/ Rights of EU citizens post Brexit.

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Mike Stretford - on 09 May 2017

There's quite a bit of spin about how May wants these rights guaranteed fast but the nasty EU won't play ball. Let's get real.... one of the sticking points is likely to be the cut off point. May won't want it to be EU exit day as that would probably lead to another immigration spike. However, the UK government has no list of EU citizens in the UK. As there are no plans for a census of EU citizens here, it is pretty obvious May is not serious about a quick deal.
Post edited at 15:09
Shani - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

FFS, we need to take back control and this begins with strong & stable gevernment to make Britain great again. The alternative is a coalition of chaos with their tax bombshell. Probably.
Lord_ash2000 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Am I the only one who sees this EU citizens rights things for what it is?

It, like everything else is a negotiating chip. I'm almost certain EU citizens will be allowed to stay in the UK, more or less as they are now, however it'll cost the EU something at the negotiating table to secure those rights.

If you just go and up front guarantee anything at this stage then it becomes worthless at the table, you've just given your opposition freebie.
Post edited at 16:24
Mike Stretford - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Am I the only one who sees this EU citizens rights things for what it is?

No, many do. However, there are those on these forums who believe the spin

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=663197&v=1#x8557068
MG - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
You're not alone but, as with others, it's disappointing you see the EU as the opposition. A regression of 50+ years in thinking.
Post edited at 16:36
Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
No no no. The UK has to offer the EU the moon on a stick if it wants to trade fairly in the future Surely no one would be so mean to use real live human beings as bargaining chips.
The UK must get down on both knees and plead for clemency from that nice man Junker and his jolly friend Donald and anyone who thinks otherwise is a raving fascist bully boy with an IQ of 11 often found reading the Sun newspaper and eating raw bacon.
Post edited at 16:38
balmybaldwin - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:


I get your point, but I think there are certain points that clearly set the tone of negotiations

Firstly it's not that much of a bargaining chip, and secondly its a bit inhumane.

I would be perfectly happy if the price of doing the decent thing was a tiny bit less good deal. I like to think it's part of being British to put your money where your mouth is.

It really is as simple as us unilaterally guaranteeing EU citizens rights for those in the UK (probably require on a certain date). This does a few things.....

It makes a minuscule reduction in our leverage with the EU (so what)

It puts the onus on the EU to do the same or else look petty and inhumane to the rest of the world

It means less disruption for families and companies in the UK
wbo - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100: you realize that if you live anywhere other than the UK it is not the EU that look like the aggressive side, and really the UK population are in another galaxy as to what they think reasonable.

Anyway after the glorious liberation you'll be getting a few hundred thousand red white and blue pensioners back ready to leap into action picking potatoes, cleaning hospital toilets and all those other essential jobs.

Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to wbo:

> you realize that if you live anywhere other than the UK it is not the EU that look like the aggressive side, and really the UK population are in another galaxy as to what they think reasonable.
Spouted parrot fashion a la J C Junker.

Anyway after the glorious liberation you'll be getting a few hundred thousand red white and blue pensioners back ready to leap into action picking potatoes, cleaning hospital toilets and all those other essential jobs.
Common sense on all fronts will prevail no doubt.
Lusk - on 09 May 2017
In reply to wbo:
> Anyway after the glorious liberation you'll be getting a few hundred thousand red white and blue pensioners back ready to leap into action picking potatoes, cleaning hospital toilets and all those other essential jobs.

They'll be all the shit jobs that poverty stricken Eastern Europeans do for us; for £7.50/hour and usually Zero hour contracts, who we can exploit?

Pay something like £12/hour, along with some rights, and even an unemployable scumbag 57 year old like me would go out to work.
We are supposedly the 6th or 7th richest country in the world, after all.
Post edited at 18:21
Bogwalloper - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

There's zillions of things that May can bring to the table to negotiate with. Human lives shouldn't be one of those things.

Wally
Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> There's zillions of things that May can bring to the table to negotiate with. Human lives shouldn't be one of those things.Wally

She's hardly negotiating with people's lives is she? She is however putting a stake in the ground and making sure the EU know she won't be pushed around and can be difficult if she feels she needs to be. As a negotiating strategy I don't see a lot wrong with it albeit understand that some Europeans living and wanting to stay in the UK might not quite see it that way.
You can't please all the people all the time.
Heike - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Ok, so I am a negotiating chip?? I have been living here since my student years for 23 years now (yikes) and have been part of this society as a legitimate EU member. I am married to a British person and have a child (born in Scotland) and have never wanted benefits/never been a burden on the NHS/ never asked for unemployment money...anything. I have paid my taxes, taught thousands of students and forged many international relationships for the Uni, I have paid my dental health care privately. How dare you say I am a bargaining chip? I am amazed/perplexed/etc?
Post edited at 18:57
Bogwalloper - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

You should try living with the black cloud over your head.

Wally
Bogwalloper - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Heike:

Personally I find this attitude disgusting.

I hope everything turns out ok for us but but like I say living with this doubt is horrible and the witch could end the doubt tomorrow if she wasn't trying to play the tough guy.

Wally
JoshOvki on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

She can be as difficult as she likes, in 2 years time we will be out of the EU wether we have a deal we like or not. If we leave with no deal it is going to be much worse for the U.K. than EU.

My other half is currently working out if she has to get a British passport to prove she can work in the U.K. in 2 years as she currently only has an Irish one.
skog on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> albeit understand that some Europeans living and wanting to stay in the UK

OK, so you're not too bothered about the welfare and family lives of non-British Europeans.

Is it Britishness which matters here? If so, what about the Brits cohabiting with or married to them, or the British children of EU immigrants?
pavelk - on 09 May 2017
In reply to wbo:

I live somewhere else and I realize that it´ s not the UK the aggressive side. The EU doesn´ t threaten only you, but Poland, Hungary, Czech and Austria not that long time ago as well (for various reasons)
Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to skog:

We're all political pawns in the the great game of life whether we like it or not.
skog on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

Is that you saying you don't care?
Jim C - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> Personally I find this attitude disgusting...... the witch could end the doubt tomorrow if she wasn't trying to play the tough guy.Wally

As could the EU with Brits living abroad, but the EU refuse to even discuss it until we cough up 100 Billion ( which has no legal grounds)
Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to skog:

No I'm not saying that. As it happens I have many friends and colleagues that have come to the UK from various parts of Europe to work and live and I have been personally responsible for many of them coming to the UK in the first place.
What I am saying is that we can bitch and moan about how unfair it all is as much we like but that isn't going to change the outcome one iota because we have no control over what's happening. The die has been cast, how it will roll remains to be seen. I will hope for the best and get on with life in the meantime.
skog on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> but the EU refuse to even discuss it until we cough up 100 Billion

Not true, of course.
skog on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> What I am saying is that we can bitch and moan about how unfair it all is as much we like but that isn't going to change the outcome one iota because we have no control over what's happening. The die has been cast, how it will roll remains to be seen. I will hope for the best and get on with life in the meantime.

If only we lived in some sort of democracy, with elections and all that stuff.
AlisonS - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> May won't want it to be EU exit day as that would probably lead to another immigration spike.

If there was going to be an immigration spike it would have happened already. Anyone that keen to live in the UK is almost certainly already here.

Immigration is driven by jobs. As soon as we hit another recession and the number of jobs in the UK goes down, people will leave again. The only difference is that it will be harder for those who only have a UK passport to get employment in the EU.
Jim C - on 09 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> Not true, of course.

May went over, pre A50 and offered to deal with the issue there and then, she was told no negotiations until the A50 was served, then after A50 , the EU excuse was no negotiations until the framework was agreed, at which point they said there will be monies to pay (the FT no less has reported this at 100 billion Euros. )

https://www.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

So what part is not true?
Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to skog:

Well I'm afraid the ball started rolling in the direction of Brexit from 2010 onwards and 2, soon to be 3, general elections as well as a referendum have stated very clearly that Britain wants out. The election in June will probably reinforce that message with a resounding victory for the conservatives. Pesky nuisances those elections aren't they!!
skog on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

Brexit doesn't have to involve shafting current residents and their families, that's May's choice.

Other options exist, pesky as you may find them.

I think the Tories will win resoundingly in England, yes, though I suppose even that isn't absolutely certain.
Bogwalloper - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> As could the EU with Brits living abroad, but the EU refuse to even discuss it until we cough up 100 Billion ( which has no legal grounds)

False.

Wally
skog on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

I can't access that article, but residency rights are set for the first phase of negotiations.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-ne...

And May can, of course, guarantee such rights without the EU's agreement.
Postmanpat on 09 May 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> False.Wally

Which bit?
MG - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
She wasn't talking in good faith, she had no thought through plan. It was a political gesture so the likes of you can feel good about pissing with peoples lives.

And yes we will owe some money. Hardly surprising.
Post edited at 20:32
Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to skog:
> Brexit doesn't have to involve shafting current residents and their families, that's May's choice.
Nobody has been shafted so far.

Other options exist, pesky as you may find them.
In my experience you start negotiations with a firm hand and give and take as the negotiations progress.
Neither the UK government or the EU have offered any concessions at this early stage.

I think the Tories will win resoundingly in England, yes, though I suppose even that isn't absolutely certain.

Nothing is certain other than death and taxes.
Post edited at 20:32
L Stichtplate on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> She's hardly negotiating with people's lives is she? She is however putting a stake in the ground and making sure the EU know she won't be pushed around and can be difficult if she feels she needs to be. As a negotiating strategy I don't see a lot wrong with it albeit understand that some Europeans living and wanting to stay in the UK might not quite see it that way.You can't please all the people all the time.

The people we're negotiating with aren't idiots. They are fully aware that we can't afford to pack off EU nationals en masse. For a start it would kick another leg from under the wobbly stool that is British manufacturing.
Speaking dispassionately, the best use we can make of EU expats in negotiations, is to unilaterally give them all full rights to remain under UK law, thus taking the moral high ground, avoiding one area of squabbling and making Junker's next foray seem even more petty.
Mike Stretford - on 09 May 2017
In reply to AlisonS:

> If there was going to be an immigration spike it would have happened already.

I agree it's debatable but I think there are circumstances under which a spike could occur... a recession in an EU country while UK firms 'front load' amid fears of worker shortages.

The main thing is I don't think May will take the risk. Regardless, the government would have to somehow register EU nationals that are here for the cut-off, and there's not much talk of that. There's no quick deal to be done from either side.
Wanderer100 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

I'm not suggesting they are idiots and of course there has to be some quid pro quo. Who will lead the way remains to be seen.
Jim C - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I agree it's debatable but I think there are circumstances under which a spike could occur... a recession in an EU country while UK firms 'front load' amid fears of worker shortages.The main thing is I don't think May will take the risk. Regardless, the government would have to somehow register EU nationals that are here for the cut-off, and there's not much talk of that. There's no quick deal to be done from either side.

The EU apparently have rules to deal with such spikes, and if you are deemed to have entered the country just to beat a deadline you will not be accepted under their rules. ( not UK rules)
skog on 09 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

Gosh, you're full of platitudes this evening.

> Nobody has been shafted so far.

Not really true, anyone who can't guarantee to be able to stay has to make other plans.
Jim C - on 09 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> She wasn't talking in good faith, she had no thought through plan. It was a political gesture so the likes of you can feel good about pissing with peoples lives.And yes we will owe some money. Hardly surprising.

So by the sounds of it you are happy to hand over 100 billion without a share of the assets ( that we were one of the main contributors to building) ?

If you don't mind I will stick with TM doing the negotiation rather than Corbyn , Farron, or yourself .
L Stichtplate on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> So by the sounds of it you are happy to hand over 100 billion without a share of the assets ( that we were one of the main contributors to building) ?If you don't mind I will stick with TM doing the negotiation rather than Corbyn , Farron, or yourself .

If the figure I've read of uk nett contribution of £500 billion since 73 is credible, then they can piss off with any further demands. Especially considering the financial shitstorm we're likely to experience over the next few years.
Jim C - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> False

The 100 billion payment calculated to the EU by the UK is false?
Or
That the legality of the 100 billion? ( or illegality)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/100bn-brexit-bill-legally-impossible-enforce-european-com...
MG - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> So by the sounds of it you are happy to hand over 100 billion without a share of the assets ( that we were one of the main contributors to building) ?If you don't mind I will stick with TM doing the negotiation rather than Corbyn , Farron, or yourself .

Don't know where you get that idea. The figure is clearly to be determined. I don't think even the most paranoid delusional brexiteers think we will be handing over roads, bridge etc funded with EU money on exit.
Post edited at 21:01
Jim C - on 09 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> Don't know where you get that idea. The figure is clearly to be determined. I don't think even the most paranoid delusional brexiteers think we will be handing over roads, bridge etc funded with EU money on exit.

Remember nothing built in the UK is funded with EU money, as we give twice as much as we get back as a nett contributer , so then all bridges , roads etc built are built with our own money that we then had to apply to get, and it came with EU strings of how to spend our OWN money, and they force us to stick a sign on it saying that it was EU money. That s certainly true of the countries that put in less than they get out, but not true of the UK. So of course we will not be handing anything back, but we will be asking for a share of the assets that the extra money we contributed was used to build.
MG - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

That's more delusional nonsense. We paid in, the EU economy as a whole grew, we traded more, we benefited. We don't now take it all back because we are flouncing off. It's not a bank account.
wbo - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> As could the EU with Brits living abroad, but the EU refuse to even discuss it until we cough up 100 Billion ( which has no legal grounds)

It thinks it has got legal grounds, and so do most of the UK side for some part of that number. Also that number is open to calculation and negotiation. But Theresa May can't start negotiations because she's playing politics at home first.

Also , as you point out, it has been made very clear that you can't start negotiating a new trade deal till you've even confirmed you're leaving, and on what terms. That was hardly a surprise, but TM for once iced to be a bit of a chancer. These things only look wicked if you read uk newspapers. Another interpretation of events is that the UK is, to be blunt , f##king around. Those two years will fly by fast enough without this nonsense.

L Stichtplate on 09 May 2017
In reply to wbo:

> It thinks it has got legal grounds, and so do most of the UK side for some part of that number. Also that number is open to calculation and negotiation.

Maybe part of that calculation and negotiation should be asking our EU neighbors to honour a few of their own financial commitments, starting with NATO and foreign aid.
Funny how vocal some players are when they've got their hands out, but nobody's home when the debt collectors call.
Big Ger - on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:
> Brexit doesn't have to involve shafting current residents and their families, that's May's choice.

No one is talking about anyone getting shafted, apart from those on the remain side cheering on the EU over the UK. Let's look at potential hardline ideas;

> EU negotiator Michel Barnier last week said that the 27 remaining EU countries require “iron-clad guarantees” of citizens’ rights before the negotiations on Britain leaving the bloc can move to a future trade accord. “Otherwise, there can be no trust when it comes to constructing a new relationship with the U.K.,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-09/brexit-battle-looms-over-eu-citizens-rights-t...

> The EU has toughened its stance on the fate of three million EU citizens in the UK, demanding even for those with no proof of residency are allowed to stay after Brexit. The lead negotiator for Brussels insisted “red tape” must not be allowed to stand in the way of EU nationals remaining with full rights.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-brexit-citizens-amnesty-three-million-european-uk-n...


> For what have the EU27 actually signed off on in their own negotiating mandate? Little more than a series of demands for things they want from the UK before they will even enter into discussions about an unspecified future relationship. Many of these are highly contentious, such as the demand for a so-called exit fee of up to €100bn, including budgetary contributions, after the point of exit. Others, such as the demand for the European Court of Justice to adjudicate the rights of EU citizens in Britain, clearly cross London’s red lines.
https://www.ft.com/content/2a792c9e-330c-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3


> In a combative performance, he (Tusk) repeated his warnings that the UK must agree a ‘divorce settlement’ before entering trade talks, adding that it was “pure illusion” for Britain to think that trying to divide the member states would be to the UK’s benefit. He spelled out that Europe wants a detailed and legally water-tight deal guarantee EU citizens in the UK after Brexit, and would not settle for blanket political assurances from the UK side.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/29/donald-tusk-promises-deal-firmly-britain-eu-leaders-meet-...

Now I know that some here cannot stand to say anything good about the UK Government, but they may have heard the expression "it takes two to tango".
Post edited at 05:54
MG - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

How are those hardline? Seem quite reasonable and rational to me, except perhaps the 100b figure which appears high
Dr.S at work - on 10 May 2017
In reply to MG:

I think the ECJ being in charge of EU citizens rights in the U.K. After brexit would be pretty contentious.
Lurking Dave - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I feel for the current EU nationals resident in the UK, Heike and her like. The attitude of the UK is miserly.

Think also about UK emigrants, what kind of message is the UK sending? Lots of us that moved overseas *might* want to come back, possibly bringing some wealth, skills etc. How are we going to be treated, taxed, etc. why on Earth would I return to the UK...? (Apart from grit)

(Big ger, for once resist, this is not about you, and your idilic retirement to Cornwall)

LD
Big Ger - on 10 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> How are those hardline? Seem quite reasonable and rational to me, except perhaps the 100b figure which appears high

So if the EU demands "cast iron guarantees," before they will negotiate they are being "quite reasonable"?

Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

The EU has toughened its stance on the fate of three million EU citizens in the UK, demanding even for those with no proof of residency are allowed to stay after Brexit. The lead negotiator for Brussels insisted “red tape” must not be allowed to stand in the way of EU nationals remaining with full rights.

So we would have to keep every EU citizen no matter their residency status, or criminal activities. Aye right!

Most will be very welcome to stay, others we can't see the back of quick enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39855287
Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Maybe part of that calculation and negotiation should be asking our EU neighbors to honour a few of their own financial commitments, starting with NATO and foreign aid.Funny how vocal some players are when they've got their hands out, but nobody's home when the debt collectors call.

That is a very good point.
Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
Some of those are 'straw issues' put in there to be traded in the negotiations ( yes the EU are playing games with their claims , as the negotiators already admitted to the EU27 )

The one that jumps out is the courts adjudicating on human rights issue.
The EU know that the UK courts are very pro EU so that one will be traded off for something they really want/ hope to get.
Post edited at 08:39
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> I think the ECJ being in charge of EU citizens rights in the U.K. After brexit would be pretty contentious.

They wouldn't be "in charge", they would just offer a last judicial recourse for EU citizens in case any country violate their rights under the agreement we would have ratified.
It seems to be just practical common sense.
Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Heike:

> Ok, so I am a negotiating chip?? I have been living here since my student years for 23 years now (yikes) and have been part of this society as a legitimate EU member. I am married to a British person and have a child (born in Scotland) and have never wanted benefits/never been a burden on the NHS/ never asked for unemployment money...anything. I have paid my taxes, taught thousands of students and forged many international relationships for the Uni, I have paid my dental health care privately. How dare you say I am a bargaining chip? I am amazed/perplexed/etc?

From everything I have read almost everyone will be allowed to remain, but there are some we don't want, like people traffickers for example. We can't just agree to keep everyone and that includes criminals and people here illegally.

