Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
The vast majority of whom live and work in this country and would be far better served by allowing resident EU citizens to stay.
Except that not wanting them to stay was one reason that so many voted Leave.
The British government's duty is to look after the interests of British people, wherever they happen to live or be, and regardless of whether they were born British or have been naturalised. Foreign citizens who are on British territory can expect a general level of protection, of course, but not in terms of an inalienable "right" to live here they can't. They have their own governments to look after their permanent residence rights, namely their permanent right to live in their own countries. Anyone who lives here and doesn't have a foreign government to look after those interests is a refugee.
I think the point Richard is making is that the forced repatriation of millions of EU citizens, the vast majority of which are productive members of society, would be (a) have negative economic consequences, as firms would suddenly find themselves without employees; and (b) would have a long-lived impact on firms willingness to invest in the UK. There is a clear difference between how we would want to treat future people coming to the UK, and those already here and in employment.
Furthermore, the EU referendum was solely about whether we remained part of the EU. It was not about immigration, or the EEA, or anything else. The government's duty is not to make sure than 51% of the Leave voters are happy, but to come up with a solution that maximises the outcome and opportunities of all British citizens.
You have expressed it much better than I have - but then I do enjoy your posts and reasoning
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
The vast majority of whom live and work in this country and would be far better served by allowing resident EU citizens to stay.
Except that not wanting them to stay was one reason that so many voted Leave.
The British government's duty is to look after the interests of British people, wherever they happen to live or be, and regardless of whether they were born British or have been naturalised. Foreign citizens who are on British territory can expect a general level of protection, of course, but not in terms of an inalienable "right" to live here they can't. They have their own governments to look after their permanent residence rights, namely their permanent right to live in their own countries. Anyone who lives here and doesn't have a foreign government to look after those interests is a refugee.
I think the point Richard is making is that the forced repatriation of millions of EU citizens, the vast majority of which are productive members of society, would be (a) have negative economic consequences, as firms would suddenly find themselves without employees; and (b) would have a long-lived impact on firms willingness to invest in the UK. There is a clear difference between how we would want to treat future people coming to the UK, and those already here and in employment.
Furthermore, the EU referendum was solely about whether we remained part of the EU. It was not about immigration, or the EEA, or anything else. The government's duty is not to make sure than 51% of the Leave voters are happy, but to come up with a solution that maximises the outcome and opportunities of all British citizens.
Who has ever said forced repatriation? The worst case scenario in the event that there is no agreement on residency rights is everyone who hasn't already got status will be asked to apply for a visa. It is literally a case of irritation for most people and for those who don't contribute (the Romanian big issue sellers and SeanT's beggars) being asked to leave. As I said before, I'll live with the paperwork, as long as EU citizens in the UK are forced to do the same.
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
The vast majority of whom live and work in this country and would be far better served by allowing resident EU citizens to stay.
Except that not wanting them to stay was one reason that so many voted Leave.
The British government's duty is to look after the interests of British people, wherever they happen to live or be, and regardless of whether they were born British or have been naturalised. Foreign citizens who are on British territory can expect a general level of protection, of course, but not in terms of an inalienable "right" to live here they can't. They have their own governments to look after their permanent residence rights, namely their permanent right to live in their own countries. Anyone who lives here and doesn't have a foreign government to look after those interests is a refugee.
I think the point Richard is making is that the forced repatriation of millions of EU citizens, the vast majority of which are productive members of society, would be (a) have negative economic consequences, as firms would suddenly find themselves without employees; and (b) would have a long-lived impact on firms willingness to invest in the UK. There is a clear difference between how we would want to treat future people coming to the UK, and those already here and in employment.
Furthermore, the EU referendum was solely about whether we remained part of the EU. It was not about immigration, or the EEA, or anything else. The government's duty is not to make sure than 51% of the Leave voters are happy, but to come up with a solution that maximises the outcome and opportunities of all British citizens.
Who has ever said forced repatriation? The worst case scenario in the event that there is no agreement on residency rights is everyone who hasn't already got status will be asked to apply for a visa. It is literally a case of irritation for most people and for those who don't contribute (the Romanian big issue sellers and SeanT's beggars) being asked to leave. As I said before, I'll live with the paperwork, as long as EU citizens in the UK are forced to do the same.
