.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
11 hours ago, Xircal said:
Sorry cant open link, it is my understanding the UK opted out Germanys quota system when they enacted the soveriegnty.
Taken from Hansard the UK minister gives the impression Dublin is still in operation
' In this context, it is worth noting that the Commission has been very clear today that, should we not opt into the revised Dublin regulations, the existing regulations will continue to apply between the UK and other member states, As such, there is no risk that we would lose our existing powers to return people to other EU member states—powers that we have used nearly 12,000 times since 2005. '
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-05-04/debates/16050454000002/DublinSystemAsylum
-
55 minutes ago, Xircal said:
The very odd thing about all this is that Britain is under no obligation whatsoever to take in any of these so called 'children' even if they have a relative living in the UK. That's clearly stated in the EU site which deals with family reunification: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/legal-migration/family-reunification/index_en.htm
It was also discussed in September last year when David Cameron used Britain's opt out to block redistribution of Syrian refugees: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2015/9/9/eu-unveils-quota-plan-for-europes-stranded-syrian-refugees
So why on earth the UK would feel duty bound to start accepting these ex-jungle individuals is perplexing.
Article 8 of the Dublin III convention ,
-
4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
And it has to be noted that the legal representatives of the plaintiff tried to make a big issue out of a non-issue.
The claimant was a British national living in France with a Canadian spouse, ( therefore all the procedures for actually getting there have been fulfilled), the claim is that the non EU spouse residency is dependent upon the British nationals EU citizenship, which parliament cannot guarantee without a third party.
-
3 hours ago, Khun Han said:
No, Robin, the British national has to get their spouse to the other member state in the first place. Which is no mean feat because the Schengen Zone doesn't allow free movement of British citizens' non EU family members. The requirement for a visa has been almost universally enforced. This has been the subject of much argument and challenge, but no Schengen Zone country has budged an inch. Try taking a non-EU family member on a quick booze cruise across the Channel if you're in, or will be in the UK. Your trip will be very short: So short, in fact, that you won't even make it to the ferry.
The point being, of course, that the number of Brits living in other EU countries with non EU family members is miniscule. And most of them are living there through the arrangments that I explained in an earlier post.
Khun Han , lets put our differences aside , the court has been in session again this morning and the gov. response was that freedom of movement wasnt an EU law.
-
41 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
No, it's not straightforward, Robin. A British national trying to take a non-EU citizen to another EU state without a Schengen or other valid visa would be refused entry (or, rather the non-EU citizen would be) because the UK isn't a part of the Schengen area. There are a miniscule number of Brits who can get around this such as those the ancestry from another EU country who can claim citizenship of that country, but they won't be affected by brexit. Though I'm not sure how people using the Ireland route for this will be affected.
We are talking about British national already present in another member state
The right of all Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States should, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of freedom and dignity, be also granted to their family members, irrespective of nationality. For the purposes of this Directive, the definition of "family member" should also include the registered partner if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnership as equivalent to marriage
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004L0038
-
44 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
I do wish you'd explain your position properly Robin. So now you're referring to Brit expats with non-Brit partners, yes?
Can you be more specific? In view of the Schengen rules, this particular grouping must be miniscule, and needs bringing to the attention of the government if it hasn't already.
The position is straightforward and as no bearing on the Shenghen rules.
Consider a British national married to non EU citizen who has exercised their right under the freedom of movement to establish themselves in another member state, such as France. The non EU spouse right to reside is gained from the British national EU citizenship.
This right will be removed and the government cannot reinstate unilaterally.
-
15 hours ago, Xircal said:
Nothing new there. The European Court of Justice already mandated in September 2015 that EU migrants can be refused welfare in any EU state and not just Germany until they've been resident in the country for five years. It also applies to the UK while the country remains an EU member state.
7 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:That word can again. Well tell that to the UK people who see EU citizens and others claiming welfare and getting housing, often ahead of them. It is this reason amongst others that really irritates people ,as their fathers and forefathers have paid into a system that others are clearly manipulating and benefiting from.
But you are missing the point, the ability to refuse EU migrants welfare exists, if national governments fail to exercise that power it is their failure and not the EU
-
13 hours ago, Khun Han said:
The notion that the government will hang all it's EU expats out to dry on a technicality is just preposterous. All it proves is that some remainers will say (or get their legal representatives to say) absolutely anything if they think it will generate a bit of scaremongering.
