Options
Britain faces legal action from the EU
deptfordbaker
Posts: 22,368 Forum Member
✭✭✭
This is to do with the free movement directive. There are four issues Britain and the EU can not agree on, they have resolved all the others.
The following comes from the Financial Times, which I can not link to, as DS posters may not have subscribed, so I have summarised the points they make to avoid infringing their copyright rules.
1. The right of EU citizens to settle visa free, even when their spouse or dependants are not EU citizens. Britain does not trust the residence cards, of other EU member's.
2. The right of extended members of an EU citizens family, who is not an EU citizen, to live in Britain, even though the EU citizen does not live here.
So if an Afghan was given the right to settle in Italy and lived in Rome, his brother would be allowed to settle in Britain and live in London for example.
3. Bulgarian and Romanian workers being issued with different residence documentation to other EU workers. The EU say this is illegal and want Britain to cease doing it.
4. Unemployed EU citizens living in the UK, to be given the right to use the NHS.
There are two million EU citizens currently in Britain. The government basically says they have gone as far as they can, to fit this directive in to Britain's immigration rules.
Now you know why immigration control is so difficult. We have signed so many treaty's, any thing we try and do to reduce it, is blocked.
The Telegraph have done an article too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9229904/Britain-faces-fine-from-Brussels-over-immigration-restrictions.html
Here's the opinion of the lawyers. Shame they don't have to account to the public for this, like the politicians will have to do.
Its a sad day when lawyers and the courts dictate our sovereign border control rights.
The following comes from the Financial Times, which I can not link to, as DS posters may not have subscribed, so I have summarised the points they make to avoid infringing their copyright rules.
1. The right of EU citizens to settle visa free, even when their spouse or dependants are not EU citizens. Britain does not trust the residence cards, of other EU member's.
2. The right of extended members of an EU citizens family, who is not an EU citizen, to live in Britain, even though the EU citizen does not live here.
So if an Afghan was given the right to settle in Italy and lived in Rome, his brother would be allowed to settle in Britain and live in London for example.
3. Bulgarian and Romanian workers being issued with different residence documentation to other EU workers. The EU say this is illegal and want Britain to cease doing it.
4. Unemployed EU citizens living in the UK, to be given the right to use the NHS.
There are two million EU citizens currently in Britain. The government basically says they have gone as far as they can, to fit this directive in to Britain's immigration rules.
Now you know why immigration control is so difficult. We have signed so many treaty's, any thing we try and do to reduce it, is blocked.
The Telegraph have done an article too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9229904/Britain-faces-fine-from-Brussels-over-immigration-restrictions.html
Telegraph wrote:The Government has been told it has just two months to comply with all of the Free Movement Directive or it will be taken to court.
It is facing claims that it has failed to implement four highly technical aspects of the legislation on the rights of EU citizens to live and work anywhere on the continent.
“As one of the EU's larger member states, the UK is home to around 2 million citizens from other EU countries. It is therefore important that UK laws respect their rights,” said the European Commission, executive arm of the EU.
Legal experts believe it would be impossible for the Government to implement all the changes required of it on time, and that it would likely lose at least one aspect of any case brought to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
But the Home Office said last night it did not agree with the ultimatum, made in a “reasoned opinion” published by the EC on Thursday, and would fight the case.
Here's the opinion of the lawyers. Shame they don't have to account to the public for this, like the politicians will have to do.
Telegraph wrote:Colin Yeo, a specialist in immigration law at Renaissance Chambers, said the changes required were technical and would not affect many people.
He wrote in a blog post: "All four of these points seem to be more a matter of realising and accessing rights than any substantive change in UK policy or practice.
"In some ways it looks like the UK is managing to make a mountain out of a molehill by failing to amend laws it knows are out of step with EU free movement rights. The Commission was bound to do something about it eventually."
Its a sad day when lawyers and the courts dictate our sovereign border control rights.
0
Comments
What is so great about mass immigration and forced diversity?
The poster never said "mass immigration". Are you sure you're not imprinting your own misgivings on the opinions of others?
The question I have for you is what isn't great about immigration? Note I didn't use the 'mass' word because I believe most of us recognise the issues with mass immigration. But the real test is to see if you can be balanced and have a genuine opinion about immigration beyond your qualms about mass immigration.
And what is bad about diversity? Again I don't used 'forced' because that is your take on the way life has panned out in this country and this is your bugbear. What is the issue with diversity? Or do you have no issue with it?
What a bizarre thing to say. Are you accountable to the public for your opinions at work?
Immigration / emigration as a concept, is neither good or bad, it is the number of people, the time period they arrive in, who they are and who decides whether they should be allowed to be here or not, that is the issue.
Diversity is not a bad thing, but if people emigrate to another country and keep their culture, identity, traditions, language, history and lifestyle for ever, they are replacing the unique identity of the country they emigrated too. They are colonists and not migrants.
Why for example do we need Indian culture in the UK, when we already have a country called India, which has all the Indian culture you could ever want? There's only one England, if we allow it to turn in to a patchwork quilt of cultures or identity's, with no social cohesion, the English Identity will be lost forever, which I suspect many people around the world whose ancestors were ruled by colonialism and many left wing apologists for it, would actually quite like.
Or, perhaps even better, pay the fine and deduct the amount from the money we hand over to EU every year!
As the fine increases the money we give decreases! Simple.
They'd soon get the message I'm sure.
How did you miss all the countless programs explaining that most cultures are a mixture of others.
It looks as even the Morris Dance isn't entirely English from that time.
Cultures with cheaper flights and the Internet probably just mix faster.
Politicians are accountable to the public through the ballot box because politician pass laws which can effect us all.