"Guaranteeing rights" is not incompatible with paperwork! We could say - and I don't think it would be unreasonable to do so - that all EU citizens with 24 months of NI contributions are welcome to stay, once they've filled in the relevant paperwork (i.e. applied for a visa), and so long as they don't have a criminal record.
You don't. You did, but now you don't. When you visit friends and relatives, you pay as much tax as tourists do: arguably less, since you don't spend as much when here. I can't take your national identity from you (and nor would I want to) but you do now contribute considerably less than what you did, and arguably less than the Romanian Big Issue seller.
You left to earn stacks of cash. Good for you, and I hope one day to do the same. But it does have a cost, and one of those costs is that you can no longer claim to be contributing to the British economy.
I picked the Romanian big issue seller on purpose because they are a literal net drain on the economy, they pay no tax and receive huge amounts of welfare money.
In your rush to label those of us who have temporarily left as non-contributors you have forgotten that a very large number of EU migrants are not net-contributors and survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare. In the 10 years of my serious working life I paid over £200k in tax and NI. When I eventually return I'm sure it will be much more, asking for the UK government to represent my interests above the interests of non-citizens is not something I thought I'd have to argue about, but I guess the Brexit vote has made for strange bedfellows. The Lib Dems suddenly support the unelected Lords, right wing Tories looking for low end workers to get a pay rise and lifelong Labour voters doing the opposite.
I wasn't arguing that the UK government shouldn't represent your interests: you're a British citizen and when the Swiss round you up and put you in the chocolate mines to quarry for yodels I would be the first to send in the C17s and A400Ms to ferry you back. My point was that your move to Switzerland means that you no longer contribute to British society in any meaningful way.[1] You are correct that you did contribute, but there is a difference between the past and the present.
It's only inevitable if both sides of the border vote for it - and get a vote in the first place. It's not inevitable while Unionists remain the majority - as they do.
Deciding to live abroad is not deciding to abandon your country.
Unless the word "abandon" has changed its meaning, yes it is.
I spent 30 years abroad and still felt British, but I certainly wasn't paying any UK tax and I never had the impression that the UK government was very interested in me. Conversely I'd have been very annoyed if the country where I was working and paying tax suddenly threw me out.
But the whole debate is shadow-boxing. I'm quite sure that existing residents will be able to stay on both sides of the Channel. The interesting amendment is the "real choice after negotiations" one.
You don't. You did, but now you don't. When you visit friends and relatives, you pay as much tax as tourists do: arguably less, since you don't spend as much when here. I can't take your national identity from you (and nor would I want to) but you do now contribute considerably less than what you did, and arguably less than the Romanian Big Issue seller.
You left to earn stacks of cash. Good for you, and I hope one day to do the same. But it does have a cost, and one of those costs is that you can no longer claim to be contributing to the British economy.
I picked the Romanian big issue seller on purpose because they are a literal net drain on the economy, they pay no tax and receive huge amounts of welfare money.
In your rush to label those of us who have temporarily left as non-contributors you have forgotten that a very large number of EU migrants are not net-contributors and survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare. In the 10 years of my serious working life I paid over £200k in tax and NI. When I eventually return I'm sure it will be much more, asking for the UK government to represent my interests above the interests of non-citizens is not something I thought I'd have to argue about, but I guess the Brexit vote has made for strange bedfellows. The Lib Dems suddenly support the unelected Lords, right wing Tories looking for low end workers to get a pay rise and lifelong Labour voters doing the opposite.
I wasn't arguing that the UK government shouldn't represent your interests: you're a British citizen and when the Swiss round you up and put you in the chocolate mines to quarry for yodels I would be the first to send in the C17s and A400Ms to ferry you back. My point was that your move to Switzerland means that you no longer contribute to British society in any meaningful way.[1] You are correct that you did contribute, but there is a difference between the past and the present.
[1] Posting here doesn't count.
"Hey, Viewcode, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate Brexiteers will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks..."
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
Oh dear, only true Aryans eh?
What you meant was Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people citizens, but of course that undermines your whole point.
Oops.
That is just unacceptable - British born includes all races and creeds born in the UK
It's only inevitable if both sides of the border vote for it - and get a vote in the first place. It's not inevitable while Unionists remain the majority - as they do.
More than one Brexiteer on here used to say that Brexit would ultimately force the Republic of Ireland out of the EU as well...
The more recent arrivals (ultimately 2014 to date, given the negotiation period) need to pass the self sufficiency test.
