some EU27 countries) and "we're prepared to accept no deal at all if necessary" is seriously counter-productive and causes quite unnecessary worry to people who've been here a long time. I was on the train yesterday with a German woman who's lived with her English husband here for 15 years and has two teenage kids: she said that rationally there was surely no cause for concern, but so many irrational-seeming things werre happening nowadays that she couldn't help worrying, and it would be nice of the Government made a clear statement of intent. Hard to argue with that, surely?
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 icle 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.
I understand where you're coming from with that, and have some sympathy with it. However I'm unsure its the right thing to do in practice.
Hopefully it's something that can be agreed very quickly and with minimal complications (yes, I know).
May was also a reluctant Remainer not an ideological free trading, laissez faire, globalising Leaver who wanted to turn us into Singapore, she will stand up for British expats and British exporters if needed not throw them on some ideological fire
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.
Hopefully this is all hypothetical but if the EU kicks out UK citizens from the EU May is ruthless and tough enough to kick out EU citizens from the UK just as for every customs duty or equivalent imposed on UK goods May will respond with one on EU goods
How would that help the UK or British citizens living abroad?
By showing the British government will not allow the EU to ride roughshod over our citizens rights without response
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.
I have to disagree. We voted to leave knowing there were no guarantees on what the rights of EU citizens here and UK citizens there would become. It was a key reason why I voted for remain.
I very much hope that things stay largely as they are - but that will require a lot of negotiation. O think it's complicated - for instance some on here want EU citizens not to have free at point of access NHS or not be eligible for working tax credits. Other EU countries have different systems that don't neatly translate - working out what is reciprocal is going to be tricky I think... Especially when you consider that the age profiles are different.
For TM to guarantee that EU people here can stay would be great... But which EU citizens and from when? If UK citizens don't get a similar deal it's not fair and will make her look stupid.. and risks that she might have to go back on her guarantee. Its just not politically feasible to do it.
My suspicion is TM is thinking about the migration figures also. Lots of UK people coming back will bust her target if there isn't a corresponding flow of EU people out.
As for deportations I think there will be some... Although obviously not all 3m. The scale of it remains to be seen but I feel optimistic it will be on the low side.
Good morning all. The obvious answer is for us to invoke article 50 as soon as possible, so all this pent up good faith can finally be released.
If the good faith really is present on both sides, an MOU on residency rights could be agreed the day after.
Good morning to yourself, John. That's what we voted for when we removed ourselves from the system. Everything has to be haggled for. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. As they say in Germany, our EU colleague and hopefully post EU friend, konsequent.
1 or 2 on here seem to getting in a froth about nothing. The leader on the BBC this evening will be gangs of right wing thugs pointing at foreigners and shouting
The Trump administration isn’t messing around. On Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained 22-year-old Daniela Vargas shortly after she spoke out about her (illegal) immigration status at a press conference in Jackson, Mississippi.
“The press conference was hosted by local churches, immigration attorneys and the Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance to speak about recently deported families,”
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.
Hopefully this is all hypothetical but if the EU kicks out UK citizens from the EU May is ruthless and tough enough to kick out EU citizens from the UK just as for every customs duty or equivalent imposed on UK goods May will respond with one on EU goods
How would that help the UK or British citizens living abroad?
By showing the British government will not allow the EU to ride roughshod over our citizens rights without response
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.
And yet you are happy to see the fate of the 300000+ Brits in the EU handed away to the goodwill of their host countries without so much as a murmur. Happy to have their fate subject to 'something to deal with as and when it becomes apparent' - ie when it is too late. Despicable.
Comments
Yes, all of them given they entered the UK in good faith that these would be provided.
On the five year rule for guaranteed residence I don't think the EU will want to change that if it gives British citizens more rights in a particular EU country than citizens from another EU country. There's nothing stopping individual counties being more generous. The UK could lead by example of it wants to. But the pressing need is for the UK government to deal with its dysfunctional immigration service, so currently qualifying EU citizens can quickly, easily and accurately regularise their residence status.
Anyway, this was never about the rights of EU nationals. It was about throwing a spoke in the wheel of Brexit.
Their discussion seemed fairly civil until that insult came out of nowhere.
Islington North would look very similar without the influence of the nearby financial services industry.
Theresa May is correct in her stance to ensure that nobody from the current EU28 living anywhere in the EU is adversely affected by the decision of the UK to Leave.
How does guaranteeing the livelihoods of EU citizens (insert emotive language about families here) protect the interests of British citizens living abroad.
That is the only fair question to ask, because this is an emotional amendment to a bill that says nothing at all about rights. And as you've indicated below: guaranteeing those rights does not protect British citizens abroad one jot. In fact, it likely weakens the position of the government in negotiating to assist them.
All this balls about deportations is just the sort of liberal overextension of the reality that people are bloody well fed up with.
NEW THREAD
If the good faith really is present on both sides, an MOU on residency rights could be agreed the day after.
Hopefully it's something that can be agreed very quickly and with minimal complications (yes, I know).
As a British citizen who has lived and worked abroad (and who is currently travelling abroad on business) I am very keen on preserving my rights and those of others like me. I would expect the British government to act decisively if those were removed. I also believe that there are more levers open to the government to do this than to threaten the positions of people who have built their lives in the UK.
Really the only sensible thing to do is agree a reciprocal agreement with the EU, and to do so quickly after Article 50 is invoked, and then implement it in lockstep. That's the fairest way of securing the current rights of everybody.
Where I think the Government and some posters here go wrong is in tone - the element of swagger (which generates counter-swagger in some EU27 countries) and "we're prepared to accept no deal at all if necessary" is seriously counter-productive and causes quite unnecessary worry to people who've been here a long time. I was on the train yesterday with a German woman who's lived with her English husband here for 15 years and has two teenage kids: she said that rationally there was surely no cause for concern, but so many irrational-seeming things werre happening nowadays that she couldn't help worrying, and it would be nice of the Government made a clear statement of intent. Hard to argue with that, surely?
I very much hope that things stay largely as they are - but that will require a lot of negotiation. O think it's complicated - for instance some on here want EU citizens not to have free at point of access NHS or not be eligible for working tax credits. Other EU countries have different systems that don't neatly translate - working out what is reciprocal is going to be tricky I think... Especially when you consider that the age profiles are different.
For TM to guarantee that EU people here can stay would be great... But which EU citizens and from when? If UK citizens don't get a similar deal it's not fair and will make her look stupid.. and risks that she might have to go back on her guarantee. Its just not politically feasible to do it.
My suspicion is TM is thinking about the migration figures also. Lots of UK people coming back will bust her target if there isn't a corresponding flow of EU people out.
As for deportations I think there will be some... Although obviously not all 3m.
The scale of it remains to be seen but I feel optimistic it will be on the low side.
DEPORTATION.
Worth a watch - I was rather surprised by the history of it. I learned stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wljpYZ8wejA&t=5657s
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14010/illegal-immigrant-goes-public-press-conference-michael-qazvini#.WLeytF_kk-M.twitter
The Trump administration isn’t messing around. On Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained 22-year-old Daniela Vargas shortly after she spoke out about her (illegal) immigration status at a press conference in Jackson, Mississippi.
“The press conference was hosted by local churches, immigration attorneys and the Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance to speak about recently deported families,”
Wow. Libdems raised more than Labour in Q3 2016... figures just released. https://t.co/gIKViJDjau
Maybe this should be their plan B!!
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/02/a-goat-would-beat-le-pen-in-frances-presidential-election-political-analyst-says.html