This will be one of the first issues dealt with.
(as soon as we agree to cough up to 100 Billion Euros )
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

No, it's not common sense. It's an attempt by the EU to maintain some control over the UK.
If we allow EU citizens to stay in the UK then they are subject to UK law.
Should the UK change it's mind in the future and decide to deport all EU nationals then it must be free to do so.
If EU nationals don't like the new arrangement they can return to their home countries.
If you are an EU national and have lived here for many years how bad would the new arrangement, whatever that is, have to be to force you to move?
LakesWinter on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:

If you've spent more than half your life here this is your home. You can't just say you were born in France now piss off!
Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> They wouldn't be "in charge", they would just offer a last judicial recourse for EU citizens in case any country violate their rights under the agreement we would have ratified.It seems to be just practical common sense.

So as we accept people from Africa, India, Australia, Canada etc, it is 'common sense' that we have to accept that their rights will also be adjudicated in their respective countries courts ?
DougG - on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:

> If you are an EU national and have lived here for many years how bad would the new arrangement, whatever that is, have to be to force you to move?

If, for example, you were denied the right to healthcare on the NHS?

baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to LakesWinter:
It's not the UK saying piss off.
It's 'your welcome to stay and enjoy the same rights as UK citizens' but no more.
And if you don't like it then you can piss off.
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to DougG:

Agreed, that would put a person in an impossible situation.
But is that what's being suggested?
If the UK is happy for EU nationals to stay and keep contributing to society it would be ridiculous to not offer them the same rights as other residents.
Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to LakesWinter:
> If you've spent more than half your life here this is your home. You can't just say you were born in France now piss off!

And no one ( in the UK Government) is saying that. However, all the signs are that they will be invited to stay with the SAME rights as UK citizens have.

I'm happy with that, if they are not happy, and they still want EU rights, they then choose to move to live in an EU country and not accept the invitation to stay in the UK with equal rights to UK citizens.
Post edited at 09:47
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> So as we accept people from Africa, India, Australia, Canada etc, it is 'common sense' that we have to accept that their rights will also be adjudicated in their respective countries.

Completely different situation as there is no reciprocal agreement recognising mutual rights of citizens in these countries.
If there was, then we would have to accept that their rights are adjudicated in conformity with the international agreement that has been ratified.

I don't really see the problem here unless you are of the view that international agreement are just "for show" and need not to be enforced by any supra national jurisdiction, in which case you can close all the doors, say goodbye to WTO or the ICJ of the ECHR.
Post edited at 09:43
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to DougG:

> If, for example, you were denied the right to healthcare on the NHS?

"Access to the NHS is universal, but depending on your immigration status within the UK, you may be charged for accessing certain services. However, there are certain services that are free to everyone:

Treatment given in an accident and emergency (A&E) department – this does not include any further treatment following an admission to hospital; and

Treatment for certain infectious diseases (but for HIV/AIDS, only the first diagnosis and counselling that follows it are free); and

Compulsory psychiatric treatment; and

Family planning services – this does not include termination of pregnancy or infertility treatments.

Who will not be charged for accessing the NHS?

You will not be charged for any NHS treatment if you are ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK, or if an exemption to charging applies.
‘Ordinarily Resident’

The full definition of ordinarily resident for the purposes of accessing NHS services can be found here and is summarized as follows:

“A person will be “ordinarily resident…” in the UK when that residence is lawful, adopted, voluntary, and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being, whether of short or long duration.”

In practice, you are normally ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK if you are living and working in the UK and are:

A British citizen

Naturalised within the UK

Settled within the UK (commonly referred to as holding Indefinite Leave to Remain)

skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> No one is talking about anyone getting shafted

That just isn't true - there's the clear, unambiguous threat from the Prime Minister to EU nationals, many of whom have been long-term resident in the UK and have built lives here, that they could lose many of the rights that make living here viable (e.g. right to work, NHS access), if May doesn't get the deal she wants for Brexit.
Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Except that there will be no such reciprical agreement in place post Brexit, unless we agree one, so there will be nothing to enforce. Until then, the current agreement will be honoured.
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:
> That just isn't true - there's the clear, unambiguous threat from the Prime Minister to EU nationals, many of whom have been long-term resident in the UK and have built lives here, that they could lose many of the rights that make living here viable (e.g. right to work, NHS access), if May doesn't get the deal she wants for Brexit.
>

Nonsense:she has said a deal is contingent on reciprocity on the issue of residence and rights associated, not on any other elements of a deal.
Post edited at 10:02
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

She also said that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> She also said that no deal is better than a bad deal.

True. But that was not in any way made as a threat on residency. It is, for example, quite possible that a reciprocal deal is reached on residency but not deal on anything else.

Jim C - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > Nonsense:she has said deal is contingent on reciprocity on the issue of residence and rights associated, not on any other elements of a deal.

Beat me to it, and considering your earlier post with a comprehensive list evidencing the opposite of what Skog asserts ( or wishers ) to be true.

It's as if Skog ignores everything the Government says that actually indicates that they will give what he says he wants, and then makes up his own government position which has no basis in reality.
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> True. But that was not in any way made as a threat on residency. It is, for example, quite possible that a reciprocal deal is reached on residency but not deal on anything else.

Yes, I agree that it's quite possible, maybe even probable. But the threat is clear.
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> Yes, I agree that it's quite possible, maybe even probable. But the threat is clear.

I think that it is more than a little disingenuous to regard a statement that the UK will not accept any and every deal that the EU tries to force upon us as a "threat" on the specific issue of residents' rights that the UK has offered to settle ASAP but been rebuffed.
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Beat me to it, and considering your earlier post with a comprehensive list evidencing the opposite of what Skog asserts ( or wishers ) to be true. It's as if Skog ignores everything the Government says that actually indicates that they will give what he says he wants, and then makes up his own government position which has no basis in reality.

Wishes? I wish the UK government would take the high ground and sort it, within their own power and scope. I'd be the first to praise them if they did.

The UK is the party removing itself from the EU, without which none of this would be happening, so it's really up to it to try to set the standard and tone. If the UK unilaterally guaranteed rights for residents here and the countries of the EU did not reciprocate, it would be them I was criticising.

There have been some positive things said by the UK government; I'm in no way ignoring them and I'm hopeful something satisfactory will be sorted. But there are plenty of indications and direct statements to the contrary, and I can't -afford- to ignore those.

You seem to be taking the rosiest possible spin on everything which is said, ignoring all the threats and negatives. I'm sure they're easy to dismiss when they don't actually affect you - and if the worst does happen, you can just shrug and say it's a bit of a shame, not what you wanted at all - but it's a bit different when it's actually your own family being threatened.
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I think that it is more than a little disingenuous to regard a statement that the UK will not accept any and every deal that the EU tries to force upon us as a "threat" on the specific issue of residents' rights that the UK has offered to settle ASAP but been rebuffed.

Where is that offer the UK supposedly made ? Let us see it.

Let's be honest for a second, T May thought she could get away with it with a meangliness fudge for a political quick win and they said no.

The EC has told us what they would like to see in some details in such a reciprocal deal, basically no more than a seamless continuation of the same rights, that seems entirely reasonable.
So far we've heard absolutely nothing from the UK gov on what they would like to see. As a matter of fact they don't seem to have an overall brexit vision or strategy whatsoever.
They spend more time campaigning for their GE.
Post edited at 10:40
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:

> Should the UK change it's mind in the future and decide to deport all EU nationals then it must be free to do so.If EU nationals don't like the new arrangement they can return to their home countries.

How is that supposed to work. If someone has been living in the UK for 20 years and has two kids who are British citizens at school in the UK is the UK government supposed to be allowed to just tell them to piss off on a whim. They've been paying their taxes and making pension contributions and bought a house in the UK but the UK can just kick them out back to a country where they have nowhere to live, no pension and no health insurance? That's pretty much theft - the UK would have been collecting tax and National Insurance for years based on the promise of services it was arbitrarily deciding not to provide.

EU nationals have been exercising citizens rights within the EU at the moment, just like a US citizen from New York that goes and works in Florida is exercising citizens rights. The fair thing would be to offer them dual UK-EU citizenship without any conditions except residence before Article 50 was invoked.

The thing that actually worries the Tories is that if 3 million EU citizens get UK citizenship they will vote for a pro-EU party.



Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Lurking Dave:
> I feel for the current EU nationals resident in the UK, Heike and her like.

I do, I can understand their worry, and I have family who are EU citizens here.

Like I said in my OP there's a lot of spin, mostly from the now infamously detail-lite pro-leavers.

There is an informal agreement in principle, as both side have stated existing rights should remain for residents here and in the EU. However, as this article points out

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/eu-citizens-right-to-stay-britain-chaos

the UK has no way of establishing who was here when. There are means for the UK to develop one, but it is a mammoth administrative task, and it does not appear to have started yet. The EU is right to hold off until the UK announces how it intends to compile this register, which is of course only something the UK can do.

I would appeal to remainers to now focus on the details and try to mitigate negative effects of leaving.... as for anti-eu pro-leavers, they're off on one portraying Merkel, Junker and Tusk as with pantomime villains, and May as Boudica, don't think there'll be any sense from them a while.
Post edited at 10:34
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I think that it is more than a little disingenuous to regard a statement that the UK will not accept any and every deal that the EU tries to force upon us as a "threat"

I suppose it would be, but it was actually a statement that the UK would walk away from the entire deal if it was considered to be a bad one.

Like it or not, saying the UK won't guarantee rights for EU residents unless it's reciprocated is also a pretty clear threat, if you're on the receiving end of it.

I have no ablility to make sure that, for example, Spain will guarantee to keep our ex-pats, but if they don't, my family could have to leave the UK. Are you really saying I shouldn't consider that a threat?
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> Are you really saying I shouldn't consider that a threat?
>
From the EU? Probably.

skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> From the EU? Probably.

Ha, did you really just post that after trying to say I was being disingenious?!
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> Ha, did you really just post that after trying to say I was being disingenious?!

Seriously, do you honestly think that any PM is going to give up the rights of UK citizens in the EU unilaterally, let alone in the light of the Junckers/Selmayr attitude to negotiations?

Well, come to think of it Jezzer might just be that stupid.
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I wasn't actually suggesting or proposing that the UK should or would deport EU nationals in the future but using it as the most extreme example that I could think of as to the extent of the power that the UK government could exert. Rom the Bear would have the European Court being able to limit this power whereas I think that the UK laws should be able to have complete control over anybody who lives here.
I'm sorry I didn't state my case more clearly.

skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it - and I think this antagonistic approach is less likely to get good results, but you may well disagree about that - it remains a clear threat, from the UK PM, to EU residents here.

I can't afford to be as theoretical about this as you can!
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:
> I wasn't actually suggesting or proposing that the UK should or would deport EU nationals in the future but using it as the most extreme example that I could think of as to the extent of the power that the UK government could exert. Rom the Bear would have the European Court being able to limit this power whereas I think that the UK laws should be able to have complete control over anybody who lives here.I'm sorry I didn't state my case more clearly.

May I point out that it is the UK that insisted on a reciprocal deal. If the UK wants to guarantee the rights of EU citizens without an enforceable reciprocal agreement, the UK can do that unilaterally. Of course that would also mean they would have no way to guarantee other countries do the same for Brits.

There are two choices, either we have a reciprocal deal which means obviously a superior authority to make sure the recripocal deal is respected and enforced equally, or individual countries do whatever they want however they like it.
Post edited at 10:51
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> Whatever the rights and wrongs of it - and I think this antagonistic approach is less likely to get good results, but you may well disagree about that - it remains a clear threat, from the UK PM, to EU residents here.I can't afford to be as theoretical about this as you can!

But it's not her threat. It's a "threat" which is a function of the EU refusing to defuse the situation.
MG - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Fine by me. Unlike you I actually value those living and contributing to the UK and don't want them seen as negotiating chips
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But it's not her threat. It's a "threat" which is a function of the EU refusing to defuse the situation.

Can you tell us how this us the case ? It would be pretty easy for the UK government to agree in principle that they would accept that the rights of EU citizens already in the UK remain the same after brexit, which is essentially what the EC suggests, and vice versa. Or at least start to engage on the issue if they want to reduce those rights.
Post edited at 10:53
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It's a "threat" which is a function of the EU refusing to defuse the situation.

It is entirely possible that may be the case, though as we aren't privvy to the detail we can't actually know. I'm not at all sure what was being offered or rejected.

> But it's not her threat.

This is definitely not true - it is her threat, from her own mouth, whether or not you think it is justified.
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

Despite voting to leave the EU most leavers don't want to see mass deportation of non U.K. nationals.
What most leavers want is for the UK government to have control over who comes into the U.K. and for any immigration to be sustainable. Then, if immigration is above a sustainable level the U.K. government will be responsible, more accountable and not able to blame the EU as it does presently.
There is no stomach amongst most leavers to see people who have lived here lawfully being forcibly evicted from the UK.
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:

This may well be true, but "most leavers" aren't involved in the negotiations in any way, and if they vote to return the current government they are choosing to support its current stance and tactics.
jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Am I the only one who sees this EU citizens rights things for what it is? It, like everything else is a negotiating chip.

Probably not, callousness is hardly rare.

> I'm almost certain EU citizens will be allowed to stay in the UK, more or less as they are now, however it'll cost the EU something at the negotiating table to secure those rights. If you just go and up front guarantee anything at this stage then it becomes worthless at the table, you've just given your opposition freebie.

Opposition. Says it all really.
jk
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There are two choices, either we have a reciprocal deal which means obviously a superior authority to make sure the recripocal deal is respected and enforced equally, or individual countries do whatever they want however they like it.

The EU countries are bound by EU human rights law and the European Court. There are rights to family life guarantees that EU countries can't simply override with national laws.

The UK does not even have a written constitution, EU human rights law and the jurisdiction of European courts were an important limitation on the power of parliament.

jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Common sense on all fronts will prevail no doubt.

It hasn't thus far.

That said, I still hold out hope we'll come to our senses in time.
jk
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

EU citizens won't get the same rights they enjoy now after Brexit.
What they'll probably get are the same rights as UK citizens (although their voting rights could be different) .
The EU and some EU nationals won't be happy with this but it's the best you'll get.
summo on 10 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The UK does not even have a written constitution, EU human rights law and the jurisdiction of European courts were an important limitation on the power of parliament.

I thought the UK plan was to adopt all eu legislation, then over time whittle it down. So anything that is eu now, will become UK unless reversed, repealed etc.. at a later date?
Lord_ash2000 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Heike:

Yes, you're a negotiating chip, or should I say your right to live in this country is a negotiating chip. Just as for the EU the rights of UK citizens living in Europe is a negotiating chip, or have they already without any requirements already guaranteed their rights up front?

It's nothing special, and there is no need to worry about it. You'll get your rights, but we'll get something in return for granting them, or do you think your rights are of no value to the rest of the EU and they should expect them given for free?
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Parliament and whatever devolved government you live under have the powers to make and change UK laws and UK courts uphold those laws.
Will the U.K. still not sign up to the ECHR?
There is no need for any other court.
jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Well I'm afraid the ball started rolling in the direction of Brexit from 2010 onwards and 2, soon to be 3, general elections as well as a referendum have stated very clearly that Britain wants out.

There's nothing clear about the referendum result other than that Britain's electorate is divided on the issue, it's a weak mandate for even minor change let alone the havoc we're about to wreak.
jk
jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> The EU has toughened its stance on the fate of three million EU citizens in the UK, demanding even for those with no proof of residency are allowed to stay after Brexit. The lead negotiator for Brussels insisted “red tape” must not be allowed to stand in the way of EU nationals remaining with full rights.So we would have to keep every EU citizen no matter their residency status, or criminal activities. Aye right!

Good for them. I wish our government had the backbone to stand up for us like this and do the right thing.
jk
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:
> EU citizens won't get the same rights they enjoy now after Brexit.What they'll probably get are the same rights as UK citizens (although their voting rights could be different) .The EU and some EU nationals won't be happy with this but it's the best you'll get.

Stop telling porky pies.

Getting the same rights as UK citizens is more than what the EC is asking for !

The only thing they are asking for is that they essentially continue to enjoy the same rights as they currently do. And these rights are currently inferior to the rights of UK citizens.
Post edited at 11:22
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wanderer100 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> There's nothing clear about the referendum result other than that Britain's electorate is divided on the issue, it's a weak mandate for even minor change let alone the havoc we're about to wreak.jk

3 consecutive Tory Governments is mandate enough even if the first was a coalition.
fred99 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> You're not alone but, as with others, it's disappointing you see the EU as the opposition. A regression of 50+ years in thinking.

Not so much a regression in thinking, merely practicality.
The EU is on one side of this negotiation, the UK on the other.
Therefore the 2 sides are in opposition.
If both sides agreed on everything then they wouldn't be in opposition, and we (the UK) wouldn't be leaving the EU.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:

> EU citizens won't get the same rights they enjoy now after Brexit.What they'll probably get are the same rights as UK citizens (although their voting rights could be different) .The EU and some EU nationals won't be happy with this but it's the best you'll get.

We'll see what happens. My guess is it will all look very different in a year because the EU are about to stomp all over the Brexiter's dreams. Varoufakis had it exactly right with his description of how the EU will handle negotiations and it isn't malice it is just the way a group of 27 nations has to operate. The logical end point is going to be staying in something very close to the EEA for at least 5 years because the alternative of having no trade deals with anyone for a period of years while new ones are negotiated would devastate the economy.




RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> Not so much a regression in thinking, merely practicality.The EU is on one side of this negotiation, the UK on the other.Therefore the 2 sides are in opposition.If both sides agreed on everything then they wouldn't be in opposition, and we (the UK) wouldn't be leaving the EU.

We can disagree and still compromise. That was the framework for the last 50 years. Now we're back to bargaining, coercion, and threats. One could say it's a big regression.
jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:

> No, it's not common sense. It's an attempt by the EU to maintain some control over the UK.If we allow EU citizens to stay in the UK then they are subject to UK law.Should the UK change it's mind in the future and decide to deport all EU nationals then it must be free to do so.If EU nationals don't like the new arrangement they can return to their home countries.If you are an EU national and have lived here for many years how bad would the new arrangement, whatever that is, have to be to force you to move?

This is beneath you. Consider the implications of what you're saying.
jk
Gordon Stainforth - on 10 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> If both sides agreed on everything then they wouldn't be in opposition, and we (the UK) wouldn't be leaving the EU.

Yes, it's a tautology. We could equally say: if we weren't leaving the EU we wouldn't be in opposition to it. ... What an utterly stupid position to put ourselves in!

jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> 3 consecutive Tory Governments is mandate enough even if the first was a coalition.

Sorry, was that 3 tory governments coming to power on a leave the EU ticket? Or would that be three tory governments riven by infighting over Europe caused by about 10% of their MPs?
jk
tony on 10 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> 3 consecutive Tory Governments is mandate enough even if the first was a coalition.

Not really, if you consider that the previous Tory manifestos included a strong belief in the value of EU membership:
"We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union"
Gordon Stainforth - on 10 May 2017
In reply to tony:

> Not really, if you consider that the previous Tory manifestos included a strong belief in the value of EU membership: "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union"

Yes, that was 2015. A bit more lukewarm in 2010, but still broadly pro-Europe: "We will be positive members of the European Union but we are clear that there should be no further extension of the EU’s power over the UK without the British people’s consent. … We believe Britain’s interests are best served by membership of a European Union that is an association of its Member States."