You're preempting the negotiations somewhat. If we end up agreeing to continuing free movement (in our own interests) then the whole thing is academic.
We won't, the Tory right would go mad and UKIP would see a faster revival than Lazarus, a job offer requirement maybe but May will not agree free movement as now
A job offer will not be enough. A 'no recourse to public funds' restriction is almost certain to apply as well.
The job will need to be of a certain standard - probably salary determined. I'd expect it to be higher than the foreign spouse requirement because being the husband/wife of a British citizen should get some preferential treatment in the form of a lower earnings threshold to gain access.
A job offer requirement is what May will likely go for, how far that depends on a salary threshold and 'no recourse to public funds' depends on how willing the EU is to agree and accept bilateral agreements in key economic sectors
There is nothing that remotely resembles status quo that will prove acceptable to the electorate.
The status quo was acceptable to 48% of a larger electorate than voted in any recent general election, and a good percentage of the remaining 52% did not want to prioritise changing the immigration rules.
So which independent organisation has announced those stats or is it another load of made up nonsense in your crusade of disinformation more popularly known as fake news
We had a thing called a referendum. I accept that the fact there were rabid Eurosceptics like you who somehow found themselves voting Remain means that figures might be difficult to take at face value...
Did you take a peek at the pew poll results on views on the EU in various EU member states.
Very few feel as positive about the EU as you do it seems.
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
Oh dear, only true Aryans eh?
What you meant was Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people citizens, but of course that undermines your whole point.
Oops.
That is just unacceptable - British born includes all races and creeds born in the UK
Deciding to live abroad is not deciding to abandon your country.
Unless the word "abandon" has changed its meaning, yes it is.
I spent 30 years abroad and still felt British, but I certainly wasn't paying any UK tax and I never had the impression that the UK government was very interested in me. Conversely I'd have been very annoyed if the country where I was working and paying tax suddenly threw me out.
But the whole debate is shadow-boxing. I'm quite sure that existing residents will be able to stay on both sides of the Channel. The interesting amendment is the "real choice after negotiations" one.
There are few more rabid jingoists than the PBers who have left these shores. Patriotic to a man, but not to the point of actually wanting to live here. That would be absurd...
You don't. You did, but now you don't. When you visit friends and relatives, you pay as much tax as tourists do: arguably less, since you don't spend as much when here. I can't take your national identity from you (and nor would I want to) but you do now contribute considerably less than what you did, and arguably less than the Romanian Big Issue seller.
You left to earn stacks of cash. Good for you, and I hope one day to do the same. But it does have a cost, and one of those costs is that you can no longer claim to be contributing to the British economy.
I picked the Romanian big issue seller on purpose because they are a literal net drain on the economy, they pay no tax and receive huge amounts of welfare money.
In your rush to label those of us who have temporarily left as non-contributors you have forgotten that a very large number of EU migrants are not net-contributors and survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare. In the 10 years of my serious working life I paid over £200k in tax and NI. When I eventually return I'm sure it will be much more, asking for the UK government to represent my interests above the interests of non-citizens is not something I thought I'd have to argue about, but I guess the Brexit vote has made for strange bedfellows. The Lib Dems suddenly support the unelected Lords, right wing Tories looking for low end workers to get a pay rise and lifelong Labour voters doing the opposite.
I wasn't arguing that the UK government shouldn't represent your interests: you're a British citizen and when the Swiss round you up and put you in the chocolate mines to quarry for yodels I would be the first to send in the C17s and A400Ms to ferry you back. My point was that your move to Switzerland means that you no longer contribute to British society in any meaningful way.[1] You are correct that you did contribute, but there is a difference between the past and the present.
[1] Posting here doesn't count.
"Hey, Viewcode, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate Brexiteers will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks..."
You don't. You did, but now you don't. When you visit friends and relatives, you pay as much tax as tourists do: arguably less, since you don't spend as much when here. I can't take your national identity from you (and nor would I want to) but you do now contribute considerably less than what you did, and arguably less than the Romanian Big Issue seller.
You left to earn stacks of cash. Good for you, and I hope one day to do the same. But it does have a cost, and one of those costs is that you can no longer claim to be contributing to the British economy.
I picked the Romanian big issue seller on purpose because they are a literal net drain on the economy, they pay no tax and receive huge amounts of welfare money.