I dont think scaremongering is correct, the British government will remove some rights that cannot be reinstated by parliament. Expats in EU and the right of non eu spouses derives from eu citizenship
-
13 minutes ago, SgtRock said:
Strange how Germany can do what it wants especially when it goes against EU rules.
I am positive that Camoron got sent packing with his tail between his legs when he made the same proposal at his resolute failure at EU negotiations in February.
From your link
The law would not exclude EU citizens currently in employment from entitlement to welfare payments, or those who have rights to payments because they have worked.
Nahles said: “What’s clear is that those who live, work and pay their contributions have a legal right to benefits from our social welfare system. But for those who have never worked here and are dependent on state financial support in order to afford the basic costs of living, the principle applies that they can apply for those means in their own country.”
D Cameron was to exclude workers from beneffits
-
7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
So you're referring to European expats in the UK?
Thats my understanding. I am not agreeing or disagreeing. The court is in progress, and government started defense
Original post corrected and reason stated
-
Just now, Khun Han said:
The notion that the government will hang all it's EU expats out to dry on a technicality is just preposterous. All it proves is that some remainers will say (or get their legal representatives to say) absolutely anything if they think it will generate a bit of scaremongering.
Sorry , correction required , the submission was EEA nationals lose right to remain therefor government criminalizing a group
-
Interesting argument made this morning, potentially EEA nationals become criminals due to article 50
-
On 10/16/2016 at 9:16 PM, Khun Han said:
Then it'd be back to court again, surely?
It would weaken the lead claimants case , the issue of Article 50 removes rights. The parallel claims would still be needed to be won by the government For going back to court , I dont think that would be the case, the executive could trigger Art 50 and put the final deal to parliament.
-
38 minutes ago, halloween said:
From your own post "..... on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1......"
Any M.E. citizen/resident entering the UK from France to seek asylum is doing so illegally.
Regarding the legality it is found , Art 31 of the 1951 convention.
Coming directly from , is how to interpret, in a narrow sense or wider.
Take for example a train journey where you start A and travel to destination B , if there is no stops or changes en route then that is narrow definition of direct. However consider if a change of trains is required at point C, does this still fulfill the definition of direct. The answer lies in the travelers objectives and actions, if their purpose is to go from A to B and only purpose is to change trains at C, then his journey is direct with C being a point of transit. However if they voluntarily stop off and spend time at point C, their journey has been interrupted.
Asylum seekers setting off from ME with sole purpose of seeking refuge in the UK can argue that they are transiting through countries.
This defense will be examined and tested by the recipient country
-
1 minute ago, i claudius said:
Yes very nice,but its about immigrants from India,Poland and China,don't get many of those in the camps at Calais , don't bother replying ,you lot will twist anything ,go hug Lilly Allan ,it might stop her crying
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/professional-refugees-lawyers-doctors-minimum-wage-uk
-
9 minutes ago, elliss said:
Parents living in the UK ,
and in receipt of benefits handouts , are in a position to take care of them , really .
Stop benefits asap , then immigrants would not want to live in UK .
A lot of assumptions, maybe the parents are working
UK professes to be a world leader with a proud history of fighting persecution and providing safe haven for the most vulnerable
-
51 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
We're going round in circles now Robin. The cases were bundled into one, with Miller as the plaintiff.
By the way, just so that there is no misunderstanding as to why she brought this case:
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN10119V
Which contradicts what her brief told the court.
And, from the same article, the example of an abusive email she showed Reuters:
"You are obviously a devious lady"
I think the ROFLMAO smiley is unneccesary for the above.
Whatever the claimants motive, we are where we are.
Going back to the case one issue that could effect if and when parliament needs to approve
Could the executive unilaterally reverse the notice.
-
3 hours ago, JB300 said:
Thanks for the link, Very interesting.
My situation is that I was in a final salary scheme (contracted out of SERPS) for 20 years, a couple of years in a Defined Contribution scheme (again pretty sure I was contracted out), own business for a couple of years (no contributions, paid myself minimum wage) & have been working overseas for the last 8 years so my state pension estimate is approx £2k per year.
As I'm 50 I could pay 23 years (6 back dated & 17 until I'm 67), type 2 contributions (living & working overseas) but is it worth it & would my previous (contracted out) contributions count towards the 35 years?