MG - on 10 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

That's a pathetic, childish view of negotiations. For a good result, you look for a solution that benefits everyone, not a "win" against and "opposition".
Wanderer100 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to jkarran:

There is no doubt the only reason Cameron won a majority was because he committed to an in out referendum. May will win an increased majority and that will be her mandate to follow through with Brexit and all that entails.
Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> It's nothing special, and there is no need to worry about it. You'll get your rights, but we'll get something in return for granting them,

All we'll get is reciprocal right for UK citizens in Europe. They may be fewer in number but they are vulnerable, most of the OAPs in Spain could not pass a Spanish citizenship test.
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> All we'll get is reciprocal right for UK citizens in Europe.

Something I'm not clear on - is that even actually something the EU can grant?

Isn't it actually up to individual member countries to decide their immigration rules for citizens of non EEA countries?
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:
> Something I'm not clear on - is that even actually something the EU can grant? Isn't it actually up to individual member countries to decide their immigration rules for citizens of non EEA countries

Yes, it is. So every individual EU countries will have to ratify a new treaty, as well as the EU parliament. This could be part of the withdrawal agreement.
So far all EU-27 seem to have a common position on the issue so it shouldn't be a problem. Only thing left is for the UK to agree, or at least start meaningful negotiations...
Post edited at 12:36
jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:
> There is no doubt the only reason Cameron won a majority was because he committed to an in out referendum.

That's a bold claim, I seem to remember a lot more than that going on in 2015 but then my blinkered fixations are probably different to yours.

> May will win an increased majority and that will be her mandate to follow through with Brexit and all that entails.

Maybe, maybe not but if so that gives you one near-as-damnit 50:50 referendum and one of the three governments you claim have a strong mandate. 2010 they required and formed a pro EU coalition, 2015 they scraped in with a tiny majority and a PM and front bench who predominantly campaigning for remain. Both 'wins' secured with ~1/3 of the popular vote. Strong mandate for sweeping change? Pull the other one!
jk
Post edited at 12:45
Wanderer100 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Have you forgot about the emergence of UKIP?
That's why Cameron promised a referendum because he was terrified of the increased vote share UKIP were attracting as well as wanting to silence the Eurosceptics in his own party.

The Tories have always been lukewarm about Europe and Cameron's referendum gamble backfired spectacularly and here we are looking at the Tories winning an increased majority partly because they are fully committed to Brexit and partly because there is no credible alternative.

The country has been heading in this direction for over a decade as a result of Labour's irresponsible immigration polices.

You reap what you sow.
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
If that's correct, May was either very badly informed, or deliberately asking EU figures for something she knew they couldn't do, or the reporting is wildly incorrect or dishonest regarding what she asked for.
Post edited at 12:58
jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Have you forgot about the emergence of UKIP?That's why Cameron promised a referendum because he was terrified of the increased vote share UKIP were attracting as well as wanting to silence the Eurosceptics in his own party.

UKIP with their occasional 1 MP? Not sure how that relates to your claim 2, possibly soon 3 successive tory governments (one of which won on an explicitly pro EU ticket) indicate a strong mandate for leaving despite the evenly split referendum on that actual issue.

> The Tories have always been lukewarm about Europe and Cameron's referendum gamble backfired spectacularly and here we are looking at the Tories winning an increased majority partly because they are fully committed to Brexit and partly because there is no credible alternative.

So you say. Others will beg to differ, probably not enough but we'll see.

> The country has been heading in this direction for over a decade as a result of Labour's irresponsible immigration polices.

The Polish and Romainian influx has certainly hardened opinions but I doubt the social harm done is actually that significant and it could easily have been offset by domestic policy choices the coalition and Conservatives failed to make. Blaming Labour for the Conservatives underfunding local services in areas undergoing rapid demographic change which is what most of the valid complaints boil down to is a bit rich IMO.

Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:
> Isn't it actually up to individual member countries to decide their immigration rules for citizens of non EEA countries?

Ordinarily yes.

> Something I'm not clear on - is that even actually something the EU can grant?

The EU has suggesting that the only way it can do this is through the ECJ, which the UK would have to engage with. Of course that sends the Brexiteers into another strop but if they want an agreement which covers all UK citizens in the EU, it's the only way.
Post edited at 13:07
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Ah, that's what the ECJ stuff was about, thanks!
fred99 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> That's a pathetic, childish view of negotiations. For a good result, you look for a solution that benefits everyone, not a "win" against and "opposition".

It's not my view of normal negotiations, but I'm looking at the reality of life, and this particular matter is getting very messy.
Spain have brought in claims on Gibraltar - what's that really got to do with the main matter.
fred99 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Yes, it's a tautology. We could equally say: if we weren't leaving the EU we wouldn't be in opposition to it. ... What an utterly stupid position to put ourselves in!

I agree.
And for the record I voted Remain.
fred99 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> We can disagree and still compromise. That was the framework for the last 50 years. Now we're back to bargaining, coercion, and threats. One could say it's a big regression.

It is.
The big question is whether it's just showmanship to put the other side on the back foot, or a precursor to some nastiness when they actually get to sit around the table.
I'm not very hopeful however, particularly when Spain stick Gibraltar onto the table and get backed up on it.
Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to fred99:
> .Spain have brought in claims on Gibraltar - what's that really got to do with the main matter.

The EU, no doubt influenced by Spain, have correctly flagged the issue up. Rather than the EU bringing it up, it was a notable omission from May's statement. Modern Gibraltar is a result of EU membership, if it get's the same deal as the UK life would change drastically for them... some bright spark at the EU realised this and included it.

Check out the referendum result from Gibraltar, they know it.
Post edited at 13:29
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> If that's correct, May was either very badly informed, or deliberately asking EU figures for something she knew they couldn't do, or the reporting is wildly incorrect or dishonest regarding what she asked for.

The EU, since they basically agree with each other on the issue, could accept an agreement in principle. Instead they refuse to discuss the issue, refuse to discuss anything unless the UK accedes to successively inflated financial demands and raise the temperature on multiple fronts whilst undermining good faith by leaking their version of private meetings.

Mr.V predicted all this last year, "you can check out but you can never leave".
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

This appears to contradict what Mike Stretford said above. Do you believe him to be incorrect?


The simplest explanation I can think of for these reports of May making proposals and being rejected (being charitable about what May's proposals actually were), is that she suggested something, and the people she suggested it to pointed out that they actually -couldn't- guarantee it, and it would have to go to negotiations because each country would have to agree individually.
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

I don't understand what he is saying or his source. Clearly Merkel couldn't commit for the whole EU although she could have indicated her wish. Is he saying the UK should be negotiating with the ECJ rather than the EU?
Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Is he saying the UK should be negotiating with the ECJ rather than the EU?

No 'he' is not. Your post-referendum subscription the the Daily Express appears to have affected your comprehension, and manners :0)
Post edited at 13:51
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

They, the EU, want a right to determine what happens to EU citizens, in the UK.
That's not for them to decide, it's for the UK and the ECHR.
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to jkarran:
See my reply at 10.40 today for, hopefully, a clearer indication of what I was trying to say in my cumsily worded post.
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Clearly Merkel couldn't commit for the whole EU although she could have indicated her wish.

Are you sure she didn't? As far as I understand it, her 'rejection' was to say it had been unanimously agreed by all remaining EU countries that it couldn't be discussed until article 50 was invoked; that meeting was before it had been.
jkarran - on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:

> See my reply at 10.40 today for, hopefully, a clearer indication of what I was trying to say in my cumsily worded post.

Well I still disagree with you about where I would prefer the last line of defense against abuse of my (and others) rights to lie but thanks for the clarification, I had missed it.
jk
Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Clearly Merkel couldn't commit for the whole EU although she could have indicated her wish.

She doen't need to, the bloke who's job it is to say such things has said it

http://www.scotsman.com/news/rights-for-eu-citizens-in-uk-number-one-priority-says-tusk-1-4433313

you seem to have got citizens rights deal and a trade agreement mixed up.

As for the role of the ECJ..... the UK wants rights for UK citizens in the EU. That will have to be enshrined in EU law or it's worthless. I trust you can work out the role of the ECJ there.
Post edited at 14:10
Bob Hughes - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Maybe part of that calculation and negotiation should be asking our EU neighbors to honour a few of their own financial commitments, starting with NATO and foreign aid.Funny how vocal some players are when they've got their hands out, but nobody's home when the debt collectors call.

> That is a very good point.

No its a totally spurious point. We are negotiating with the EU, not individual countries. Even if we were negotiating with individual countries the 2% NATO figure is a guideline, not a commitment.
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> She doen't need to, the bloke who's job it is to say such things has said .As for the role of the ECJ..... the UK wants rights for UK citizens in the EU. That will have to be enshrined in EU law or it's worthless. I trust you can work out the role of the ECJ there.

And Junckers has refused to sit down and bash out the framework of a deal on the topic when asked..

Are you saying that the role of the ECJ in administering the law means that the EU cannot negotiate the terms of an agreement?
Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> .Are you saying that the role of the ECJ in administering the law means that the EU cannot negotiate the terms of an agreement?

Nope.
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Nope.

So what was Skog referring to that I replied to saying that I didn't understand or know your source?
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:
> Are you sure she didn't? As far as I understand it, her 'rejection' was to say it had been unanimously agreed by all remaining EU countries that it couldn't be discussed until article 50 was invoked; that meeting was before it had been.

And since then? Nought except increasingly aggressive demands.

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-theresa-may-pre-brexit-expats-plan-nixed-by-german-chancellor-ange...

"Waiting for the pain

The Germans argue it makes more sense for the EU to keep the trade-off on British expatriates’ rights up its sleeve as a sweetener during the most painful phase of the negotiations, likely to occur in 2018. It was naïve for the British to expect the issue could be taken out of the overall context. By then, Britain could be gripped by a Brexit-induced slowdown, with foreign financial firms moving jobs from the City to the eurozone and inflation due to the pound’s slide eating into living standards.

They are convinced that Britain will only negotiate realistically once the weakness of its hand has sunk in with the Conservative leadership and pro-Brexit voters, many of whom maintain that Europe needs the U.K. as much as the U.K. needs the EU, and seem to believe that Britain can continue to enjoy the key benefits of the single market without the constraints.

Seen through that prism, cutting a quick deal on citizens’ rights might have perpetuated illusions in London that this is a negotiation among equals, rather than a lopsided situation in which Britain, having voted to leave the club, is dependent on the goodwill of all 27 former EU partners."

Whose using them as political pawns then??
Post edited at 15:27
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:
> They, the EU, want a right to determine what happens to EU citizens, in the UK.That's not for them to decide, it's for the UK and the ECHR.

No, what they want is that the rights of EU citizens are determined by a reciprocal agreement.
This is what the UK gov say they wanted.

But it sounds to me that what you want is no reciprocal agreement, and what happens to EU citizens is decided individually by each country.
I'm not too sure why you would want the fate of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU to be perpetually at the mercy of the goodwill of any individual country instead of having a sustainable, reciprocal, fair, long term agreement. What on earth have they done to you ?
Post edited at 15:41
Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So what was Skog referring to that I replied to saying that I didn't understand or know your source?

Maybe my OP, maybe my point about the ECJ, if the latter it was you who went on to make a daft assumption, and I can't help you with that.

Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Maybe my OP, maybe my point about the ECJ, if the latter it was you who went on to make a daft assumption, and I can't help you with that.

I didn't make an assumption.I asked for clarification: which I'm still awaiting.
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
This politico opinion piece is easily refuted by the fact that the EC is suggesting to sort out the fate of eu citizens first and foremost. They've made clear and fair proposals. We haven't heard anything from the UK gov.

They are too busy campaigning along the lines of "if you don't vote Tory you're a traitor on the side of evil Brussels, and everything that goes wrong is Brussels' fault "
Post edited at 15:39
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So what was Skog referring to that I replied to saying that I didn't understand or know your source?

You said the EU refused to discuss it; Mike said the EU suggested it could be dealt with through the ECJ.
Mike Stretford - on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:
Ok.

Pat has consistently claimed the EU won't discus it, which is rubbish. Meaningful discussion will start after the UK election.

My point about the ECJ (and other peoples) is that post-Brexit adjudication will be a sticking point during the negotiations. The existing organisation is the ECJ but Brexiteers are likely to have a problem with that. It's another example of why any 'quick' pre-article 50 deal would have been worthless, and was sensibly avoided.

Edit: Adjudication subbed for arbitration.
Post edited at 16:01
baron - on 10 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
You have far less faith in the UK and individual european governments to uphold agreed rights than I do.
What have individual governments done to deserve your mistrust?
LakesWinter on 10 May 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> That's a bold claim, I seem to remember a lot more than that going on in 2015 but then my blinkered fixations are probably different to yours.Maybe, maybe not but if so that gives you one near-as-damnit 50:50 referendum and one of the three governments you claim have a strong mandate. 2010 they required and formed a pro EU coalition, 2015 they scraped in with a tiny majority and a PM and front bench who predominantly campaigning for remain. Both 'wins' secured with ~1/3 of the popular vote. Strong mandate for sweeping change? Pull the other one!jk

Strong is the force with this one.......
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Thanks Mike.
DougG - on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> I suppose it would be, but it was actually a statement that the UK would walk away from the entire deal if it was considered to be a bad one.Like it or not, saying the UK won't guarantee rights for EU residents unless it's reciprocated is also a pretty clear threat, if you're on the receiving end of it.I have no ablility to make sure that, for example, Spain will guarantee to keep our ex-pats, but if they don't, my family could have to leave the UK. Are you really saying I shouldn't consider that a threat?

Ditto. Needless to say, I'm way beyond angry...
Malarkey on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

There are two excellent articles in the FT on this:

the politics (who offered what)
https://www.ft.com/content/d3491050-30be-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

and the law (what are the issues)
https://www.ft.com/content/7c008997-e2a9-360d-89a3-1646dcbdae0f
RomTheBear on 10 May 2017
In reply to baron:
> You have far less faith in the UK and individual european governments to uphold agreed rights than I do.What have individual governments done to deserve your mistrust?

No, I have no faith whatsoever in the UK for upholding the right of EU migrants. The UK was found to be in breach of the existing rules already many times. I don't know about other EU countries.
Just look at how non-EU migrants are treated, many are deported with no judicial recourse whatsoever, some are put in admistrative detention without the right to a trial, regardless of whether the decision was legal or not. In many immigration cases the only reason there is a right to judicial recourse is simply because the UK is part of the ECHR, again a supra national court. This has tremendous value.

In any case, I don't see the problem, if the UK plans to abide by the terms of a reciprocal agreement, why refuse a supra national authority whose job would be to make sure that it indeed does and act as a final escalation point to arbitrate any disputes ?This doesn't have to be the ECJ btw.
Post edited at 17:16
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:
> You said the EU refused to discuss it; Mike said the EU suggested it could be dealt with through the ECJ.

I don't think Mike did say that. Did you Mike?

He is saying that the ECJ should be the ultimate judge of whether whatever agreement is reached is being properly administered and deal with appeals etc under those rules.
Nothing to do with who negotiates with who at all.

As Rom has pointed out, it doesn't have to be the ECJ. The logical thing to do is establish a new independent institution.
Post edited at 18:16
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:
> Ok.Pat has consistently claimed the EU won't discus it, which is rubbish. Meaningful discussion will start after the UK election.My point about the ECJ (and other peoples) is that post-Brexit adjudication will be a sticking point during the negotiations. The existing organisation is the ECJ but Brexiteers are likely to have a problem with that. It's another example of why any 'quick' pre-article 50 deal would have been worthless, and was sensibly avoided.Edit: Adjudication subbed for arbitration.

I've never said that they will never discuss it. I have said that they refuse to discuss it before June (despite David Green's claims to the contrary , June seems to have previously regarded by the EU, in the form of Barnier,as the start date for negotiations and that is why May's election is not actually delaying the start of negotiations.) They also refuse to discuss it before the financial settlement has been agreed.

May suggested to Juncker that the issue be dealt with by June. He could, of course, have agreed to start talking with the target of reaching a generlised agreement asap, whilst noting the difficulties of doing so. But instead he described her as "deluded".
These are not the words or actions of a man who wants to put the residents at ease.

Post edited at 18:11
skog on 10 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I don't think Mike did say that. Did you Mike?

Mike Stretford - on 13:03 Wed
...
The EU has suggesting that the only way it can do this is through the ECJ, which the UK would have to engage with.
Postmanpat on 10 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> Mike Stretford - on 13:03 Wed...The EU has suggesting that the only way it can do this is through the ECJ, which the UK would have to engage with.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes:

you seem to think that Mike is saying the UK will negotiate terms on residents' rights etc through or with the ECJ.

I think he is saying that the ECJ will ultimately have to adminster any agreement and that this is likely to be an issue of dispute in the negotiations (between the UK and the EU.)

That he says "My point about the ECJ (and other peoples) is that post-Brexit adjudication will be a sticking point during the negotiations."
rather confirms my view. But only he can say.

Anyway, the UK will not be negotiating terms with or through the ECJ. It will be negotiating with the EU's negotiating team.
Jim C - on 11 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, I have no faith whatsoever in the UK for upholding the right of EU migrants.

You have no faith in the UK courts upholding migrants rights ?
I think the UK courts / judiciary are rather pro EU, not much to worry about there.
RomTheBear on 11 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> You have no faith in the UK courts upholding migrants rights ?I think the UK courts / judiciary are rather pro EU, not much to worry about there.

No, I'm talking about the UK governement, present and future.
As for the courts, I have faith in them, but in many cases migrants don't have access to the justice system. As I explained, there is no judicial recourse in the UK for most immigration decision.
I would like to make sure this us the case.
Postmanpat on 11 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> You have no faith in the UK courts upholding migrants rights ?I think the UK courts / judiciary are rather pro EU, not much to worry about there.

To a large extent the problem has been that the system either doesn't allow access to the Courts, or the Home Office delays and diverts to such an extent that access to the Courts is denied.
A fair and just system needs to be created, not least by a revolution in the workings of the Home Office (fat chance).
simon c on 11 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Interesting viewpoint here on the problems potentially facing UK people working in the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/the-brexit-trap-thats-closing-on-britons-who-live-i...
not the usual Spanish enclaves
RomTheBear on 11 May 2017
In reply to simon c:
> Interesting viewpoint here on the problems potentially facing UK people working in the EUhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/the-brexit-trap-thats-closing-on-britons-who-live-i... not the usual Spanish enclaves

Yes, I hope they get a deal whereby UK citizens resident in the EU prior brexit will still be able to move between EU countries as they used to. Otherwise many people will suffer, especially those working cross borders or with family cross borders. Many people for example live in France and work in Belgium or live in Poland and work in Germany etc etc... I think this is what the EC wants to achieve though, full continuity of exactly the same rights. Not sure the UK wants to play ball though.