In your rush to label those of us who have temporarily left as non-contributors you have forgotten that a very large number of EU migrants are not net-contributors and survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare. In the 10 years of my serious working life I paid over £200k in tax and NI. When I eventually return I'm sure it will be much more, asking for the UK government to represent my interests above the interests of non-citizens is not something I thought I'd have to argue about, but I guess the Brexit vote has made for strange bedfellows. The Lib Dems suddenly support the unelected Lords, right wing Tories looking for low end workers to get a pay rise and lifelong Labour voters doing the opposite.
I wasn't arguing that the UK government shouldn't represent your interests: you're a British citizen and when the Swiss round you up and put you in the chocolate mines to quarry for yodels I would be the first to send in the C17s and A400Ms to ferry you back. My point was that your move to Switzerland means that you no longer contribute to British society in any meaningful way.[1] You are correct that you did contribute, but there is a difference between the past and the present.
[1] Posting here doesn't count.
"Hey, Viewcode, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate Brexiteers will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks..."
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
Oh dear, only true Aryans eh?
What you meant was Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people citizens, but of course that undermines your whole point.
Oops.
That is just unacceptable - British born includes all races and creeds born in the UK
Poor, old Sunil..
But I is British, none the less
I agree, but the Ein Volk, Ein Union, Ein Premierminister brigade seem to have a different view.
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
Oh dear, only true Aryans eh?
What you meant was Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people citizens, but of course that undermines your whole point.
Oops.
That is just unacceptable - British born includes all races and creeds born in the UK
Poor, old Sunil..
But I is British, none the less
I agree, but the Ein Volk, Ein Union, Ein Premierminister brigade seem to have a different view.
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
Oh dear, only true Aryans eh?
What you meant was Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people citizens, but of course that undermines your whole point.
Oops.
That is just unacceptable - British born includes all races and creeds born in the UK
Poor, old Sunil..
But I is British, none the less
I agree, but the Ein Volk, Ein Union, Ein Premierminister brigade seem to have a different view.
It is very rude to bring up the political antecedents of many of the French and German politicians and civil servants who began the EU.
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
Oh dear, only true Aryans eh?
What you meant was Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people citizens, but of course that undermines your whole point.
Oops.
That is just unacceptable - British born includes all races and creeds born in the UK
Poor, old Sunil..
But I is British, none the less
I agree, but the Ein Volk, Ein Union, Ein Premierminister brigade seem to have a different view.
I thought you liked the European Union?
"We are four nations, but at heart we are one people"
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
Oh dear, only true Aryans eh?
What you meant was Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people citizens, but of course that undermines your whole point.
Oops.
That is just unacceptable - British born includes all races and creeds born in the UK
Poor, old Sunil..
But I is British, none the less
I agree, but the Ein Volk, Ein Union, Ein Premierminister brigade seem to have a different view.
Almost at year seven of the thousand year PB Tory reich.
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
The vast majority of whom live and work in this country and would be far better served by allowing resident EU citizens to stay.
Except that not wanting them to stay was one reason that so many voted Leave.
gee.
I think the point Richard is making is that the forced repatriation of millions of EU citizens, the vast majority of which are productive members of society, would be (a) have negative economic consequences, as firms would suddenly find themselves without employees; and (b) would have a long-lived impact on firms willingness to invest in the UK. There is a clear difference between how we would want to treat future people coming to the UK, and those already here and in employment.
Furthermore, the EU referendum was solely about whether we remained part of the EU. It was not about immigration, or the EEA, or anything else. The government's duty is not to make sure than 51% of the Leave voters are happy, but to come up with a solution that maximises the outcome and opportunities of all British citizens.
Who has ever said forced repatriation? The worst case scenario in the event that there is no agreement on residency rights is everyone who hasn't already got status will be asked to apply for a visa. It is literally a case of irritation for most people and for those who don't contribute (the Romanian big issue sellers and SeanT's beggars) being asked to leave. As I said before, I'll live with the paperwork, as long as EU citizens in the UK are forced to do the same.
"Guaranteeing rights" is not incompatible with paperwork! We could say - and I don't think it would be unreasonable to do so - that all EU citizens with 24 months of NI contributions are welcome to stay, once they've filled in the relevant paperwork (i.e. applied for a visa), and so long as they don't have a criminal record.
What about retired people? non working homemakers? carers? disabled people? People with minor criminal records (its actually pretty easy to get a criminal record). This is ultimately not even about having the right to stay, its about rights to the support of the state, access to the social contract, being equal before the law which under the current EEA arrangements migrants are.