Lawyers provide advice on laws set by politicians.
But that's not really the reason is it?
It's money, nothing else, just money.
I don't understand why people who see themselves as socialist with socialist principles are so ready to accept money as the driving force behind how people behave, where they decide to live and whether they decide to emmigrate.
It makes no sense.
Why and how does money overtake everything else?
People come to the west for a "better" life. Nobody questions whether it is a better life or whether it's just a richer life.
Does more material goods, or the ability to own more material goods make up for living in a climate that's rough, a culture thats alien and people who don't want you?
I understand why there's ghettoisation. But how does it make anyboy's life better to feel that outside a very small area they are not comfortable, always feel challenged, always feel out of place?
Make all the laws you want, but people aren't robots, they feel. They are affected by subtleties.
Cue the usual self righteous leftie brigade.
There was a programme on television recently that pointed out that St George wasn't English and was claimed by many other countries. It sort of missing the point, its the legend that is culturally English and is part of their heritage.
My point is the separation of the the world population in to countries over thousands of years, has created unique and separate identity's. That is true diversity in the world. Simply turning a country in to some sort of container for all the other countries, means the world is losing something unique. Its ironic that those promoting internal diversity are actually destroying it internationally.
As no country evolved in complete isolation, all country's add bits and pieces from others and merge them in to their own. Europeans took chilli's to India I believe. Indians drink Coca Cola, Americans eat Indian food. It is not their culture though, they are enjoying foreign culture from a foreign country.
Integrating in to a new country, providing something new to add and merge, as a sort of thank you for allowing us to join your country present, is fine. Setting up a colony based on the old country and simply using the land and resources of the new country is not.
You are trying to argue that because the English have accepted new people over the centuries and used things they brought with them, that somehow, replacing English identity lock stock and barrel in places, with one that already exists in another country, is some how equivalent which It is not.
My point is that the country should be run by politicians and not by treaties, judges, or foreign officials, who are not accountable to the British public in an election.
What makes no sense?
If your children were starving and you had a chance to take a job, on the other side of the world, that would pay just enough for you to survive, and feed your children back at home, you would do it.
And - It would be the most incredible personal sacrifice that most of us could ever imagine.
What is difficult to understand about that?
Where is that knowledge from? I am not against immigration full stop and never have been, there has always been some immigration. Every five years we add a million people to our population though. Instead of 230,000 settlements, lets have 10,000 for example, what's wrong with that? Less people over a greater time means less multiculturalism and more integration.
We should be more of a world employer, not a charity. It's not about whether people want to come here or not, but whether we need them. If you have no skills, education. wealth and can't speak English, why should we allow you to come here to live as the spouse of a British citizen, what is the benefit to the country? If we have no jobs or housing, how can we accommodate people? When people realise the link to the old country is broken, they have two choices only, leave or integrate.
Lets make citizenship available, only after integration not before, does that sound too unreasonable? After all it is meant to mean that you are British now, so what's the point if you are still very foreign in how you live your life. A silly exam equivalent to the driving theory test, is not going to achieve that.
I'd be more relaxed.. It's a system as where people like you defend the status quo and others are looser on said subject. This ensures that the more valuable traditions from other regions are picked up.
For some unknown reason for example chorizo has embraced the nations heart, bullying the other perfectly fine salamis out of the market place. I merely suggest to occasionally have a look at the odd other salami.
Food is imo a good stand in. It's clearly defined and visible. Why tasteless bagels and not Brezn. Who thought that 5 day old continental rolls are acceptable food?
Regarding Indians. I though they were always quite nice. If you don't burn widows and neglect the cast system maybe they have something to offer. They also have a non semitic religion and their need to convert you to their view seems quite low.
Health services,Local services,Housing and Law and Order have got worse in that time period too.
Allowing 400+ million Europeans into the mix hasn't helped anyone
The treaties are signed by the politicians.
What you want is to replace the judicial process with mob rule.
Do you think the immigration we have to the west is primarily made up by people who are starving?
I doubt that very much.
Just by the logistics and the cost of getting here.
Those really on the bottom rung have no more chance of getting to the UK than if we completely closed the borders altogether.
And if (a very big if) it is the case that we are allowing people to the country who would otherwise starve, how does that help all the others who don't have a way of raising the cash to get here?
Rather than take a few and spend masses of money on the few, why not reject the few and spend that money on the many?
Look at the thousands of pounds that are being taken out of poor communities and are spent to get one person out through people smugglers.
That's insanity and long term helps nobody except the one.
And even then, how much does it help them?
The negatives of immigration are explored on here ad infinitum.
The negatives for the immigrant never are. And if they are it's always from the angle of what everybody here is doing wrong.
The Health Service and Crime figures have improved significantly in the last 30 years.
"Settle here"
You finally got round to it in your last paragraph.
If you are setting the integration test? - No.
If a non-EU immigrant comes here, on a work sponsored visa, alone, and works for a uk company for 5 years, in what way do you expect them to fail to integrate.
And if the job is in a category deemed" least attractive" due to low wages/long hours we should not be insulting them/refusing settlement by pointing out that they somehow failed to reach £38k pa.
If I was Prime Minister with a majority and I had made it clear what I would do in my manifesto, I would inform the UN that we would like to withdraw from the asylum convention, the Council of Europe that we would like to withdraw from the Human Rights Convention, scrap the Human Rights Act, give the Home office priority over the foreign office in visas control and hold a referendum on membership of the EU.
I have no objection to anyone coming here on a work visa for however long they want, integration is irrelevant - but why should that automatically lead to Citizenship?. Why not simply say that when they are no longer required they should return back whence they came?