Anyway all of this is a total joke, there was nothing wrong with freedom of movement in the first place, the ideal solution would be that nothing changes, I don't really see what anybody has to gain from limiting what was a very beneficial freedom. All off this is driven by hate, identity politics, and a retarded Brexit decision. I frankly don't see what anybody has to gain from this insanity.
Post edited at 10:46
simon c on 11 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
No argument from me, it's thrown my plans onto hold.
Post edited at 11:06
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> The logical thing to do is establish a new independent institution.

That is only a logical idea if you are as deluded as Theresa May about how the EU negotiates these things. Why can't the Brexiter's grasp that a coalition of 27 countries with power split across the component nations, a parliament, a bureaucracy and a court and with tens of different trade deals it needs to maintain compatibility with is not interested in or capable of cutting a special deal for one medium sized country.

The EU already has a court for adjudicating these things and the authority of that court is written into all its agreements. If it makes an exception for the UK it would create a precedent that would weaken its position in every other negotiation.

This isn't like a customer negotiating with a car dealer it is like an immigrant trying to negotiate with the Home Office after they've been given a date to leave the country.
Post edited at 11:06
Postmanpat on 11 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> That is only a logical idea if you are as deluded as Theresa May about how the EU negotiates these things. >

It's logical if both parties actually want to reach a compromise that protects the rights of their respective citizens. But that raises an obvious question...

The nature of any deal is that the EU is "cutting a special deal for one medium sized country. " or does the ECJ's remit extend to, for example, Canada?

If only we could move some ministries to Scotland all would be fine, if they could get past the new Nazi uniformed border guards
Post edited at 11:21
jkarran - on 11 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I don't really see what anybody has to gain from limiting what was a very beneficial freedom. All off this is driven by hate, identity politics, and a retarded Brexit decision. I frankly don't see what anybody has to gain from this insanity.

The brief thrill of power as they kick the apple cart over. Of course it was their own apples they kicked into the shit but still...
jk
Post edited at 11:28
Mike Stretford - on 11 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> .I think he is saying that the ECJ will ultimately have to adminster any agreement and that this is likely to be an issue of dispute in the negotiations (between the UK and the EU.)

Yes that's right. Due to Skogs original question "Isn't it actually up to individual member countries to decide their immigration rules for citizens of non EEA countries?" I may have assumed he was more familiar with international law than he is, as adjudication really is at the crux of that question. Two UN member states can adjudicate through the ICJ but of course the EU is not state, not a UN member.
Mike Stretford - on 11 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

>.As Rom has pointed out, it doesn't have to be the ECJ. The logical thing to do is establish a new independent institution.

That's like calling a vegetable by another name so a toddler will eat it... is that where we're at?

It's not comparable with Canada, what we (the UK and the EU) are trying to achieve is unique, and if we really want to protect our citizens will involve accepting some limited jurisdiction of a European body, whatever it's call.
Mike Stretford - on 11 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> May suggested to Juncker that the issue be dealt with by June.

Comes back to my OP....that is obviously spin as the UK government has made no preparations for such talks. It's the UK that is leaving the EU, it's up to the UK to make some sort of declaration of what it considers a resident EU citizen resident in the UK, of how it intends to collect that information, but there's been nothing.

If May was serious about a quick deal, there'd be some sort of simple and civilised census underway of who is here, but again, nothing. Indeed, the reports are it's got harder for concerned EU nationals to apply for the Right of Residence they are entitled to after 5 years.
Post edited at 11:40
RomTheBear on 11 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It's logical if both parties actually want to reach a compromise that protects the rights of their respective citizens. But that raises an obvious question... The nature of any deal is that the EU is "cutting a special deal for one medium sized country. " or does the ECJ's remit extend to, for example, Canada?

The ECJ remit will partly extend to Canada. That was the main concession that was made in order for the Wallon parliament to stop blocking CETA.
More specifically, the investor court system set up to arbitrate CETA will have to seek the opinion of the ECJ to ensure decisions made by the ICS are compatible with the EU treaties.
Post edited at 12:14
Postmanpat on 11 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:
> Comes back to my OP....that is obviously spin as the UK government has made no preparations for such talks.
>
You cannot know what preparations for talks have been made and it is incumbent on both parties to sit down and talk, not to make unilateral declarations. It is the EU that has refused to do so. You can lead a horse to water....

The HO has advised EU nationals not to apply because they cannot deal with the caseload and because (they say) it is not necessary.
Post edited at 12:38
RomTheBear on 11 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The HO has advised EU nationals not to apply because they cannot deal with the caseload and because (they say) it is not necessary.

Against the advice of all immigration lawyers.

RomTheBear on 11 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Yes, exactly, that's the stupidity of brexit for you.
We'll be basically replacing democratic, legitimate institutions we were fully part of, by unnacountable and opaque "independent" arbitration courts, and discussions behind closed doors, or, given the power balance, simply accept the remit of the ECJ through the backdoor.

A point that me and others have made repeatedly on these forums prior the brexit vote, but I guess if you have to explain things you've already lost.
The problem is that this whole thing was based on the blatant lie that we could get nice deals with the whole world without accepting any devolution of sovereignty. That is just not how it works.
Post edited at 12:39
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It's logical if both parties actually want to reach a compromise that protects the rights of their respective citizens. But that raises an obvious question...

This isn't a negotiation between two parties, its a negotiation between one party and a group of 27 parties. It is really hard for a group of 27 parties to compromise because it takes a long time to get internal consensus. If you want to deal with an organisation the size of the EU you need to follow their processes.


> The nature of any deal is that the EU is "cutting a special deal for one medium sized country. " or does the ECJ's remit extend to, for example, Canada?

The nature of the deals are variations on templates and it takes vast amounts of time to agree those variations.


>If only we could move some ministries to Scotland all would be fine, if they could get past the new Nazi uniformed border guards

If the UK moved some of the agencies of government out of London things would be better. Not fine, but better. And the border guards aren't Nazi uniformed, but if you look at the direction of travel from business suits via police style uniforms to military lookalikes that is the way it is heading.


skog on 11 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Yes that's right. Due to Skogs original question "Isn't it actually up to individual member countries to decide their immigration rules for citizens of non EEA countries?" I may have assumed he was more familiar with international law than he is

I know very very little about international law.

I was genuinely asking a question, not pretending to ask one while making a point; thanks again for answering it!
jkarran - on 11 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> re. a new/re-branded parallel ECJ: That's like calling a vegetable by another name so a toddler will eat it... is that where we're at?

Probably. I don't see how they bridge the gap May has needlessly created otherwise. Pathetic really.
jk
baron - on 11 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

So, before the UK joined the EU which court had ultimate responsibility for migrants rights?
RomTheBear on 11 May 2017
In reply to baron:
> So, before the UK joined the EU which court had ultimate responsibility for migrants rights?

The UK courts, in most cases, in the cases where they have access to it, as it is currently the case for non-EU migrants.

The only difference is that EU citizens currently have rights protected by the EU treaties. As we exit the EU current EU residents would lose those protections, unless we sign a new treaty guaranteeing reciprocal rights for those already here.
You don't seem to get that somehow.
Post edited at 15:42
baron - on 11 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
I get it.
The EU throws in a couple of demands - migrants and payments - in order to avoid beginining talks on trade.
The UK ties itself in knots trying to find a compromise instead of demanding trade talks begin immediately.
The EU still has realised that the UK is leaving and continues its arrogant stance.

wbo - on 11 May 2017
In reply to baron: alternatively, based on facts, the EU is ready to get going on exit discussions which it is necessary to deal with before setting up a new deal. The U.K. Is not because of internal posturing.



baron - on 11 May 2017
In reply to wbo:
The UK election is indeed putting talks on the back burner as will the French and German ones.
It is possible to simply leave the EU without any negotiations as in an exit.
What is there to talk about except the future?
RomTheBear on 11 May 2017
In reply to baron:
> I get it.The EU throws in a couple of demands - migrants and payments - in order to avoid beginining talks on trade.The UK ties itself in knots trying to find a compromise instead of demanding trade talks begin immediately.The EU still has realised that the UK is leaving and continues its arrogant stance.

My god, you really have lost all common sense haven't you. Stay int he little fantasy world you constructed for yourself in your head and avoid reality. That's probably best.
Post edited at 18:43
Wanderer100 - on 11 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> My god, you really have lost all common sense haven't you. Stay int he little fantasy world you constructed for yourself in your head and avoid reality. That's probably best.

Just because you gave an opinion, it doesn't mean it's the only opinion. Your insults sum up your credibility you odious prick.
RomTheBear on 12 May 2017
In reply to Wanderer100:
> Just because you gave an opinion, it doesn't mean it's the only opinion. Your insults sum up your credibility you odious prick.

He's been off topic and peddling falsehoods for the whole thread. Nothing to do with opinions. I can discuss with people of different opinions willing to have a reasonable evidence-based discussion. In his case, it's probably better to just leave him in his post factual world.
Post edited at 08:51
baron - on 12 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
He, is, I presume, me?
Off topic and peddling falsehoods are one way of putting it.
I prefer 'engaging in an internet discussion where one or more parties might hold differing views.
Post factual world - what does that mean?
I really wish people would speak English!

Mike Stretford - on 12 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > You cannot know what preparations for talks have been made and it is incumbent on both parties to sit down and talk, not to make unilateral declarations.

I'm talking about basic preparations that would put us on the same footing as the other 27 states we are going to be negotiating with

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/eu-citizens-right-to-stay-britain-chaos

Responding to the Brussels report, one senior diplomat from an eastern European state, said: “It came as a surprise to me that the UK was unable to monitor comings and goings – they will have to find a workable solution quickly.”

We would know if these basic preparation were happening, it would require public engagement.

> It is the EU that has refused to do so. .

Talks will commence after the UK election, which I think we'd all agree does make sense.
Pre-article 50 talks would have undermined the representative democracy of the UK and the EU. If you remember article 50 was delayed until our own parliament had voted on it. The EU needed article 50 before they could gather representatives of the 27 states to decide their approach. This cosy chat among Euro elites that you seem to think should have happened is exactly the sort of undemocratic practice you accuse the EU of...... hoisted by your own petard Pat!
Jim C - on 12 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

>As we exit the EU current EU residents would lose those protections, unless we sign a new treaty guaranteeing reciprocal rights for those already here.You don't seem to get that somehow.

Why would I , resident in the UK, be happy with those incoming from the EU having more rights than me and my family?

We have , as far as I know, not allowed this for others coming in from any Non EU countries, we should either do the same for everyone from all countries, or not do it for anyone.

No preferential treatment just because of where you come from, everyone treated the same under one set of rules,that is fair.
Jim C - on 12 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Against the advice of all immigration lawyers.

Money grabbing Ambulance chasers you mean.
jkarran - on 12 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Why would I , resident in the UK, be happy with those incoming from the EU having more rights than me and my family?

Good question but you weren't kicking off about the drip drip drip erosion of your rights in the name of curbing immigration before brexit so I guess you didn't care that much.

> We have , as far as I know, not allowed this for others coming in from any Non EU countries, we should either do the same for everyone from all countries, or not do it for anyone. No preferential treatment just because of where you come from, everyone treated the same under one set of rules,that is fair.

LOL. Good luck with that if you don't want to be living in a dystopian tax haven a decade from now. Perhaps you do. I really wish this were a case of your mess, you clean it up but you've dropped us all in it.
jk
RomTheBear on 12 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> >As we exit the EU current EU residents would lose those protections, unless we sign a new treaty guaranteeing reciprocal rights for those already here.You don't seem to get that somehow.Why would I , resident in the UK, be happy with those incoming from the EU having more rights than me and my family?

They won't have more rights. They currently have less rights and will still have less rights.
The only right they'll have that you won't have is that they'll still be able to work and live freely in 27 countries, and you won't. But sorry to say, that is very much self inflicted.

Frankly I'm not too sure why you wouldn't want those already here to stay, what have they done to you ? What harm would it do to you if they were allowed to carry on as before ?


> We have , as far as I know, not allowed this for others coming in from any Non EU countries, we should either do the same for everyone from all countries, or not do it for anyone. No preferential treatment just because of where you come from, everyone treated the same under one set of rules,that is fair.

That's simply because we've not had any reciprocal agreement with other countries.

It will be the case that for new EU migrants they'll fall under the standard immigration system.

However you don't have to be a genius to understand that if 4 millions + people already settled were to suddenly fall back to the standard immigration policy of their respective host countries, it would wreak havoc in society, break up families, shut down businesses, and create mass movement of population. It would also be very unfair to millions of people who came in good faith under the provision of the EU treaties and built their lives here.
Besides, I don't see what anybody has to gain from being nasty to these people anyway:
Post edited at 14:51
tom_in_edinburgh - on 12 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> >No preferential treatment just because of where you come from, everyone treated the same under one set of rules,that is fair.

So why did Commonwealth citizens get a vote in the EU referendum when EU citizens did not? If there was one set of rules there'd have been 3 million more votes for Remain.


skog on 12 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Why would I , resident in the UK, be happy with those incoming from the EU having more rights than me and my family?

Do you not see the difference between people who've settled here, completely legally, and not applied for citizenship because they simply didn't need to, and people who want to come here in the future, who know the requirements and can prepare to meet them?

I don't want to restrict EU citizens coming here in the future, but at least doing so doesn't drop people in it, they can plan for it and either manage to come or not. Those already here face being uprooted from their lives, which is quite different from just not being allowed to come in the first place.

To my mind, people already here long-term should either just be granted citizenship (unless they've committed serious crimes), or at least be given assistance so that thay aren't tripped up by requirements they never knew they'd have to meet.
Hugh J - on 12 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Am I the only one who sees this EU citizens rights things for what it is? It, like everything else is a negotiating chip. I'm almost certain EU citizens will be allowed to stay in the UK, more or less as they are now, however it'll cost the EU something at the negotiating table to secure those rights. If you just go and up front guarantee anything at this stage then it becomes worthless at the table, you've just given your opposition freebie.

Hmmmm . . . would that cost possibly be the rights of British citizens in the EU?
Jim C - on 14 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Frankly I'm not too sure why you wouldn't want those already here to stay,

Got the wrong guy there Rom I said, I was happy for people to stay as long as they are not criminals, or here illegally. The rules for the future though needs to change.

I get a bit fed up with being painted as something I'm not. I simply want everyone who comes to the UK to come in under the same rules. Those rules will have to be modified so that we take only those that the country needs, and in the numbers with the skills that the economy needs at that time, and the services can cope with.
( apart from asylum seekers , they are a different case)

Those migrants ( from anywhere) that are here already, if they are not doing anything criminal- or have entered illegally , should stay if they want to.
I'm not out to hate anyone on here, or even insult anyone.
( if you can find such posts from me I'm happy to apologise to whomever- Brexiteers , Remoaners etc don't count as insults, they are just useful labels ;)
Being called a racist , does count as an insult though.



Jim C - on 14 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> So why did Commonwealth citizens get a vote in the EU referendum when EU citizens did not? If there was one set of rules there'd have been 3 million more votes for Remain.

I think you should ask David Cameron that question , he missed a trick there.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Got the wrong guy there Rom I said, I was happy for people to stay as long as they are not criminals, or here illegally.

The problem is that 'here illegally' could mean not having private health insurance despite nobody ever mentioning it until after Brexit. The EU citizens in the UK need some protection from the EU because Theresa May can't be trusted, she's far too focussed on getting net immigration below 100,000 and that is never going to happen unless lots of people leave.
Dr.S at work - on 14 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

given that is year on year, why would lots of people need to leave?
skog on 14 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> I get a bit fed up with being painted as something I'm not. I simply want everyone who comes to the UK to come in under the same rules.

In that case, Jim, this is just crossed wires - you replied to Rom as below, perhaps giving the wrong impression:
> >As we exit the EU current EU residents would lose those protections, unless we sign a new treaty guaranteeing reciprocal rights for those already here.You don't seem to get that somehow.

> Why would I , resident in the UK, be happy with those incoming from the EU having more rights than me and my family?

That's what I was replying to, anyway.

(I really have no time for people who want to 'kick out the foreigners'; I merely disagree with those who want to change the rules to make it much harder for future EU incomers. I'm glad you're one of the latter, not the former.)
skog on 14 May 2017
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Well, we'll see, but it looks near to impossible to get immigration down to under 100,000 per year just now, given that non-EEA immigration alone appears to be much higher than that, and May didn't seem to be able to deal with that when she was Home Secretary.

That being the case, to get net migration to those levels, we'd need to have a lot of people leaving.
RomTheBear on 14 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> Got the wrong guy there Rom I said, I was happy for people to stay as long as they are not criminals, or here illegally. The rules for the future though needs to change. I get a bit fed up with being painted as something I'm not. I simply want everyone who comes to the UK to come in under the same rules. Those rules will have to be modified so that we take only those that the country needs, and in the numbers with the skills that the economy needs at that time, and the services can cope with. ( apart from asylum seekers , they are a different case) Those migrants ( from anywhere) that are here already, if they are not doing anything criminal- or have entered illegally , should stay if they want to.

What I am trying to make you understand us that if the rules for non-EEA citizens were to suddenly apply to EEA citizens the vast majority would have to leave or be deported. (this has nothing to do with the criminals and so on who can already be kicked out anyway under EU rules, and regularly are)
But you don't seem to get that hence the frustration. A lot of the comments on here seem to be based on a total ignorance of the immigration rules and policy of this country.

If you say you want existing EU residents to stay then they'll need a special arrangement, like it or not. For future migrants they'll have the same rules as anybody else, that's less of a problem because they'll know what they are getting into before coming (and for the vast majority they just won't bother)
Post edited at 21:00
Postmanpat on 14 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

From the FT:

Nevertheless on Sunday Mr Davis gave some detail on how EU nationals living in the UK might be treated after Brexit, saying that the government wanted an agreement that “effectively freezes” their rights.

How on earth do you resolve the issue of the border with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland unless you know what our general borders policy is, what the customs agreement is, what our trade agreement is?
David Davis, Brexit secretary

“They’ll have the right to welfare, the right to healthcare, the right to pensions, as they would if they were permanent residents,” he said. “The only rights they wouldn’t have are those citizenship rights — the right to vote in a general election.”

EU citizens in the UK currently enjoy a wider range of rights than non-EU permanent residents, including those relating to recognition of their qualifications and receiving welfare payments from abroad. It is unclear from Mr Davis’s formulation whether the government will look to maintain such relative advantages for EU nationals.

The Brexit secretary added: “There will be an argument over the final detail … such as whether the European Court of Justice oversees their rights are we’ve left … We’ll have an argument about that.”
RomTheBear on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
And you seriously believe anything these guys say ? It's cute.
I'll believe actions not words.
Post edited at 06:26
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> And you seriously believe anything these guys say ? It's cute.I'll believe actions not words.

I think he is showing his hand:

“They’ll have the right to welfare, the right to healthcare, the right to pensions, as they would if they were permanent residents,” he said. “The only rights they wouldn’t have are those citizenship rights — the right to vote in a general election.”