Government's first duty is to protect the interests of British born people.
The vast majority of whom live and work in this country and would be far better served by allowing resident EU citizens to stay.
Except that not wanting them to stay was one reason that so many voted Leave.
The British government's duty is to look after the interests of British people, wherever they happen to live or be, and regardless of whether they were born British or have been naturalised. Foreign citizens who are on British territory can expect a general level of protection, of course, but not in terms of an inalienable "right" to live here they can't. They have their own governments to look after their permanent residence rights, namely their permanent right to live in their own countries. Anyone who lives here and doesn't have a foreign government to look after those interests is a refugee.
I think the point Richard is making is that the forced repatriation of millions of EU citizens, the vast majority of which are productive members of society, would be (a) have negative economic consequences, as firms would suddenly find themselves without employees; and (b) would have a long-lived impact on firms willingness to invest in the UK. There is a clear difference between how we would want to treat future people coming to the UK, and those already here and in employment.
Furthermore, the EU referendum was solely about whether we remained part of the EU. It was not about immigration, or the EEA, or anything else. The government's duty is not to make sure than 51% of the Leave voters are happy, but to come up with a solution that maximises the outcome and opportunities of all British citizens.
Of course that is one reason there will, excepting the harshest of harsh exits, there will continue to very unhappy leavers along with core remainers. Right from the vote itself people were attempting to frame certain options as not being true Brexit.
I take exception to the idea that a Romanian big issue seller contributes to the economy and I don't, despite having paid in 10 years worth of tax plus all of the money I've spent on goods and services and still do when I return to visit friends and relatives.
Y
You left to earn stacks of cash. Good for you, and I hope one day to do the same. But it does have a cost, and one of those costs is that you can no longer claim to be contributing to the British economy.
I picked the Romanian big issue seller on purpose because they are a literal net drain on the economy, they pay no tax and receive huge amounts of welfare money.
In your rush to label those of us who have temporarily left as non-contributors you have forgotten that a very large number of EU migrants are not net-contributors and survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare. In the 10 years of my serious working life I paid over £200k in tax and NI. When I eventually return I'm sure it will be much more, asking for the UK government to represent my interests above the interests of non-citizens is not something I thought I'd have to argue about, but I guess the Brexit vote has made for strange bedfellows. The Lib Dems suddenly support the unelected Lords, right wing Tories looking for low end workers to get a pay rise and lifelong Labour voters doing the opposite.
Another view is that the contribution an individual makes to a society goes much further than what they earn and pay in tax, although this point is often quite difficult for high earners like yourself to grasp.
In my experience a lot of EU migrants do jobs that make a major contribution to the functioning of society (healthcare, transport, adult social care etc) and many of these jobs are on the minimum wage or slightly above, and even with in work benefits (what exactly are these?) it is pretty much impossible for migrants to have any standard of living, certainly not in London or the south east.
I'm interested as to what your evidence is that EU migrants 'survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare'. It seems totally far fetched to me. JSA is £73 a week, you can work for 16 hours a week, but then the JSA you can claim is reduced. What are these benefits? Housing benefit? Disability benefit? Claiming any benefit since 2010 is a total nightmare and something any sane person would avoid at all costs
Ages ago on here I mentioned that senior Russian officials used language in conversation that suggested they felt that they owned Donald Trump. Think of a term when someone is owned by someone else, but not the term for a female dog, worse. Thats the kind of terminology they use.
How do we know? Because Western intelligence agencies have them amongst their intercepts. Apart from the use of derogatory language theres some more substantial stuff in that intelligence take about collusion with the Trump campaign that is getting put forward.
I know we have already done this...but the man is absolute genius...for the second time they try the "i'm releasing my tax returns" wheeze and the headline they generate...
Ages ago on here I mentioned that senior Russian officials used language in conversation that suggested they felt that they owned Donald Trump. Think of a term when someone is owned by someone else, but not the term for a female dog, worse. Thats the kind of terminology they use.
How do we know? Because Western intelligence agencies have them amongst their intercepts. Apart from the use of derogatory language theres some more substantial stuff in that intelligence take about collusion with the Trump campaign that is getting put forward.
And there are more than a few such intercepts.
It's amazing how a few conversations between Russians can totally paralyse the US government. Almost worth scripting a few juicy tales and then discussing them on insecure lines to make the US paranoid...