Have a seperate question for anybody who's receiving pension from a final salary scheme, mine says it reduces by the state pension when it kicks in so if I were to make additional payments would I just end up with the same amount & the pension company would be pocketing the extra state pension?
The final salary scheme reducing by the amount of state pension does not seem right, whilst contracted out you are still contributing to the basic state pension. Some schemes when taking benefits from DB pensions give the option of level payment, you take a higher amount from the DB untill reaching state pension age at which point it drops with the state pension making up shortfall.
The contracted out years do count towards the state pension.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
But she didn't say that did she? You're just trying to be tricky.
Apologies Khun Han , think I understand.
It is my understanding that initially a group of people including Miller were bringing a challenge under Mischon, now Miller is the only name.
The other claimants are separate challenges using different QC and law firms being heard at the same time.
I can only presume due to the court comments that the abuse allegation had some substance.
If persons withdrew or didnt come forward for other reasons I dont know.
-
3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
You're quite right that you're failing to see my point. Miller said that everbody else backed away from putting their name forward because of personal abuse. But that's not the case, is it?
The abuses directed at Mishcon de Raya claimants were discussed between QC and Sir Brian Leveson.
Miller is the only Name that appears for Mishcon de Reya ,
-
6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Donald Tusk is hardly going to say "Make a list of what you want, and we'll do our best to help." Leading up to this major negotiation, is he?
GSK is a British-based multinational which talked about reducing it's investments in the UK pre-referendum, and is now upping it's investments instead, along with many other major businesses. Keep coming up with excuses as to why each of these companies are doing this, it doesn't matter, and the excuses start to get contradictory. The fact is, they're doing it, and the economy is only going to improve as a result.
-
25 minutes ago, Xircal said:
The problem at the moment is nobody knows what kind of deal Britain will get. Donald Tusk who will preside over all the Brexit negotiations has already stated that Britain is either in or out meaning that unless its prepared to accept free movement of people, it will mean the latter: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hard-brexit-no-latest-soft-eu-referendum-donald-tusk-theresa-may-britain-a7360406.html
Now if you consider that the EU is a market 1½ times bigger than the US it's not difficult to envisage that if Britain refuses the accept the terms the EU will be offering which includes the above mentioned point then it's going to mean a complete divorce. If that's the way it ends up then being excluded from a market of 500 million consumers won't fare wel with investors since exports will be subject to punitive tariffs and mountains of red tape.
You mentioned GSK, but that's already a British company so it's logical to assume that they'll continue to invest in their own organisation. But how they'll fare when exports to the EU are subject to 10% import duty which will hit profits is difficult to say at the moment. Same goes for everyone else.
The logical conclusion is if Nissan have a deal the exit strategy is known
-
27 minutes ago, Khun Han said:I will repeat what Gina Miller said because you failed to address the dishonesty in it:"I'm the only named client now but originally I wasn't the only one and the other people whose names were listed as clients received unbelievably vile abuse."
I fail to understand your point, and the assertion of Gina Millers dishonesty. I will have to confirm but it is my understanding the abuse was brought to the attention of the court first hearing.
Some additional info
' The court said this has deferred would-be claimants from bringing actions and, in fact, may amount to contempt of court and certainly amounted to criminal behaviour. '
-
On 10/14/2016 at 4:06 PM, Johnniey said:
I got good news today from HM Revenue and Customs.
I made an inquiry 6 years ago and was told I could pay back 6 years at about GBP 700 a year. I chose not to.
I made more inquiries recently and they sent me a letter saying I qualify for voluntary Class 2 contributions. Also I can pay back 10 years at about GBP 140 a year! great news. Then I can pay for the next 10 years to get the full pension for paying 30 years.
One thing they didn't tell me was where to send it to and how. Does anyone know?
Anyway, 1500 quid for 10 years is a lot better than 7000, so I chuffed today!
30 yrs would equate to the pre single tier pension
Vote to ratify Brexit deal 'very likely', says Downing Street
in World News
Posted
It was included in the government defense at the High Court yesterday that parliament would have to ratify the agreement, when asked what happens if parliament did not ratify , the response government was of opinion this unlikely.
Personally, if parliament declined to ratify then I would think government would have little choice but to use the exceptional circumstance clause to enforce the agreement.