They want to create a special status - not permanent resident because permanent resident is a simple step away from citizen. The Tories concern is that the EU citizens resident in the UK never get the chance to vote because they know the consequence of that many pro-EU votes. And they'd quite like them to be scared to apply for permanent residence and citizenship in case they mess up their current status and get nasty 'prepare to leave' letters for some minor infringement like not having health insurance. They want them to gradually piss off, not all at once because that would be a nuisance but gradually by being step by step made to feel less welcome over a period of years.
Post edited at 09:23
ads.ukclimbing.com
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think he is showing his hand:“They’ll have the right to welfare, the right to healthcare, the right to pensions, as they would if they were permanent residents,” he said. “The only rights they wouldn’t have are those citizenship rights — the right to vote in a general election.”They want to create a special status - not permanent resident because permanent resident is a simple step away from citizen.
>
Twaddle. There is absolutely nothing in his comments to suggest that, or that EU citizens will not remain free to apply for and receive British citizenship.Tin foil hat stuff.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > Twaddle. There is absolutely nothing in his comments to suggest that, or that EU citizens will not remain free to apply for and receive British citizenship.Tin foil hat stuff.

Sure, they will be free to apply, but they'll need to use the 85 page form for permanent residence and take a chance of getting rejected on a technicality and asked to leave. Which is what is happening to 20-30% of applications now.

Why do you think he's proposing a special status instead of just offering permanent residence with no preconditions. He doesn't want them voting, he even said so. He knows that once the EU negotiations any special status can be gradually redefined and weakened.
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Sure, they will be free to apply, but they'll need to use the 85 page form for permanent residence and take a chance of getting rejected on a technicality and asked to leave. Which is what is happening to 20-30% of applications now.
>
They can't vote in national elections now. My "permanent resident" wife can't either. The anomaly will not be that EU citizens cannot vote but that Commonwealth citizens can.

The whole point of what Davis is saying, to anyone without a tin foil balaclava, is that existing EU residents will fast tracked to permanent residency (possibly by immigration officials wearing nazi uniforms)

Mike Stretford - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> From the FT:Nevertheless on Sunday Mr Davis gave some detail on how EU nationals living in the UK might be treated after Brexit ect

And

The UK would only look for an early agreement on migrants’ rights by “early autumn”, but would otherwise argue that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, he said.

The Brexit secretary added: “There will be an argument over the final detail … such as whether the European Court of Justice oversees their rights after we’ve left … We’ll have an argument about that.”

There's also going to a 'row of the summer' over the proposed timetable.

So it's safe to say there was never any chance of a quick deal on EU nationals rights, and it isn't the UK governments fault or the EUs. The people to blame for the plight of worried UK/EU nationals abroad, are those who voted for Brexit.

Bloomebrg reports more of it, with a tacit acceptance that the UK has the weaker negotiating hand

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-14/u-k-picks-new-fight-with-eu-over-citizens-rig...

Britain is “very conscious of how they will use that time sequence to pressure us, and we’ll avoid that at every turn,” Davis said.
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:
> AndThe UK would only look for an early agreement on migrants’ rights by “early autumn”, but would otherwise argue that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, he said.
>

The EU has refused to show willing so Davis has accepted that the issue cannot be discussed until the autumn. I am not sure that it is very inciteful to note that it is brexit that will likely change the status of residency. As you implicitly acknowledge, the EU is more than happy to exploit the issue for its own ends.
Post edited at 10:20
Mike Stretford - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> > The EU has refused to show willing. I am not sure that it is very inciteful to note that it is brexit that will likely change the status of residency.

It's isn't very insightful, it's fekkin obvious..... but it hasn't stopped people trying to pass the blame, including yourself!

I'm not sure about the EU refusing to show willing.... I remember they were keen for the UK to trigger Article 50 so we could all get on with things.

> > As you implicitly acknowledge, the EU is more than happy to exploit the issue for its own ends.

Do I? How so? Even Davis said EU nationals rights could be concluded 'early Autum', the last part of my post refers to Davis wanting the divorce bill and trade talks “packaged up together.”
Post edited at 10:27
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> > They can't vote in national elections now. My "permanent resident" wife can't either. The anomaly will not be that EU citizens cannot vote but that Commonwealth citizens can. The whole point of what Davis is saying, to anyone without a tin foil balaclava, is that existing EU residents will fast tracked to permanent residency (possibly by immigration officials wearing nazi uniforms)

He is specifically saying they will not be offered permanent residency, his words are 'as they would if they were permanent residents'. That makes it pretty clear the idea is to have a special category for EU citizen residents, if they use the current 'permanent resident' category it is too easy for them to get UK citizenship and vote.

I think we are falling into the same trap as when the Greeks elected Varoufakis et al thinking that if they put in a hardline government they would negotiate some sort of super deal with the EU. Not going to happen.
Post edited at 10:44
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> It's isn't very insightful, it's fekkin obvious..... but it hasn't stopped people trying to pass the blame, including yourself! I'm not sure about the EU refusing to show willing.... I remember they were keen for the UK to trigger Article 50 so we could all get on with things.Do I? How so? Even Davis said EU nationals rights could be concluded 'early Autum', the last part of my post refers to Davis wanting the divorce bill and trade talks “packaged up together.”

On your basis nobody would ever vote for any change on anything (or indeed no change on anything) because it creates uncertainty for somebody. It's up to the negotiating parties to settle the issue as quickly and fairly as possible, not the voters.

If the UK has the "weaker hand" then presumably you infer that the EU is going to exploit its "stronger hand".

Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> He is specifically saying they will not be offered permanent residency, his words are 'as they would if they were permanent residents'. That makes it pretty clear the idea is to have a special category for EU citizen residents, if they use the current 'permanent resident' category it is too easy for them to get UK citizenship and vote.

Nonsense. If the details of the syntax suggest anything it is just that the status will not be exactly the same as the current status of a "permanent residence", which is blindingly obvious. There is no evidence or implication that will make it more difficult to get British citizenship, and as the Home Office has stated " no applicant was required to complete all 85 pages, and that it was working to make the process “quicker and easier”."

The bottom line is that the UK needs the EU citizens in the UK to stay or the economy will grind to a halt. It will also face a PR disaster if it is seen to be "ethnic cleansing" on a massive scale. Any government knows this and therefore has to find a way to keep them.
Post edited at 10:45
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think we are falling into the same trap as when the Greeks elected Varoufakis et al thinking that if they put in a hardline government they would negotiate some sort of super deal with the EU. Not going to happen.
>
I like to think we have a stronger hand than the Greeks. But you are right, it is quite possible that, as Mr.V predicts, that the EU simply doesn't want a comprehensive deal except ion exactly their terms.
Interesting article by Wolfgang Munchau in the FT saying that if you read the German press you would understand the the UK is still quite likely to stay in the EU. Possibly that is part of the EU's game. Make it so hard to leave that we stay. "You can check out but you can never leave".

Mike Stretford - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> On your basis nobody would ever vote for any change on anything (or indeed no change on anything) because it creates uncertainty for somebody.

Really? My suggestion that people accept the consequence of their vote.......will stop people voting! Blimey, not sure what to say to that.

> It's up to the negotiating parties to settle the issue as quickly and fairly as possible, not the voters.

No argument there. In some circumstance, were the voter was offered an unrealistic 'moon on the stick', it may be a fairly 'blunt' settlement.

> If the UK has the "weaker hand" then presumably you infer that the EU is going to exploit its "stronger hand".

Yeah on the issue of trade and the UK s divorce bill, as I said even Davis seems happy nationals rights can be sorted 'early Autumn'.
Mike Stretford - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> > I like to think we have a stronger hand than the Greeks. But you are right, it is quite possible that, as Mr.V predicts,

I don't know why you put so much store by Mr V. He got sacked for messing up the negotiations and costing the Greek economy billions when they could least afford it.

His Hotel California quote sums up his failure. By the time Varoufakis had done showboating, Europe was prepared for Greece to 'check out and leave'. Syriza chose what they believe to be the least worse option, and stayed.
Post edited at 11:32
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I don't know why you put so much store by Mr V.
>
Only because he makes an articulate presentation of views I share but is not a conventional Tory leaver.
Mike Stretford - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > but is not a conventional Tory leaver.

There are some striking similarities.

thomasadixon - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Do you not think that by the time he'd done showboating the EU were very clear that Greece had no intention whatsoever of leaving? They weren't prepared for Greece to leave (either the EU or the Euro), they just knew there was no chance of it happening.
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> There are some striking similarities.

Well, yes. They share many views on the EU!
Mike Stretford - on 15 May 2017
In reply to thomasadixon: It was fairly well reported at the time

https://www.ft.com/content/9c124930-1f4a-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79

Mike Stretford - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
I was thinking of the hubris and the bullshit. I hope the Tory leavers are better negotiators. Poker tactics aren't appropriate when the situation is transparent, the other side is pretty competent, and the consequencies are people livelihoods.
Post edited at 11:52
thomasadixon - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I recall the reporting I believe, and it's easy to say "fine, go" in the knowledge that has no chance of happening.

Paywall on that link, so can't see what you're saying was reported.
Post edited at 12:02
RomTheBear on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Nonsense. If the details of the syntax suggest anything it is just that the status will not be exactly the same as the current status of a "permanent residence", which is blindingly obvious. There is no evidence or implication that will make it more difficult to get British citizenship, and as the Home Office has stated " no applicant was required to complete all 85 pages, and that it was working to make the process “quicker and easier”." The bottom line is that the UK needs the EU citizens in the UK to stay or the economy will grind to a halt. It will also face a PR disaster if it is seen to be "ethnic cleansing" on a massive scale. Any government knows this and therefore has to find a way to keep them.

How much would you like to bet that access to citizenship for EU citizens will be made much harder ?
By the way this is already the case thanks to Teresa May, you may dismiss it as tinfoil hat but this is already an entrenched principle in UK law that EU citizens have a harder path to citizenship than non-EU, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't take this further, especially if they guarantee residence for 3 millions of them.
If they all eventually get citizenship the tories are finished, it is simple electoral mathematics.

Why do you think they've not simplified the permanent residence process (EEA3) and instead are telling people to not apply ? That is simply because this status leads to citizenship.
I suspect they'll come up with a different status that doesn't lead to citizenship.
Post edited at 13:32
Jim C - on 15 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> How much would you like to bet that access to citizenship for EU citizens will be made much harder ?
I suspect they'll come up with a different status that doesn't lead to citizenship.

As the EU has said they are adopting a one for all and all for one approach, can we expect that UK citizens ( remember them) living in EU countries will all be given the same status irrespective of where they live , and that they be will they all have an identical process to obtain citizenship in the EU country of their choice should they wish to do so?

Our priorities are to deal with all citizens rights soonest, but our first priority must be to look after our own citizens rights first, and not unilaterally grant rights to EU citizens that are then not given to ours.
balmybaldwin - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> but our first priority must be to look after our own citizens rights first, and not unilaterally grant rights to EU citizens that are then not given to ours.

But why can't we do this as its the morally right thing to do? not only that but it puts us on higher moral ground in the rest of the negotiations.

I just don't understand why people want our country to use people as negotiating chips - it's just not British
Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

>I just don't understand why people want our country to use people as negotiating chips - it's just not British
>
Because it would leave UK residents of the UK "on their own" which would not be a very moral thing to do.

Jim C - on 15 May 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:
When a group sends malware out and demands money to fix it , do you trust them to give you access again?

When a group demands up to 100 million before they will even negotiate with you , do you pay up and trust them?

They're are no signs from the EU that taking a moral stance will buy us any favours. Even if there was a majority of countries that thought that our moral stance was worth rewarding, they all have to agree, so there is little chance of this working.
Post edited at 18:32
balmybaldwin - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

No it wouldn't it puts them in exactly the same place they are now with vague promises and the government promissing to back them. Unilateral action from the UK will most likely shame Europe into a reciprocal reaction
balmybaldwin - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

This is about people living and working in the UK so for a start it gives us favour in those peoples eyes - people that are valuable to our society and economy.

Its not just about European countries, it would also be seen as moral by the rest of the world.

But so what if it doesn't help with Europe? it's still the right thing to do for both the UK and the Europeans that are currently living here
JoshOvki on 15 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> When a group sends malware out and demands money to fix it , do you trust them to give you access again?

Yes, it's bad for business if they don't.

Postmanpat on 15 May 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Unilateral action from the UK will most likely shame Europe into a reciprocal reaction

Lol. I've got bridge I can sell you...
RomTheBear on 15 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> I suspect they'll come up with a different status that doesn't lead to citizenship.As the EU has said they are adopting a one for all and all for one approach, can we expect that UK citizens ( remember them) living in EU countries will all be given the same status irrespective of where they live , and that they be will they all have an identical process to obtain citizenship in the EU country of their choice should they wish to do so? Our priorities are to deal with all citizens rights soonest, but our first priority must be to look after our own citizens rights first, and not unilaterally grant rights to EU citizens that are then not given to ours.

Sorry to say but you are talking nonsense again.
There are already different requirements and processes to obtain citizenship in various EU countries. Some even don't allow dual citizenship. This has nothing to do with reciprocal rights or even the brexit negotiations.

The question is now whether EU nationals in the UK should have a harder path to citizenship than non-EU citizens, or if the same rules should apply to everybody.
It seems very odd to me that you would support a discriminatory system against EU citizens given that you said earlier you wanted the same rules for everybody. Your positions are contradictory.
Post edited at 21:01
RomTheBear on 15 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> When a group sends malware out and demands money to fix it , do you trust them to give you access again?When a group demands up to 100 million before they will even negotiate with you , do you pay up and trust them?They're are no signs from the EU that taking a moral stance will buy us any favours. Even if there was a majority of countries that thought that our moral stance was worth rewarding, they all have to agree, so there is little chance of this working.

It seems to me the EU is simply asking that we pay what we owe, this is just the basics, if we don't even pay what we committed and what we owe how can the EU, or in fact, any other country, trust us for any future deal ?
They are talks of a gross bill of 100bn but of course the net bill will be much lower.

The liabilities of the UK towards the EU and vice versa will have to be settled, this will have to be scientifically calculated, I suspect there will be much negotiation going on around the accounting rules used, but at the end of the day if the UK just doesn't pay what it owes, it will seriously harm our international standing and credibility, in fact this could have pretty serious consequences on the pound and the ability of the UK to borrow on the international markets.
Big Ger - on 16 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Sure, they will be free to apply, but they'll need to use the 85 page form for permanent residence and take a chance of getting rejected on a technicality and asked to leave. Which is what is happening to 20-30% of applications now.

Do you think that anyone who applies should get in, by virtue of just applying?

tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Do you think that anyone who applies should get in, by virtue of just applying?

I think we should drop the whole stupid idea before things really turn to sh*t.

But yes, if they are already in the UK they should be offered UK citizenship, the same sort of deal as an Irish person with a UK and Irish passport, not some bogus not-quite-right-to-remain with no voting rights.

And UK citizens in the EU should get the same deal, UK citizenship plus the offer of citizenship in whatever EU country they are resident.


Jim C - on 16 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

You seem pretty happy to pay anything the EU deems we owe, I think we know where your loyalties lie.

I want a fair deal for everyone, but we must look after our own interests first and not wait for 27 other countries to agree what is best for us.

If , under A50, there are legal obligations to pay a set amount of money for a limited period , then we invoked A50 and we should pay what is legally enforceable .

We need to understand what that figure is( if anything) and if we pay out we also should get our share of the assets back as previously stated.

If neither are a legal obligation, then they are just obstacles to getting a future deal, and we should forget bills and asset rebates and get on with securing citizen's rights and trade arrangements.
Big Ger - on 16 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> But yes, if they are already in the UK they should be offered UK citizenship, the same sort of deal as an Irish person with a UK and Irish passport, not some bogus not-quite-right-to-remain with no voting rights. And UK citizens in the EU should get the same deal, UK citizenship plus the offer of citizenship in whatever EU country they are resident.

With no discrimination at all?

So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?
Post edited at 04:27
RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> With no discrimination at all?So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?

Giving citizenship to all of them is of course unreasonable. And the EU is certainly not asking for that.
However I don't see any reason why it should be harder for EU citizens to get UK citizenship than for non-EU citizens. It's already hard and expensive enough to be honest.
Post edited at 10:06
tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> If neither are a legal obligation, then they are just obstacles to getting a future deal, and we should forget bills and asset rebates and get on with securing citizen's rights and trade arrangements.

The EU is running this, we do things their way or they just let the clock run while the UK gets closer and closer to the cliff edge of four or five years with no trade agreements at all with anybody while we desperately try and negotiate new ones.

You don't need to be a genius to understand this, the Greeks tried electing a government to take a hard line in negotiations with the EU and got precisely nowhere - except turmoil, turmoil a change of government and climb down.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> With no discrimination at all?So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?

Not only Romanian beggars but French Onion sellers, Italian ice cream vendors and Swedish alcoholics: the full set of prejudicial national stereotypes. They'd be doing us a favour if they took British citizenship and injected a little bit of Europe into our politics.
fred99 - on 16 May 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> But why can't we do this as its the morally right thing to do? not only that but it puts us on higher moral ground in the rest of the negotiations.I just don't understand why people want our country to use people as negotiating chips - it's just not British

The moral high ground is worth diddly squat in negotiations.
In fact it hinders the side that takes the high ground.
Remember the politicians on the other side will want to get as much as they can whilst giving away as little as possible - and they're definitely NOT British.
RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to fred99:
> The moral high ground is worth diddly squat in negotiations.In fact it hinders the side that takes the high ground.Remember the politicians on the other side will want to get as much as they can whilst giving away as little as possible - and they're definitely NOT British.

I guess the issue here is that the UK government insisted on a reciprocal deal for EU citizens, but at the same time they do not like the implications of a reciprocal deal.
If there is a reciprocal deal then of course this means every country has to have the same rule, interpreted the same way.
Somehow the UK government would want to have a common rule but still be free to interpret them as they wish. That would not be a reciprocal deal anymore, that would just be a face saving political quick-win with little practical value.
Post edited at 17:16
L Stichtplate on 16 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They'd be doing us a favour if they took British citizenship and injected a little bit of Europe into our politics.

In Germany Pegida rallies attract thousands while EDL barely scrape above a hundred. We have Boris the buffoon while Italy kept Berlusconi in power for 9 years. Nick Griffin and the NF have slimed away under a stone somewhere while France narrowly avoided a Le Pen presidency.
I'd rather Europe kept their politics to themselves thanks.
Ridge - on 16 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

But they're European. They burn down asylum seeker's hostels in an enlightened and inclusive way.
Big Ger - on 16 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:


> Giving citizenship to all of them is of course unreasonable. And the EU is certainly not asking for that. However I don't see any reason why it should be harder for EU citizens to get UK citizenship than for non-EU citizens.

I may have missed where it was proposed for it to be harder for EU citizens.
Post edited at 22:25
Big Ger - on 16 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Not only Romanian beggars but French Onion sellers, Italian ice cream vendors and Swedish alcoholics: the full set of prejudicial national stereotypes. They'd be doing us a favour if they took British citizenship and injected a little bit of Europe into our politics.

So I'll take it you have no answer to my question then.

Here it is again, in case you fancy a serious attempt;

( if they are already in the UK they should be offered UK citizenship)

With no discrimination at all?

So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?

Post edited at 22:24
RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> I may have missed where it was proposed for it to be harder for EU citizens.