Ages ago on here I mentioned that senior Russian officials used language in conversation that suggested they felt that they owned Donald Trump. Think of a term when someone is owned by someone else, but not the term for a female dog, worse. Thats the kind of terminology they use.
How do we know? Because Western intelligence agencies have them amongst their intercepts. Apart from the use of derogatory language theres some more substantial stuff in that intelligence take about collusion with the Trump campaign that is getting put forward.
And there are more than a few such intercepts.
who is the next Trump admin member to be put under pressure?
Ages ago on here I mentioned that senior Russian officials used language in conversation that suggested they felt that they owned Donald Trump. Think of a term when someone is owned by someone else, but not the term for a female dog, worse. Thats the kind of terminology they use.
How do we know? Because Western intelligence agencies have them amongst their intercepts. Apart from the use of derogatory language theres some more substantial stuff in that intelligence take about collusion with the Trump campaign that is getting put forward.
And there are more than a few such intercepts.
who is the next Trump admin member to be put under pressure?
Who knows, in terms of positions of state not sure there is a new player there but in terms of back office team, any one of about 6.
Fillon has shot himself in the foot again this evening, accusing the media of having reported that his wife had committed suicide, although there seems to be no report anywhere which matches this. In fact the only people to mention it are Fillon and another member of LR.
I'm interested as to what your evidence is that EU migrants 'survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare'. It seems totally far fetched to me. JSA is £73 a week, you can work for 16 hours a week, but then the JSA you can claim is reduced. What are these benefits? Housing benefit? Disability benefit? Claiming any benefit since 2010 is a total nightmare and something any sane person would avoid at all costs
I'm friends with a Moldovan lass (who acquired EU citizenship via another country) who ran a very successful business in East London helping primarily East Europeans come to Britain and settle. Navigating things like the benefits and tax system is very difficult if you don't speak the language but that is why so many of them signed up for her to manage all that for them. Whenever I visited her (sizeable) offices in Stratford, her staff were dealing with industrial quantities of applications. She has moved on to bigger, higher-paying ventures these days (partly because she got priced out of Stratford as the tech firms moved in) but there were many competitors within even a few hundred yards of her office.
She knew how to work the system inside out - and it was the in-work benefits (which she was effectively getting a cut of) that made the trip worthwhile, and London vaguely liveable, for most of her clients. But there were other bits and bobs too.
I visited her parents once. She had wrangled them a rather pretty, and very comfortable, council terrace in Stratford. I think her dad had been a carpenter or some such but neither had worked in the 10 years that they'd been here. Dad couldn't speak a word of English - "he just sits and looks at the internet", from the Old Country of course, plus satellite TV - while mum could manage some fragmentary sentences. They were waiting to retire really, though she had made sure dad got put on the disability. I couldn't help thinking what a dull and isolated life they led just 15 minutes from the centre of one of the most vibrant cities on Earth. But life in Moldova had been bloody awful, so I was told, so perhaps they have staked out their own quiet corner of "paradise".
A related anecdote - her office adjoined (and shared loo and rudimentary kitchen facilities with, so she got to know them quite well) a firm of Indian immigration lawyers, who can quite safely be described as "dodgy". They had hit upon the brilliant scheme of installing a bank of computers in their office space so they could describe it as a private college for overseas students, though tuition was noticeably lacking.
The office-cum-"study centre" was above a row of fast food shops on the high street by the way. Anyone who has walked around Newham, Tower Hamlets, Barking or Redbridge will be completely familiar with the arrangement.
The students would pay fees to "study", of course, and would then need the services of the immigration lawyers to stay on in Britain - so the business won twice over. I thought this was a clever little synergy myself - not a combination I had seen such colleges offer before (exception: crammer colleges prepping for the Life In The UK citizenship test are often cohoused with immigration lawyers, but this game was even cleverer - it would be the "college" course that allowed the students to get in to the country in the first place) so perhaps the integration gave them a USP.
The students aren't really paying to study of course. Effectively they were paying for a visa - importantly, one that gives the right to work. You occasionally see these colleges advertising publicly (on the sort of shop-window noticeboard that shows rooms to let or share, or occasionally - though I have only seen this in the suburban outskirts of London - full-colour tube station adverts) and the two key features that are highlighted are the rights to a UK visa and the number of hours per week you would be entitled to work. Details of what you might actually learn while "studying" are inevitably conspicuous solely by their absence! I've seen slight variants on this - places you would be able to travel to while you have your student visa are sometimes vaunted, more commonly whether it presents a potential route to legally settle here and the number of years that pathway might take.