It is already the case, courtesy of Teresa May.
Now the danger is that it becomes worse, I'm not saying they are suggesting it, but this seems only logical they will be aiming for it, and they have given clues that it may be the case.

The tories are terrified that all these EU citizens end up getting citizenship and lock them out of power. They are actively dissuading EU citizens from applying for EEA3 permanent residence, and go to great length and spend lots of money and time to reject as many applications as possible. Why, one may ask ? Because this leads to citizenship.
Post edited at 22:38
RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> In Germany Pegida rallies attract thousands while EDL barely scrape above a hundred. We have Boris the buffoon while Italy kept Berlusconi in power for 9 years. Nick Griffin and the NF have slimed away under a stone somewhere while France narrowly avoided a Le Pen presidency. I'd rather Europe kept their politics to themselves thanks.

Narrowly avoided by a very slim 34 points margin. Lol.
And in the UK, we have the tories, who basically killed off UKIP by becoming UKIP.
Post edited at 22:44
L Stichtplate on 16 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Come off it Rom ,from Holland to Hungary and all points in between, the continent is full of real right wing nut jobs with real popular backing.
Do you really see Teresa May as cut from the same cloth as Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders?
... yes , narrowly avoided ,you had a choice of 2 candidates and one of them was front national. That is way too close a call in my book.
Post edited at 22:55
Big Ger - on 16 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It is already the case, courtesy of Teresa May.Now the danger is that it becomes worse, I'm not saying they are suggesting it, but this seems only logical they will be aiming for it, and they have given clues that it may be the case.The tories are terrified that all these EU citizens end up getting citizenship and lock them out of power. They are actively dissuading EU citizens from applying for EEA3 permanent residence, and go to great length and spend lots of money and time to reject as many applications as possible. Why, one may ask ? Because this leads to citizenship.

Your evidence for all of that? I'm not saying your wrong, but I'd like some meat on the bones.

RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Come off it Rom ,from Holland to Hungary and all points in between, the continent is full of real right wing nut jobs with real popular backing.Do you really see Teresa May as cut from the same cloth as Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders?...

Cut from the same cloth ? I would say she is arguably worse.
Teresa May's policies would put her at the right of Lepen in France.
May I point out that the only parties that are telling us in Europe that brexit is a great idea are the far right parties.
I followed the French election, watched the debates, Lepen "arguments" are exactly the same as the one made in the in the UK by Teresa May and her clique.

> yes , narrowly avoided ,you had a choice of 2 candidates and one of them was Front National. That is way too close a call in my book.

Yes there was two candidates, and they made a very clear choice. 34 points is not too close to call or narrowly avoided, it's a landslide.
Post edited at 23:06
RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Your evidence for all of that? I'm not saying your wrong, but I'd like some meat on the bones.

Yes, Theresa May when she was at the home office introduced changes that effectively make the requirement for citizenship 6 years of permanent for EU citizens, and they have to go through the EEA3 process (a bureaucratic wall) which demands a lot more evidence than the ILR process.
Non EU citizens need only to have been in the UK for 5 years and the process is simpler.

In the future, I'd be very dupeuses if they don't try to make it even more difficult for EU citizens to obtain citizenship. It would be electoral suicide, simple mathematics really.
Post edited at 23:25
L Stichtplate on 16 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Well Rom with your god like , all knowing wisdom I'm sure you knew what the election result would be all along. However, back down to earth, among the mere mortals, lots of respected commentators were seriously worried about the outcome. The 2 French expats I know both told me they could see an FN victory.
So yes, with that weight of opinion it seemed scarily close. Remind me , did you actually call the result before hand?

As to Le Pen actually being to the left of TM, can you really imagine May spouting off about Muslims and calling for them to be deported en masse as Marine has on many occasions?
Post edited at 23:25
RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Well Rom with your god like , all knowing wisdom I'm sure you knew what the election result would be all along.


No I didn't. I in fact myself said several time on these forums that I was very scared of a lepen win.
And I was proven wrong.

> However, back down to earth, among the mere mortals, lots of respected commentators were seriously worried about the outcome. The 2 French expats I know both told me they could see an FN victory.

So was I. And I was proven wrong.

> So yes, with that weight of opinion it seemed scarily close.

Yes it seemed, but it wasn't.

> Remind me , did you actually call the result before hand?As to Le Pen actually being to the left of TM, can you really imagine May spouting off about Muslims and calling for them to be deported en masse as Marine has on many occasions?

Has she ?
I suggest you look at lepen programme on immigration. A lot of the policies either have already been introduced in the UK, or Teresa May wants to introduce them.

But for the most part the U.K. Immigration system already effectively ticks pretty much all the boxes of marine Lepen programme on immigration. The reason we don't have as much of a far right in the UK, is simply because here it's called the right.
Post edited at 23:43
L Stichtplate on 16 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Ok , so the election result was a relief ,but the possibility of an FN victory was scarily close. That was my point. As for how far to the right TM will turn out to be , I'm really not sure, but I imagine we're all going to find out over the next few months.
What I was attempting to get at in the original post was simply that UK parties and the electorate as a whole are less extreme than those on the continent, both now and historically.
...oh, and you get a like for admitting you were wrong about something.
Post edited at 23:45
RomTheBear on 16 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Ok , so the election result was a relief ,but the possibility of an FN victory was scarily close.

It just wasn't close. All the polls were showing this was pretty much a mathematical near impossibility for a year. It just that after the trauma of brexit and Trump nobody wanted to believe it and nobody trusted the data.

> What I was attempting to get at in the original post was simply that UK parties and the electorate as a whole are less extreme than those on the continent, both now and historically....

That, my friend, is just a sweet delusion. The UK electorate and parties are no less extreme than any other European country. It's just that the mainstream parties in the UK would be considered far right anywhere else in the EU.

I'll say again, look at Lepen's programme on immigration. The UK immigration system pretty much does it all already.
Post edited at 23:54
L Stichtplate on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Well I'll just keep my sweet delusions and you can keep your sweet European beacon of hope.
Home in the not too distant past of fascist dictatorships in Germany, Italy , Spain ,Austria ,Hungary , Romania and Greece. Of course many of those countries flipped over to communist dictatorships soon after, so I guess it evens out.

That's the continent for you, a land of moderation.
Britain on the other hand... full of nutters.
Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, Theresa May when she was at the home office introduced changes that effectively make the requirement for citizenship 6 years of permanent for EU citizens, and they have to go through the EEA3 process (a bureaucratic wall) which demands a lot more evidence than the ILR process. Non EU citizens need only to have been in the UK for 5 years and the process is simpler.

Oh Ok, thanks,

It's five years in France, Spain, Italy and Germany, so that extra year could be argued to be a bit of an imposition, but a bit meh....
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Well I'll just keep my sweet delusions and you can keep your sweet European beacon of hope.Home in the not too distant past of fascist dictatorships in Germany, Italy , Spain ,Austria ,Hungary , Romania and Greece. Of course many of those countries flipped over to communist dictatorships soon after, so I guess it evens out.That's the continent for you, a land of moderation.Britain on the other hand... full of nutters.

There is no rules anywhere that Britain is somehow a land of moderation and Europe the land of the fascists. If you think it can happen in the UK then yes you are totally deluded.
Brits are no different from all the others, no better nor worse. We have exactly the same nutters.
As I said before, many of the policies far right parties promote in Europe are a reality over here.
Post edited at 00:22
L Stichtplate on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

The history books don't agree. Maybe check with Ice doctor though , they could all be Tory propaganda I suppose?
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Oh Ok, thanks,It's five years in France, Spain, Italy and Germany, so that extra year could be argued to be a bit of an imposition, but a bit meh....

My fear is that it becomes way worse. There is a big incentive purely for electoral reasons to make sure these 3 millions EU citizens never get to vote. This is enough to lock the tories out of power for a long long time.
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> The history books don't agree. Maybe check with Ice doctor though , they could all be Tory propaganda I suppose?

I suggest you first read the history books before you talk about it, because apparently you haven't.
Post edited at 00:35
L Stichtplate on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Sweet Christ Rom , now , not only are Brits irredeemably right wing but our books are biased too! I really don't know how you've put up with us for so long , and yet you persevere in trying to put us straight. You have the patience of a saint and my personal gratitude.
Night night.

Edit: awww , you've edited out the bit about our books being biased
Post edited at 00:38
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Sweet Christ Rom , now , not only are Brits irredeemably right wing but our books are biased too! I really don't know how you've put up with us for so long , and yet you persevere in trying to put us straight. You have the patience of a saint and my personal gratitude.Night night. Edit: awww , you've edited out the bit about our books being biased

They are. To be fair they all are, anywhere you go in Europe, but the problem is particularly acute in Britain.
I edited as I didn't want to start a tangential argument, but if you drag me into it, no problem, this is very well documented.
Post edited at 00:47
Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> My fear is that it becomes way worse.

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> So I'll take it you have no answer to my question then.

I was pretty clear.
a. We shouldn't leave at all.
b. If we do we should offer every EU citizen legally resident in the UK on the day Article 50 was declared UK citizenship, the only check being they were legally resident on that day.

Yes, you can make all kinds of prejudicial arguments about beggars and fruit pickers or criminals but what's the point. They are already here. The country is not falling apart. Keep it simple and we won't need to hire thousands more home office apparatchiks and more importantly the 99.9% of the 3 million EU citizens who aren't a problem will be made to feel welcome.

The UK would benefit from 3 million generally younger people from countries with written constitutions, proportional representation, no royals and no house of lords having an influence on UK politics. It would help balance out the Tory pensioner march back to the 1950s.




Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I was pretty clear. a. We shouldn't leave at all.

Hard lines on that one.

> b. If we do we should offer every EU citizen legally resident in the UK on the day Article 50 was declared UK citizenship, the only check being they were legally resident on that day.

So, regardless of age, criminal history, skills, education, ability to speak English, willingness to work, housing, effect on schools and hospitals, as long as you're here "from the EU", then you get a free British citizenship and full British rights.

I'm glad people like you are in a minority.



tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

>So, regardless of age, criminal history, skills, education, ability to speak English, willingness to work, housing, effect on schools and hospitals, as long as you're here "from the EU", then you get a free British citizenship and full British rights.I'm glad people like you are in a minority.

We are talking about people who are already here, it is just preserving the status quo. Currently they are here as citizens, why not preserve their status as citizens.

Your position is way far to the right of even the Tories. The Tories are talking about some variant of right to remain. The main difference with offering citizenship is they'd get to vote and be made to feel welcome.

Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


> We are talking about people who are already here, it is just preserving the status quo.

You are talking about granting them extra rights and abilities.

> Currently they are here as citizens, why not preserve their status as citizens.

Currently they are here as visitors.

> Your position is way far to the right of even the Tories. The Tories are talking about some variant of right to remain.

My position is that anyone wanting to remain in the UK should be able to show that they are not criminals, a willingness to participate, contribute and uphold the laws of the land.

> The main difference with offering citizenship is they'd get to vote and be made to feel welcome.

They can be made to feel welcome without granting them the right to vote, and giving full citizenship.
Post edited at 02:10
Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Here are the 6 new requirements to acquire Australian citizenship:

All applicants are required to pass a stand-alone English test, involving reading, writing, listening and speaking;
Applicants are required to have lived in Australia as a permanent resident for at least four years (instead of one year at present);
Citizenship test will be strengthened with new and more meaningful questions that assess an applicant's understanding of - and commitment to - shared values and responsibilities;
Applicants will be required to show the steps they have taken to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community. Examples would include evidence of employment, membership of community organisations and school enrolment for all eligible children.
An applicant can fail the citizenship test only three (at present there is no limit to the number of times an applicant can fail the test);
An automatic fail for applicants will be introduced who cheat during the citizenship test.


Now, what would you object to if the UK were to adopt these criteria?
summo on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> My fear is that it becomes way worse. There is a big incentive purely for electoral reasons to make sure these 3 millions EU citizens never get to vote. This is enough to lock the tories out of power for a long long time.

In the last general election there were more current British citizens who could have voted, but didn't, than the total number of votes any party gained.

What makes you think all 3m would vote and all for the same party?

Many might not want to be British too, they are happy with just a right to reside permanently.
Ridge - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> My fear is that it becomes way worse. There is a big incentive purely for electoral reasons to make sure these 3 millions EU citizens never get to vote. This is enough to lock the tories out of power for a long long time.

Given every party in the UK appears to be somewhere to the right of Golden Dawn, who could they vote for (assuming they're not FN or AfD supporters)? Also, as you seem to think the UK population are about to start wearing Hugo Boss in large numbers, why would any self-respecting EU citizen want to come?

I voted remain, but if things really are so bad here it's perhaps better for you to have left.
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> In the last general election there were more current British citizens who could have voted, but didn't, than the total number of votes any party gained.What makes you think all 3m would vote and all for the same party?

I can tell you already that at 90%+ they won't vote Tory, after what they have done to them

> Many might not want to be British too, they are happy with just a right to reside permanently.

Absolutely.
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Ridge:
> Given every party in the UK appears to be somewhere to the right of Golden Dawn, who could they vote for (assuming they're not FN or AfD supporters)? Also, as you seem to think the UK population are about to start wearing Hugo Boss in large numbers, why would any self-respecting EU citizen want to come?I voted remain, but if things really are so bad here it's perhaps better for you to have left.

No, not the right of golden dawn, the right of the front national. And not every party, the tories more specifically.
If you want to go into policy details I can easily prove it. I'll say it again, check the programme of the Front National in France on immigration, the UK immigration system would tick pretty much all the boxes.

But you are right many self respecting EU citizens will not want to come. That will be even more true for the most educated and skilled coming from Western Europe. Let's check back in a year when we have immigration statistics from the ONS.
Post edited at 08:32
Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I can tell you already that at 90%+ they won't vote Tory, after what they have done to them.

You should get a job with the polling companies, they'd love your crystal ball's accuracy.

RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> You should get a job with the polling companies, they'd love your crystal ball's accuracy

As a matter of fact I did work for one once ;-)
Anyway I suggest you speak to any EU citizens in the UK to know what they think of the tories. I hope you don't mind expletives.
Post edited at 08:54
Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Nah, I'm big enough and ugly enough to take them...
summo on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I can tell you already that at 90%+ they won't vote Tory, after what they have done to them

Of your 90%, I think many would vote lib dem not Labour though. As their policies are more similar to many central Europe nations and Labours current stance and flag waving supporter rallies will sound like an echo of communism to many from former eastern bloc nations.

Votes for lib dems will do little to change the current balance of power unless we see PR and /or a swing back to lib dems, once they've got rid of Tim.

RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to summo:
> Of your 90%, I think many would vote lib dem not Labour though. As their policies are more similar to many central Europe nations and Labours current stance and flag waving supporter rallies will sound like an echo of communism to many from former eastern bloc nations.Votes for lib dems will do little to change the current balance of power unless we see PR and /or a swing back to lib dems, once they've got rid of Tim.

I think at this point most would vote tactically against the tories if they could. But you are right if votes were not tactical most would probably turn to lib dem in England and SNP in Scotland.
Regardless, the tories are likely to be in a very weak situation in 5 years times, as the economy and people suffers the consequences of Brexit. would the tories take the risk of having potentially millions of extra voters who will almost certainly vote against them ? Not sure, I don't really why on earth they would take that risk.
Post edited at 10:15
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Currently they are here as visitors.

Currently they are here as citizens: citizens of the EU exercising their right to live in a member state of the EU. Just like a US citizen from New York can exercise US citizens rights and live in California.

Freedom to live wherever you want in Europe isn't a problem it is what the EU is for. We should feel as proud of our continent as US citizens feel about theirs. Personally, I always feel more at home in Berlin or Paris or Amsterdam than I do in London, part of that is having an EU passport and that's getting stolen from me by a bunch of small minded jerks that choose not to use the opportunities provided to them by the EU.

The point about EU citizens in the UK is they are already here, many of them for years. We aren't talking about immigration rules for new immigrants but imposing new rules after the fact which may result in existing immigrants being deported. There's no point in defining new rules if they don't result in people being deported. It isn't just about the people who are eventually deported it is about the much larger number of people who are put under unreasonable stress and made to feel unwelcome.


Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Currently they are here as citizens: citizens of the EU exercising their right to live in a member state of the EU

This will change, change happens.


> Freedom to live wherever you want in Europe isn't a problem it is what the EU is for.

Which is why some people voted out.

> We should feel as proud of our continent as US citizens feel about theirs.

We should feel as proud of our country as the Europeans and yanks feel about their continents.

> Personally, I always feel more at home in Berlin or Paris or Amsterdam than I do in London, part of that is having an EU passport and that's getting stolen from me by a bunch of small minded jerks that choose not to use the opportunities provided to them by the EU.

Just cannot help yourself can you?


> The point about EU citizens in the UK is they are already here, many of them for years. We aren't talking about immigration rules for new immigrants but imposing new rules after the fact which may result in existing immigrants being deported.

My aunty may grow those testicles.

> There's no point in defining new rules if they don't result in people being deported.

That's a very silly thing to say.

> It isn't just about the people who are eventually deported it is about the much larger number of people who are put under unreasonable stress and made to feel unwelcome.

So what can be done to mitigate that feeling?

summo on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> : citizens of the EU exercising their right to live in a member state of the EU

> . Freedom to live wherever you want in Europe isn't a problem it is what the EU is for.

Neither of these statements are correct. The EU has a migrant workers policy or directive. There are no policies that give EU citizens the right to live where they wish. There is free movement for employment though.
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
What astonishes me is that the more you scratch the surface, the more you realise many brexiteers would not give a single f*ck if EU citizens were discriminated against unreasonably or made to leave, in any case, they probably wouldn't change their votes on that issue. Behind a facade of goodwill lies total indifference.
Post edited at 11:07
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What astonishes me is that the more you scratch the surface, the more you realise many brexiteers would not give a single f*ck if EU citizens were discriminated against unreasonably or made to leave, in any case, they probably wouldn't change their votes on that issue. Behind a facade of goodwill lies total indifference.

I think it is very liberating for a lot of them. They've been wanting to be racists for a long time and now they have found a group of immigrants where they can say what they like without getting called out because there's no religion or skin colour angle.
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> I think it is very liberating for a lot of them. They've been wanting to be racists for a long time and now they have found a group of immigrants where they can say what they like without getting called out because there's no religion or skin colour angle.

I wouldn't say it's racism. it's more of a case of cognitive dissonance and ignorance. The perceptions of the immigration issues are totally disconnected from reality.
My personal experience is that most in the UK are for a tighter immigration policy, but when you show them the fact that many of their colleages/friends/family will be affected, or when their son in law wife is being deported out of the country, then they go "ho no but I didn't mean them, surely it has to be an error". They just wilfully ignore reality to free themselves of the guilt.
Post edited at 11:44
Jim C - on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

As usual I'm a racist, it's getting boring now.
Jim C - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Looks like you are fighting a losing battle. But it's just a poll, there will be another one along soon.

https://www.rt.com/uk/388544-brexit-theresa-may-poll/

"The YouGov poll revealed that 23 percent of respondents – dubbed ‘Re-Leavers’ – voted to Remain, but now appreciate the majority of Britain’s population voted for the UK to leave. Like it or not, they want to see the government accommodate the people’s will.