I digress, however. The computer workstations installed, the "College" signs up, and all for naught - the place had been raised, declared a sham college (so no right to visas and hence nothing to sell) and the owners had been forced back to the drudgery of legal work. They had plans to appeal, though I know not what became of that.
Fillon has shot himself in the foot again this evening, accusing the media of having reported that his wife had committed suicide, although there seems to be no report anywhere which matches this. In fact the only people to mention it are Fillon and another member of LR.
Someone may have stitched him up, someone he trusted, telling him this. Or he's going under. He says today that it happened on Wednesday, but it didn't happen at all. Got to admit, I feel sorry for Fillon.
Fillon has shot himself in the foot again this evening, accusing the media of having reported that his wife had committed suicide, although there seems to be no report anywhere which matches this. In fact the only people to mention it are Fillon and another member of LR.
Someone may have stitched him up, someone he trusted, telling him this. Or he's going under. He says today that it happened on Wednesday, but it didn't happen at all. Got to admit, I feel sorry for Fillon.
I notice that the inaccurate vote totals in the article three threads ago, and the erroneous categorisation of PBP as "nationalist" and Sugden as "other", have not been corrected. But anyway.
I notice that the inaccurate vote totals in the article three threads ago, and the erroneous categorisation of PBP as "nationalist" and Sugden as "other", have not been corrected. But anyway.
The PB archives are quite like the Jedi archives - never wrong
A related anecdote - her office adjoined (and shared loo and rudimentary kitchen facilities with, so she got to know them quite well) a firm of Indian immigration lawyers, who can quite safely be described as "dodgy". They had hit upon the brilliant scheme of installing a bank of computers in their office space so they could describe it as a private college for overseas students, though tuition was noticeably lacking.
The office-cum-"study centre" was above a row of fast food shops on the high street by the way. Anyone who has walked around Newham, Tower Hamlets, Barking or Redbridge will be completely familiar with the arrangement.
The students would pay fees to "study", of course, and would then need the services of the immigration lawyers to stay on in Britain - so the business won twice over. I thought this was a clever little synergy myself - not a combination I had seen such colleges offer before (exception: crammer colleges prepping for the Life In The UK citizenship test are often cohoused with immigration lawyers, but this game was even cleverer - it would be the "college" course that allowed the students to get in to the country in the first place) so perhaps the integration gave them a USP.
The students aren't really paying to study of course. Effectively they were paying for a visa - importantly, one that gives the right to work. You occasionally see these colleges advertising publicly (on the sort of shop-window noticeboard that shows rooms to let or share, or occasionally - though I have only seen this in the suburban outskirts of London - full-colour tube station adverts) and the two key features that are highlighted are the rights to a UK visa and the number of hours per week you would be entitled to work. Details of what you might actually learn while "studying" are inevitably conspicuous solely by their absence! I've seen slight variants on this - places you would be able to travel to while you have your student visa are sometimes vaunted, more commonly whether it presents a potential route to legally settle here and the number of years that pathway might take.
I digress, however. The computer workstations installed, the "College" signs up, and all for naught - the place had been raised, declared a sham college (so no right to visas and hence nothing to sell) and the owners had been forced back to the drudgery of legal work. They had plans to appeal, though I know not what became of that.
I think there are, or used to be, places like that near Tottenham Court Road. I used to work near there and pretty much every day there would be people handing out leaflets to passers by, advertising English language tuition colleges, with nearby addresses, and the offer was pitched in the way that you describe.
The computer workstations installed, the "College" signs up, and all for naught - the place had been raised, declared a sham college (so no right to visas and hence nothing to sell) and the owners had been forced back to the drudgery of legal work. They had plans to appeal, though I know not what became of that.
That was one of the first things May cracked down on as Home Secretary - Labour had allowed a not insubstantial cottage industry to build up - of course there were the usual cries from the usual suspects about the government attacking the education sector.....
Comments
http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/brexit-means-irish-unity-is-now-inevitable
https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/838298799269371904
[1] Posting here doesn't count.