“The rise of the ‘Re-Leavers’ mean that the Conservatives are fishing in a massive lake, while the other parties are casting their rods into a pond,” the company’s director of international projects, Marcus Roberts, said, according to the Telegraph.

“When discussing Brexit and its implications in the campaign the electorate is not two pools of voters split almost down the middle 52/48.
“It is instead one massive lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and one much smaller Remain pond.”
Post edited at 12:34
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
The problem here is that the tories are seen as the only option.
But imo there is a wide gaping hole in the UK political landscape in the centre. There is still quite a big bulk of people who would like a soft brexit with continued membership of the single market.

It's just a matter of someone with a bit a political talent to seize it.
The inevitable slide in real wages and living standard as a result of brexit makes that even more likely in the years to come. The tories know it, hence why they are doing everything they can to lock themselves into power by any means possible.
Post edited at 13:04
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> Looks like you are fighting a losing battle. But it's just a poll, there will be another one along soon. https://www.rt.com/uk/388544-brexit-theresa-may-poll/"

Isn't that interesting. RT = Russia Today the fake-news agency of the Kremlin that helped Trump get elected. And it is posting pro-Leave stories. I wonder how much Russian help was put behind the Leave campaigns.
Post edited at 15:18
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Isn't that interesting. RT = Russia Today the fake-news agency of the Kremlin that helped Trump get elected. And it is posting pro-Leave stories. I wonder how much Russian help was put behind the Leave campaigns.

I think when it comes to the leave campaign, the Russian didn't have to do much at all, we had enough idiots in the UK to do it, purely for career gain.
Jim C - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I think when it comes to the leave campaign, the Russian didn't have to do much at all, we had enough idiots in the UK to do it, purely for career gain.

Nice to see that you at least is not a conspiracy theorist.

As it happens I do now remember a chap with a Russian accent just before the vote saying to me 'LOOK into my eyes' ;)
Jim C - on 17 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The problem here is that the tories are seen as the only option.But imo there is a wide gaping hole in the UK political landscape in the centre. There is still quite a big bulk of people who would like a soft brexit with continued membership of the single market.It's just a matter of someone with a bit a political talent to seize it. The inevitable slide in real wages and living standard as a result of brexit makes that even more likely in the years to come. The tories know it, hence why they are doing everything they can to lock themselves into power by any means possible.

The argument I heard is that in fact May wants/needs a large majority to help control her Brexiteers and she is then got a better chance of getting a Soft Brexit deal through. If true, then Re-Leavers will/should vote Tory.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> The argument I heard is that in fact May wants/needs a large majority to help control her Brexiteers and she is then got a better chance of getting a Soft Brexit deal through. If true, then Re-Leavers will/should vote Tory.

In other news all the Tories in Scotland should vote SNP because Nicola Sturgeon needs a large majority to help her control the people in her party who want Independence.
Post edited at 17:39
RomTheBear on 17 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> The argument I heard is that in fact May wants/needs a large majority to help control her Brexiteers and she is then got a better chance of getting a Soft Brexit deal through. If true, then Re-Leavers will/should vote Tory.

Absolute bollocks. Teresa May IS the hard brexiteer, mostly because of her stance on immigration.
The reintroduction of the 100,000 net migration target is very revealing.

This is what Osborne had to say about it today ;

"She knows better than almost anyone that net migration — the number of people arriving, minus the number leaving — is not in the gift of government, subject as it is to the vagaries of the world economy. Moreover, this target has a perverse incentive, in that the more people you persuade to emigrate from the UK, the more likely you are to hit it. "

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-it-s-time-to-scrap-the-tory-migra...
Big Ger - on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think it is very liberating for a lot of them. They've been wanting to be racists for a long time and now they have found a group of immigrants where they can say what they like without getting called out because there's no religion or skin colour angle.


There you have it folks, the reason Remain lost, it doesn't take long for them to revert to type. Nothing but insult, slur and hate.

Stereotypical "wasicm" arguments are so last century...
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> There you have it folks, the reason Remain lost, it doesn't take long for them to revert to type. Nothing but insult, slur and hate. Stereotypical "wasicm" arguments are so last century...

Let's look at what you wrote:

"So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?"


L Stichtplate on 17 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I for one can't decide who I hate more ... that pesky race of fruit pickers or that damned race of car washers.
Big Ger - on 18 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Let's look at what you wrote:"So every Romanian beggar on a London street,or anyone drifting about fruit picking or cauli cutting, the guys running a dodgy hand car wash, should be given full British citizenship, just for the asking?"

Yes, what is wrong with that?

Are there no Romanian beggars in London?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/romanian-beggars-flooding-london-7675625.html

Are there no itinerant fruit pickers?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fruit-pickers-the-money-we-earn-is-not-worth-getting-...


Dodgy car washers?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/11/dirty-dealings-how-car-wash-became-hub-human-tr...

I insulted no one, you on the other hand.....


RomTheBear on 18 May 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> The argument I heard is that in fact May wants/needs a large majority to help control her Brexiteers and she is then got a better chance of getting a Soft Brexit deal through. If true, then Re-Leavers will/should vote Tory.

"The big message on Brexit of May's programme for government is that the principles she listed in her Lancaster House speech for exiting the EU - no future role for the European Court of Justice in Britain, departure from the single market and customs union, and control of immigration - will not be modified in any way.

It may well be seen as a rebuke to pro-European Tories not to expect a more understanding hearing from her if she increases the Tory majority in the way opinion polls suggest she will."

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-17/tory-manifesto-for-hard-brexit-and-tighter-immigration-controls/

Seems to me she's going to use her majority for a hard brexit.
Big Ger - on 18 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Seems to me she's going to use her majority for a hard brexit.

That should go in the "Brexit, Good News!" thread, shouldn't it?

;-)

RomTheBear on 18 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> That should go in the "Brexit, Good News!" thread, shouldn't it?;-)

No, it's bad news, especially for businesses and people with foreign family members.
Big Ger - on 18 May 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

It. Was. A. Joke. Rom.
L Stichtplate on 18 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> It. Was. A. Joke. Rom.

I'm starting to think Rom might actually be some dastardly EU funded chat bot.
Ramblin dave - on 18 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> There you have it folks, the reason Remain lost, it doesn't take long for them to revert to type. Nothing but insult, slur and hate.

I think they're just speaking their minds honestly and not worrying about offending the politically correct sensibilities of special snowflakes. You know, like Nigel Farage does. You were all in favour of that, weren't you?
Big Ger - on 18 May 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I think they're just speaking their minds honestly and not worrying about offending the politically correct sensibilities of special snowflakes. You know, like Nigel Farage does. You were all in favour of that, weren't you?

Was I? I don't think you'll find me having posted anything which would support your assertion.

But don't let that stop you....

Postmanpat on 18 May 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I think they're just speaking their minds honestly
>
Christ, and they think the brexiters are a burger short of a happy meal.
L Stichtplate on 18 May 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I think they're just speaking their minds honestly and not worrying about offending the politically correct sensibilities of special snowflakes.

Hmmm....

"It's just that the mainstream parties in the UK would be considered far right anywhere else in the EU."
RomTheBear. This thread ,Tuesday 23:51

How's that for extremist?

RomTheBear on 11:26 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Hmmm...."It's just that the mainstream parties in the UK would be considered far right anywhere else in the EU."RomTheBear. This thread ,Tuesday 23:51How's that for extremist?

Not extremist, true. As I said again, check the immigration policy of marine lepen and the immigration policy of the UK. It's pretty much aligned.
If you want me to go point by point I will.
Post edited at 11:27
RomTheBear on 11:28 Thu
In reply to Big Ger:

> It. Was. A. Joke. Rom.

A joke is supposed to be funny.
L Stichtplate on 14:05 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

So , you're really going to maintain that Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron lead parties that would be considered far right in the EU?

Seriously Rom, does your carer know you have access to the internet?
RomTheBear on 14:20 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
> So , you're really going to maintain that Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron lead parties that would be considered far right in the EU?

I was obviously referring to the Tory party, I had added this precision in the next post, but anyway.

> Seriously Rom, does your carer know you have access to the internet?

I see you're not interested in having a rational argument and instead resort to slurs. Very typical pattern may I say.
I guess you've still not bothered comparing FN immigration programme with the Tory immigration policy as I had suggested. Ho well, I guess ignorance is bliss.
Post edited at 14:26
L Stichtplate on 15:06 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

No Rom, it wasn't at all obvious that you were referring to the Tories. In your original post you wrote "the mainstream parties", not the Tory party. You then reaffirmed this view in your subsequent post.

If you provide evidence of my pattern of slurs that has so offended you ,I will happily apologise.
RomTheBear on 17:23 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
> No Rom, it wasn't at all obvious that you were referring to the Tories. In your original post you wrote "the mainstream parties", not the Tory party. You then reaffirmed this view in your subsequent post

I've said :"No, not the right of golden dawn, the right of the front national. And not every party, the tories more specifically"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Now that this is cleared up, do you agree that the conservatives policies on immigration and the EU would put them at the far right elsewhere in western Europe ? If not, why ?

> If you provide evidence of my pattern of slurs that has so offended you ,I will happily apologise.

I'm not offended, just exasperated, you don't seem to want to engage rationally. It seems to be more and more the norm on these forums.
Post edited at 17:34
L Stichtplate on 18:07 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't see the immigration policy as right wing, I see it as increasingly harsh in response to over a decade of immigration which has been the equivalent of dumping a city the size of Newcastle into a country as densely populated as England, year in year out.
On another note , I find myself increasingly exasperated by your attitudes. You continually express your displeasure at the right wing bias of the UK's people, policies, politics and even books.
All fair enough, I suppose. But then, as a French national who has spent 12 years in the Uk you decide to leave. I would have expected you to return to the bosom of your beloved EU. But no, you go to the western sovereign base area of Cyprus, a British overseas territory.
When your attitudes and actions are completely at odds it's called hypocrisy.
Wanderer100 - on 19:15 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
Cyprus is an independent republic state and has been since 1960. It is not a British overseas territory.
Oops. Akrotiri and Dhekelia are British territory. My apologies!
Post edited at 19:35
RomTheBear on 19:39 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
> I don't see the immigration policy as right wing, I see it as increasingly harsh in response to over a decade of immigration which has been the equivalent of dumping a city the size of Newcastle into a country as densely populated as England, year in year out.On another note , I find myself increasingly exasperated by your attitudes. You continually express your displeasure at the right wing bias of the UK's people, policies, politics and even books.

That you compeltely made up. I specifically said that there is huge gap in the political landscape at the centre left and the centre right. Unfortunately the country has been hijacked by a extreme Brexit Tory party that has become, in policy terms, a far right party.

> ll fair enough, I suppose. But then, as a French national who has spent 12 years in the Uk you decide to leave. I would have expected you to return to the bosom of your beloved EU.

I am in the EU.

> But no, you go to the western sovereign base area of Cyprus, a British overseas territory.When your attitudes and actions are completely at odds it's called hypocrisy.

It's not a British overseas territory, it's a sovereign base area. I live on the sovereign base area simply because this is where my Cypriot wife and her family lived for generations. There are Brits living there but you rarely see them, they don't speak Greek and don't mingle with the local population.

I note that you keep going on with your personal attacks based on my personal situation of which you know f*ck all about, and still refuse to discuss the actual policies with reasoned arguments. Typical.
Post edited at 19:42
L Stichtplate on 19:47 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:
The reasoned argument bit is in the first paragraph . I'm sorry you see the rest as a personal attack. I see it as pointing out your seeming distaste at Uk policies at the same time as choosing to live under their umbrella and eschewing the 26 other possibilities that you profess to find more appealing.

Edit: there's an easy solution to my lack of knowledge about you and your personal situation. Stick up a mugshot and some info on your profile. Or are you one of those people happier shrieking their views from behind a mask of anonymity?
Post edited at 19:53
Wanderer100 - on 19:56 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

Akrotiri and Dhekelia is a British overseas territory.
It is administered as a sovereign base area, home to the British forces Cyprus and managed by the MOD.
RomTheBear on 20:32 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
> The reasoned argument bit is in the first paragraph .

That was not a reasoned argument.

> I'm sorry you see the rest as a personal attack.

It is one.

> I see it as pointing out your seeming distaste at Uk policies at the same time as choosing to live under their umbrella and eschewing the 26 other possibilities that you profess to find more appealing.Edit: there's an easy solution to my lack of knowledge about you and your personal situation. Stick up a mugshot and some info on your profile. Or are you one of those people happier shrieking their views from behind a mask of anonymity?

There is no UK umbrella, I just happen to live on a military area which extends miles and engulf Cypriot towns, which were there well before the Brits came. UK policies don't apply to cypriots living there, we pay taxes in Cyprus and don't get anything from the British state whatsoever. We don't know what's going to happen in the future, they may end up kicking all the cypriots out, as they've done before, who the fuck knows.
Post edited at 20:57
L Stichtplate on 20:55 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:
> There is no UK umbrella, I just happen to live on a military area which extends miles and engulf Cypriot towns, which were there well before the Brits came.

Implying that the Brits* that live there aren't real Cypriots they're just incomers. Yet if I was ignorant enough to reverse this and insist that a Cypriot who had lived in this country for years wasn't a real Briton , then I'm sure you'd be among the first to jump down my throat.
As I said, hypocrisy.

* British soldiers died there defending Greek Cypriots, and you continue to enjoy their protection. For an island so close to so many existing and potential war zones ,I would have thought you'd be grateful for the protection Britain is providing for you and your family?
Post edited at 21:09
RomTheBear on 21:07 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Implying that the Brits* that live there aren't real Cypriots they're just incomers.

Well yes they aren't Cypriots. Fort the most part they are British military or people working on the base.
As far as I can tell they seem to make no effort to even learn Greek or integrate, they live in enclaves, apart from a few exceptions. It doesn't bother me nor does it bother the locals. But no they can't call themselves Cypriots, not that it matters.

> Yet if I was ignorant enough to reverse this and insist that a Cypriot who had lived in this country for years wasn't a real Briton , then I'm sure you'd be among the first to jump down my throat.

Absolutely not, you can live in the UK for years and decide to not become British. That is absolutely fine in my book. You're just making stuff up frankly. Citizenship is not residence, it's a process and it's also in the heart.

> * British soldiers died there defending Greek Cypriots, and you continue to enjoy their protection.

Yes, they also kicked my wife's grandmother and grandfather out of their home and deprived them of their land and livelihoods. They eventually returned in their homes, with the other villagers, even though they were not supposed to, and they were left alone since. Nowadays there are bilateral agreements, but still, only those with a family link to the village can settle there.
A weird legal situation which is likely to be made worse by brexit, we'll see.
Post edited at 21:19
L Stichtplate on 21:19 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, they also kicked out my wife's grandmother and grandfather of their home and deprived them of their land and livelihoods. They eventually returned in their homes, with the other villager

Given a choice between being permanently deprived of my life or temporarily deprived of land and livelihood , I know what I'd take. What's more I'd be eternally grateful to those putting their lives on the line to give me that option.
RomTheBear on 21:28 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Given a choice between being permanently deprived of my life or temporarily deprived of land and livelihood , I know what I'd take. What's more I'd be eternally grateful to those putting their lives on the line to give me that option.

Another perfect example of a totally biased (or in this case, just wrong) knowledge of your own history.
L Stichtplate on 21:32 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Another perfect example of a totally biased (or in this case, just wrong) knowledge of your own history.

That isn't history, that is me expressing a preference. Do I need to explain the difference?
RomTheBear on 21:40 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:

> That isn't history, that is me expressing a preference. Do I need to explain the difference?

You're expressing your preference on something that has just not happened. British soldiers died fighting Greek Cypriots, not defending them. But anyway.
L Stichtplate on 22:01 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

I was referring more to Britain freeing Cyprus from Ottoman rule during WWI . But after reading loads of your posts I'm sure you'd prefer to be ruled by those liberal Turks than us right wing Brits. But hey what do I know, I'm pig ignorant.
RomTheBear on 22:24 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:
> I was referring more to Britain freeing Cyprus from Ottoman rule during WWI . But after reading loads of your posts I'm sure you'd prefer to be ruled by those liberal Turks than us right wing Brits. But hey what do I know, I'm pig ignorant.

Sorry but this is laughable. Where did you learn that Britain "freed" Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire ? Gosh this is worse than I thought...

Unless if by "freeing" you mean "annexing" and "military occupying".

May I remind you that Cyprus was ceded to Britain in the first place in exchange of supporting the Ottoman Empire against Russia, just because it was a convenient location to control the Suez Canal. Worse, they made the Cypriots pay heavy taxes to pay the Turks for having ceded the Island to Britain , and of course the Cypriots had no say whatsoever on the administration of the Island.

The sad thing is that your embellished and chauvinistic version of our country's history is so laughable that you actually end up undermining its very real positive achievements.
Post edited at 22:39
L Stichtplate on 22:43 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:
Cyprus was only a British protectorate i.e. Still Turkish ,until it was annexed by the British empire in 1914.
Ask any Armenian whether they'd prefer to be a Christian subject under Turkey or under the Crown.
You'll probably have to ask an American Armenian as there don't seem to be that many Turkish ones left. Something about a genocide broadly during the timeframe we're discussing.

Oh, and Britain offered Greece Cyprus, but they didn't want it. But why pass up on the opportunity to paint Britain as the bad guy , eh Rom. ;-)
Post edited at 22:44
Big Ger - on 23:31 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

> A joke is supposed to be funny.

A sense of humour would be needed to make that judgement...
Lusk - on 23:48 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

I know you think I'm an ignorant pleb, so I'm not expecting a positive reply to this ...
Are you a fabulously intelligent and well informed person or do you spend inordinate amounts of time researching your responses on this forum?
It seems to me, that you have to 'win' your discussions at all costs. Fair enough, I suppose, serious topics, but it's the complete lack of humour, not the merest flicker that gets me.
Timmd on 01:29 Fri
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Hmmm...."It's just that the mainstream parties in the UK would be considered far right anywhere else in the EU."RomTheBear. This thread ,Tuesday 23:51How's that for extremist?

I've heard people from Nordic countries saying Jeremny Corbyn wouldn't be seen as 'far left' in their own democracies, like he's painted to be by some here in the UK.
L Stichtplate on 05:27 Fri
In reply to Timmd:

Never mind that guff , I was half serious and half just winding Rom up . (sorry Rom, you just get my back up for some reason).

... now , have you decided to get a cat to defend your garden for you?
RomTheBear on 06:14 Fri
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Cyprus was only a British protectorate i.e. Still Turkish ,until it was annexed by the British empire in 1914.

Yes, I've just explained that.

> Oh, and Britain offered Greece Cyprus, but they didn't want it. But why pass up on the opportunity to paint Britain as the bad guy , eh Rom. ;-)

Hum how to say, it's false ?

L Stichtplate on 06:20 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Yes, I've just explained that. Hum how to say, it's false ?

Morning Rom. Have another quick google. As far as I can be bothered to look, it's true.