But the whole debate is shadow-boxing. I'm quite sure that existing residents will be able to stay on both sides of the Channel. The interesting amendment is the "real choice after negotiations" one.
http://www.greatbritishchefs.com/recipes/turkish-delight-cheesecake
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/838506044959645697
https://twitter.com/tvkatesnow/status/838513661048197120
- "No, have you?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPAmbUZ9UKk&t=369s
Pass the sick bag, Tessy.
This is ultimately not even about having the right to stay, its about rights to the support of the state, access to the social contract, being equal before the law which under the current EEA arrangements migrants are.
In my experience a lot of EU migrants do jobs that make a major contribution to the functioning of society (healthcare, transport, adult social care etc) and many of these jobs are on the minimum wage or slightly above, and even with in work benefits (what exactly are these?) it is pretty much impossible for migrants to have any standard of living, certainly not in London or the south east.
I'm interested as to what your evidence is that EU migrants 'survive through various welfare subsidies because they do low paid work and many work part time in order to qualify for the maximum amount of welfare'. It seems totally far fetched to me. JSA is £73 a week, you can work for 16 hours a week, but then the JSA you can claim is reduced. What are these benefits? Housing benefit? Disability benefit? Claiming any benefit since 2010 is a total nightmare and something any sane person would avoid at all costs
Ages ago on here I mentioned that senior Russian officials used language in conversation that suggested they felt that they owned Donald Trump. Think of a term when someone is owned by someone else, but not the term for a female dog, worse. Thats the kind of terminology they use.
How do we know? Because Western intelligence agencies have them amongst their intercepts. Apart from the use of derogatory language theres some more substantial stuff in that
intelligence take about collusion with the Trump campaign that is getting put forward.
And there are more than a few such intercepts.
'Missing money' in Corbyn tax return
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39175570
Jezza is like a PR case study in how not to do PR.
Then there is Trump himself.
She knew how to work the system inside out - and it was the in-work benefits (which she was effectively getting a cut of) that made the trip worthwhile, and London vaguely liveable, for most of her clients. But there were other bits and bobs too.
I visited her parents once. She had wrangled them a rather pretty, and very comfortable, council terrace in Stratford. I think her dad had been a carpenter or some such but neither had worked in the 10 years that they'd been here. Dad couldn't speak a word of English - "he just sits and looks at the internet", from the Old Country of course, plus satellite TV - while mum could manage some fragmentary sentences. They were waiting to retire really, though she had made sure dad got put on the disability. I couldn't help thinking what a dull and isolated life they led just 15 minutes from the centre of one of the most vibrant cities on Earth. But life in Moldova had been bloody awful, so I was told, so perhaps they have staked out their own quiet corner of "paradise".
The office-cum-"study centre" was above a row of fast food shops on the high street by the way. Anyone who has walked around Newham, Tower Hamlets, Barking or Redbridge will be completely familiar with the arrangement.
The students would pay fees to "study", of course, and would then need the services of the immigration lawyers to stay on in Britain - so the business won twice over. I thought this was a clever little synergy myself - not a combination I had seen such colleges offer before (exception: crammer colleges prepping for the Life In The UK citizenship test are often cohoused with immigration lawyers, but this game was even cleverer - it would be the "college" course that allowed the students to get in to the country in the first place) so perhaps the integration gave them a USP.
The students aren't really paying to study of course. Effectively they were paying for a visa - importantly, one that gives the right to work. You occasionally see these colleges advertising publicly (on the sort of shop-window noticeboard that shows rooms to let or share, or occasionally - though I have only seen this in the suburban outskirts of London - full-colour tube station adverts) and the two key features that are highlighted are the rights to a UK visa and the number of hours per week you would be entitled to work. Details of what you might actually learn while "studying" are inevitably conspicuous solely by their absence! I've seen slight variants on this - places you would be able to travel to while you have your student visa are sometimes vaunted, more commonly whether it presents a potential route to legally settle here and the number of years that pathway might take.
I digress, however. The computer workstations installed, the "College" signs up, and all for naught - the place had been raised, declared a sham college (so no right to visas and hence nothing to sell) and the owners had been forced back to the drudgery of legal work. They had plans to appeal, though I know not what became of that.
http://www.medisite.fr/revue-du-web-lintox-de-francois-fillon-sur-lannonce-du-suicide-de-son-epouse.1648447.41633.html
Here is what Madeleine de Jessey tweeted (why?) on Wednesday:
https://twitter.com/MadeJessey/status/836912427501568000?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/288987/response/719724/attach/html/4/FOI 36608 Annex 1.pdf.html