Edit: have you ever been to a pantomime? We could do this for quite a while you know.
Post edited at 06:24
Big Ger - on 06:23 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

On the subject of Greece...

> All 153 lawmakers in Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras' governing coalition backed the legislation that includes new pension cuts and lower tax breaks, which are expected to save Greece 4.9 billion euros ($5.4 billion) until 2021. All opposition lawmakers present in the 300-seat chamber rejected the package required by international lenders before the release of more aid.

> Parliament's near-midnight vote followed a second day of trade-union-led protests on Thursday, when at least 10,000 people demonstrated outside parliament. Masked youths broke away from an otherwise peaceful crowd and threw petrol bombs at riot police, who responded with tear gas. Protests in Athens and Thessaloniki had also accompanied a general strike on Wednesday.
Big Ger - on 06:25 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> However, Cyprus' status as a protectorate of the British Empire ended in 1914 when the Ottoman Empire declared war against the Triple Entente powers, which included Great Britain. Cyprus was then annexed by the British Empire on 5 November 1914. During the course of the First World War Britain offered to cede Cyprus to Greece if they would fulfill treaty obligations to attack Bulgaria, but Greece declined.

RomTheBear on 06:32 Fri
In reply to Timmd:

> I've heard people from Nordic countries saying Jeremny Corbyn wouldn't be seen as 'far left' in their own democracies, like he's painted to be by some here in the UK.

In many policy areas Corbyn would be at the right of Merkel, for example.
The problem here is that the political split is often defined as left/right when in fact it is best described nowadays as a 4 way split, between two axis of social openness/closedness and economic Socialism/liberalism.
RomTheBear on 06:41 Fri
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Morning Rom. Have another quick google. As far as I can be bothered to look, it's true.Edit: have you ever been to a pantomime? We could do this for quite a while you know.

No it's not, never the Brits offered the Cypriots to join Greece, on the contrary they opposed every demand of enosis against international pressure, the drama is that they ended up turning the Turkish Cypriot community against the Greek Cypriot community, which so far had lived in relative harmony.

If you are refferring to the proposed cession of Cyprus to Greece in exchange of Greece going to war with Bulgaria, this was no more than a political stunt, which had nothing to do with the Cypriot demands.
Post edited at 06:45
RomTheBear on 06:46 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm not sure I see how this relates to the topic ? we're sufficiently off-topic to throw random stuff in there i guess...
Post edited at 06:47
Big Ger - on 06:47 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

It doesn't, but seeing as Greece was under discussion.

Oh, and that whole Grexit thing...
L Stichtplate on 06:49 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If you are refferring to the proposed cession of Cyprus to Greece in exchange of Greece going to war with Bulgaria, this was no more than a political stunt, which had nothing to do with the Cypriot demands.

Oh no it wasn't
RomTheBear on 07:06 Fri
In reply to Stichtplate:
> Oh no it wasn't

You need to remove those rose tinted glasses.
The sad thing is that your rather ignorant revisionism ends up undermining all the good things the British brought to Cyprus despite everything else.
Post edited at 07:14
RomTheBear on 07:07 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:

> It doesn't, but seeing as Greece was under discussion.Oh, and that whole Grexit thing...

Ok but sorry I'm not too sure what the point you are trying to convey is.
Big Ger - on 07:16 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

The point is.....


RomTheBear on 07:45 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:

> The point is.....

What is it ?
L Stichtplate on 07:48 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You need to remove those rose tinted glasses.

Oh no I don't

john arran - on 07:49 Fri
In reply to Big Ger:

Are you trying to make a point or, as usual, trying to score one. Either way it doesn't seem to be working.
L Stichtplate on 08:14 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You need to remove those rose tinted glasses.The sad thing is that your rather ignorant revisionism ends up undermining all the good things the British brought to Cyprus despite everything else.

Rom you really need to get a grip , we're just a couple of prats having an argument on an obscure forum. There is no way on gods earth that my "ignorant revisionism" is undermining anything apart from your ability to enjoy your breakfast.
summo on 08:33 Fri
In reply to Timmd:
> I've heard people from Nordic countries saying Jeremny Corbyn wouldn't be seen as 'far left' in their own democracies, like he's painted to be by some here in the UK.

He would a little, there are things he describes which would fit in here, but many things he wouldn't like too. The good bits are funded here by slightly higher taxes individually and much higher taxes from employers, which are often reflected in the price of goods, which everyone buys.

There is a stronger work ethic than the uk; unemployment benefits dropped massively after 9mths of claiming. It is an insurance scheme in the true sense, you pay in, you claim a fixed amount, and you can't claim the full amount again until you've been back in work for 12 mths.

The threshold for zero rate tax is roughly £1500 after which you are pay 31-33%, plus any other add ons. Even after that you'll still pay to see a doctor or go to hospital.

Vat is higher, again everyone pays.

Utilities cost more, because of energy tax and fixed connection fees. Even if I turn the trip switch off our monthly bill would still be at least £40 just for being connected.

Militarily Sweden is more right than Corbyn. There is growing demand to join nato. Plus the military is starting to grow again as they see increase threats from countries like Russia.

There are many good things here that Labour might like, but they are all costed and funded. The rich pay more tax, but crucially so does everyone else. Corbyns problem is he is trying to tell people they can have the services akin to a high tax society, whilst only paying low tax. He is neither left or right of Nordic society, he's is just in the land of make believe. 40years of listening to himself, but never learning from others.
Post edited at 08:34
RomTheBear on 08:43 Fri
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Rom you really need to get a grip , we're just a couple of prats having an argument on an obscure forum. There is no way on gods earth that my "ignorant revisionism" is undermining anything apart from your ability to enjoy your breakfast.

He yes, your undermining your own understanding of the history and achievements of your own country by clinging to myths. As I said, it's a bit sad, but certainly won't stop me enjoying me breakfast, that, my friend, is sacred ;-)

RomTheBear on 08:52 Fri
In reply to Lusk:
> I know you think I'm an ignorant pleb, so I'm not expecting a positive reply to this ... Are you a fabulously intelligent and well informed person or do you spend inordinate amounts of time researching your responses on this forum?

No I just participate only on few topics where I have some knowledge and interest in the subject matter. I'm mostly on immigration and Europe related threads.

> It seems to me, that you have to 'win' your discussions at all costs. Fair enough, I suppose, serious topics, but it's the complete lack of humour, not the merest flicker that gets me.

I've been on these forums long enough to know that you never "win" or "lose". Occasionally you learn something new or refine your understanding, that's the only gain.
Post edited at 09:01
Scotch Bingington - on 16:00 Fri
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No it's not, never the Brits offered the Cypriots to join Greece, on the contrary they opposed every demand of enosis against international pressure, the drama is that they ended up turning the Turkish Cypriot community against the Greek Cypriot community

Do you not think that GC demands of enosis might have had just a little to do with turning the TCs against the GCs? It was certainly the main catalyst for 1974.
L Stichtplate on 17:11 Fri
In reply to Scotch Bingington:

> Do you not think that GC demands of enosis might have had just a little to do with turning the TCs against the GCs? It was certainly the main catalyst for 1974.

Nah... haven't you been paying attention to Rom?
It was all Britain's fault. All of it. Any other interpretation is a myth. Or the result of reading our biased British books.
RomTheBear on 17:32 Fri
In reply to Scotch Bingington:
> Do you not think that GC demands of enosis might have had just a little to do with turning the TCs against the GCs? It was certainly the main catalyst for 1974.

Yes, of course, but the two communities did not have any real issues with each others before the 1950s, they had lived together peacefully for centuries.

The repeated rejections of the demand for self determination created the situation. The british colonial power deliberately put the Turkish Cypriots against the Greek Cypriots in order to stifle demands for self determination, in particular by conscripting Turkish Cypriots to fight the Greek Cypriots.

The whole history of Cyprus is quite interesting, it's basically a long series of botched interference by foreign powers.
Post edited at 17:45
Big Ger - on 00:11 Sat
In reply to john arran:

> Are you trying to make a point or, as usual, trying to score one. Either way it doesn't seem to be working.

I wasn't trying to do either.

I posted a bit about the strife in Greece, seeing as before Brexit, Grexit was all the rage in discussion here. It didn't seem worth starting a new thread on it, and this was the latest thread which mentioned the place.

The first mention of Greece in this thread was from T-i-E, last monday;

> I think we are falling into the same trap as when the Greeks elected Varoufakis et al thinking that if they put in a hardline government they would negotiate some sort of super deal with the EU. Not going to happen.

You should go ask him why he introduced Greece into this thread....
Yanis Nayu - on 09:18 Sat
In reply to Jim C:

What makes TM such a great negotiator?

If you look at the evidence objectively and beyond the Daily Mail headlines, she is untrustworthy, unable to communicate on a human level with people, unwilling to debate her views, unable to withstand challenge and totally dogmatic.

Not I would suggest great qualities for someone negotiating from a weaker position.

Remember that we're not in a great negotiating position. Guess who sad this:

“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets."

“Given that British exports in goods and services to countries outside the EU are rising, one can hardly argue that the EU prevents this from happening. Leaving the EU, on the other hand, might make it considerably harder.”

“The EU trade deals Britain has been driving… would be in danger of collapse. And while we could certainly negotiate our own trade agreements, there would be no guarantee that they would be on terms as good as those we enjoy now.

“There would also be a considerable opportunity cost given the need to replace the existing agreements – not least with the EU itself – that we would have torn up as a consequence of our departure.”

“If we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade.”
Postmanpat on 09:22 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> What makes TM such a great negotiator?
>
Not much (apart from being strong and stable).

But we can trust Jezzer because (as he tells us) he negotiated the Irish peace settlement, and of course we can leave Diane Abbott to look after the numbers
Scotch Bingington - on 10:40 Sat
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, of course, but the two communities did not have any real issues with each others before the 1950s, they had lived together peacefully for centuries.The repeated rejections of the demand for self determination created the situation. The british colonial power deliberately put the Turkish Cypriots against the Greek Cypriots in order to stifle demands for self determination, in particular by conscripting Turkish Cypriots to fight the Greek Cypriots.The whole history of Cyprus is quite interesting, it's basically a long series of botched interference by foreign powers.

Thanks - but I'm not entirely ignorant of Cyprus history (having had close ties to the island for a fair few years). I think your summation of the origins of the "Cyprus problem" are somewhat simplified, and probably draw on sources mostly drawn from one side of the issue.

Anyhoos - get out climbing much now that you are over here (what with this being a climbing web-site, and there being some pretty decent climbing on the island)?
Yanis Nayu - on 11:28 Sat
In reply to Postmanpat:

At least Corbyn understood the need for dialogue. Not much progress was made with peace while Thatcher was in charge, which was great for making us look hard, not so great at preventing people dying.
RomTheBear on 12:08 Sat
In reply to Scotch Bingington:
> Thanks - but I'm not entirely ignorant of Cyprus history (having had close ties to the island for a fair few years). I think your summation of the origins of the "Cyprus problem" are somewhat simplified, and probably draw on sources mostly drawn from one side of the issue.

It wasn't intended to be a summation of the origin of the Cyprus problem at all. The Turkish invasion and the current partition of the island is almost a whole different topic altogether.
I was simply pointing out that the British colonial power was instrumental in the development of separate Turkish and Greek Cypriot identity at first (a classic case of a strategy that backfired), and also in the escalation of violence that ensued. This is well documented by academics of all sides.

> Anyhoos - get out climbing much now that you are over here (what with this being a climbing web-site, and there being some pretty decent climbing on the island)?

Yes ! I have to say not even remotely as much good climbing as in Scotland, but largely compensated by near guaranteed fine weather ;-)
Post edited at 12:18
Wanderer100 - on 12:17 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> At least Corbyn understood the need for dialogue. Not much progress was made with peace while Thatcher was in charge, which was great for making us look hard, not so great at preventing people dying.

What an ignorant statement to make.
Have you forgotten that the IRA tried to blow up the front bench of the British government and very nearly succeeded. I suppose you applauded that act of terrorism and happily accepted the murdering IRA leaders into the political mainstream. Corbyn will never be forgiven by tens of thousands of ex servicemen who served in Northern Ireland for his collusion with terrorists and murderers and his pathetic self serving attempts at acting as a self appointed British representative whilst making absolutely zero contribution towards the peace process. Me and many thousands of others witnessed the random violence meted out on a daily basis in the name of the Irish Republicans and Corbyn will be forever tainted by his treasonous sympathy.
Yanis Nayu - on 12:43 Sat
In reply to Wanderer100:

And how did that all come to an end?
Postmanpat on 13:31 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> At least Corbyn understood the need for dialogue.
>
Nonsense. Talking to your allies and condemning your enemy is not evidence of understanding the need for dialogue.
L Stichtplate on 13:40 Sat
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I was simply pointing out that the British colonial power was instrumental in the development of separate Turkish and Greek Cypriot identity

What absolute twaddle. A cursory acquaintance with logic and reasoning would insist that if no separate identity existed before the advent of British rule, then the two peoples would have inter married and any distinction disappeared.
To then separate them would be as likely as the Normans invading, and then parting the Angles from the Saxons.
You really are quite deranged in your bias against Britain and our history.
Post edited at 13:43
Yanis Nayu - on 14:03 Sat
In reply to Postmanpat:
So did the Peace process come about because of:

A) People on opposite sides talking to each other

or

B) People on opposite sides retaining their entrenched positions?

Anyway, what fo you think May has done, or what characteristics does she possess to justify her self-proclaimed (or rather Dacre-proclaimed) position as Brexit negotiator-in- chief?
Post edited at 14:03
Postmanpat on 14:33 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> So did the Peace process come about because of:A) People on opposite sides talking to each otheror

A) Which Corbyn had precisely nothing to do with. Indeed he voted against the 1985 agreement, and his sidekick McDonnell was still condemning the peace process as late as 1998.

They were and are useful idiots at best, but probably much worse.


As for May, er, she's PM. That makes her the head negotiator doesn't it?


Incidentally, I'm going to reintroduce the "Daily Mail rule" which states that any person who resorts to referring to the Daily Mail to make a point forfeits the argument. So you are now disqualified
Post edited at 14:49
Yanis Nayu - on 14:51 Sat
In reply to Postmanpat:

You can reintroduce it all you like, May does what Dacre wants, so it's not only relevant but important to bring it up.
Yanis Nayu - on 14:52 Sat
In reply to Postmanpat:

You're still ducking the original question by the way?
Postmanpat on 15:01 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> You can reintroduce it all you like, May does what Dacre wants, so it's not only relevant but important to bring it up.

Your evidence for this?

Postmanpat on 15:03 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> You're still ducking the original question by the way?

I'm not a big fan of May. Steady under pressure and politically quite astute domestically but massively overhyped. In the land of the blind the one eyed man, or woman, is King, or Queen.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15:11 Sat
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > Not much (apart from being strong and stable). But we can trust Jezzer because (as he tells us) he negotiated the Irish peace settlement, and of course we can leave Diane Abbott to look after the numbers

Yes, we could trust Jezza or the Lib Dem guy because we don't need a 'great negotiator' we need someone who is willing to get realistic and either forget the whole thing or at least stay in the EEA.

This is an interesting analysis showing just how stupid the whole Empire 2.0 plan for a hard Brexit is.
https://europaunited.eu/2017/05/20/how-viable-is-britains-second-empire/

Key points:

The UK does more trade with the Netherlands than the whole of the Commonwealth.

The EU has free trade deals with 18 Commonwealth countries another 14 are signed and a few more under negotiation. We are proposing starting from zero to negotiate deals from scratch when at the point we leave we would have deals with 40 out of 45 Commonwealth countries by staying in the EU. It isn't Australia or Canada we are getting held back from trading with by being members of the EU it the bankrupt dictatorships on the edge of getting kicked out the Commonwealth for human rights violations.

Germany exports far more to India than the UK - there is no 'special relationship' which makes Commonwealth countries want to trade with the UK more than they want to trade with the EU. In fact the UK's history with these countries is often not exactly positive e.g. military backing for East India Company, Opium wars, tobacco/slave trade, suppression of independence movements.

Postmanpat on 15:23 Sat
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Yes, we could trust Jezza or the Lib Dem guy because we don't need a 'great negotiator' we need someone who is willing to get realistic and either forget the whole thing or at least stay in the EEA.
>
Or move a few ministries to Scotland. That should crack it, if they can get past the border stasi
Yanis Nayu - on 15:28 Sat
In reply to PostmanPat:

This is quite illuminating:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/14/is-paul-dacre-most-dangerous-man-in-britain-daily-mail

"The resultant reporting of the coronation of the prime minister will make interesting reading for future historians. In her first speeches and exchanges May seemed at pains to strike a consensual, inclusive, rational note in the difficult times ahead. The Mail, which had argued her to power, was from the beginning having none of that. Reading its front pages now, you see how they are marshalled to invent her as a leader of apparently unrestrained ferocity toward her opponents. The slightly nervy vicar’s daughter was to become Boudicca. For the first month of her tenure there was not a mention of May without a kind of Bring Up the Bodies menace. She was warlike: three times in August alone, the Mail had her and her Brexit army “on the march” in headlines. She was responsible for “savage blood letting” and all sorts of “first blood”; by September she was pictured telling “top brass to stop hounding our soldiers”. She never appeared in the Mail’s pages without some kind of attendant threat. An editorial celebrated her “steel toe-capped determination to carry out the will of the people”. Her rise was contrasted on the 13 September with a front page that Dacre appears to have long imagined, but clearly relished: “The crushing of David Cameron.”"

She's like a blank canvas on which Dacre can paint. I think her refusal to condemn the legs picture on the front page of the Mail was telling.
L Stichtplate on 15:30 Sat
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Germany exports far more to India than the UK - there is no 'special relationship' which makes Commonwealth countries want to trade with the UK more than they want to trade with the EU. In fact the UK's history with these countries is often not exactly positive e.g. military backing for East India Company, Opium wars, tobacco/slave trade, suppression of independence movements.

Of course, Germany's history with its major trading partners is exemplary. LOL.
Yanis Nayu - on 15:33 Sat
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'm not a big fan of May. Steady under pressure and politically quite astute domestically but massively overhyped. In the land of the blind the one eyed man, or woman, is King, or Queen.

Fair enough. Not sure about steady under pressure though. I don't think we've seen her under real pressure, and when she's challenged she gets very snarky and aggressive. It comes across as insecurity to me.
Postmanpat on 15:42 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Fair enough. Not sure about steady under pressure though. I don't think we've seen her under real pressure, and when she's challenged she gets very snarky and aggressive. It comes across as insecurity to me.

I was thinking of her run ins with the EU courts and the US on extradition but I tknow what you mean. Her lack of transparency doesn't suggest a woman who is confident of her views or quick on her feet.
Postmanpat on 15:47 Sat
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
>
I think her refusal to condemn the legs picture on the front page of the Mail was telling.
>

I don't. I think it shows that she knows most people aren't very impressed by the politically correct crap of the picture's critics.

Clearly Dacre likes her as he could never like Cameron, and they share a number of things like a shoulder chip about the Hooray set and a certain parochialism, but there is no evidence that they have some sort of Blair/Murdoch relationship.
Post edited at 15:48

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.