Britain's Brexit plans unlikely to be slowed by Article 50 defeat

[7by7]

9 hours ago, jpinx said:

Brexit means an independent UK, no more silly EU laws that really do not apply in UK, and which cut across the UK cultures

 

Which EU laws would that be?

[jpinx]

25 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Which EU laws would that be?

I asked before which UK laws would be immediately affected by UK giving EU their notice to quit , but no-one was able to answer that either.

 

[7by7]

33 minutes ago, jpinx said:

I asked before which UK laws would be immediately affected by UK giving EU their notice to quit , but no-one was able to answer that either.

 

 I think you've misunderstood me; that's not what I meant.

 

You said "no more silly EU laws that really do not apply in UK, and which cut across the UK cultures."

 

So I meant which EU laws are not applicable to the UK and cut across UK culture?

[jpinx]

Where to start?  How about the EU laws that force UK to accept incoming labour ?

[7by7]

9 hours ago, jpinx said:

Where to start?  How about the EU laws that force UK to accept incoming labour ?

How does that "not apply in the UK" and "cut across the UK cultures?" The UK not only accepted immigrant labour long before we joined what is now the EU, it actively recruited it!

 

For example London Transport directly recruiting people in the West Indies in the 1950s.

 

Plus, of course, the Freedom of Movement Directive does not 'force' the UK government nor any UK employer to accept immigrant labour from the EEA; it simply means that EEA nationals have the freedom to work, and seek work, in all other EEA member states. A freedom many British people exercise.

 

 

[Richard W]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Plus, of course, the Freedom of Movement Directive does not 'force' the UK government nor any UK employer to accept immigrant labour from the EEA; it simply means that EEA nationals have the freedom to work, and seek work, in all other EEA member states. A freedom many British people exercise.

 

 

I don't believe the British Equality Act and related legislation is necessary to oblige the UK government to accept EEA nationals in many civil service posts.  The directive removes the most obvious impediment, but either the treaty directly or another directive prevents unjustified discrimination by the government.

On 24/01/2017 at 1:20 PM, 7by7 said:

All this talk from Miller and her associates that only Parliament can remove the rights granted British citizens due to EU membership may be true; but irrelevant to triggering Article 50. Those rights were enshrined in UK law by various Acts of Parliament. Triggering Article 50, even leaving the EU with hardest of hard Brexits, will not remove those rights; they will still be part of UK law whatever happens. Parliament granted those rights, only Parliament can remove them.

 

Except, of course, the freedom of movement rights currently enjoyed by British nationals in other EEA member states.

Perhaps it is an unwelcome right, but the effective right of a British citizen child to live in the UK derives from the EU treaty.  This is how a daughter-in-law of Abu Hamza was able to stay in the UK, rather  leave with her British citizen child.  Surinder Singh rights also derive from EU law - though perhaps you will argue that they apply to the non-British family members.

[7by7]

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

20 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Plus, of course, the Freedom of Movement Directive does not 'force' the UK government nor any UK employer to accept immigrant labour from the EEA; it simply means that EEA nationals have the freedom to work, and seek work, in all other EEA member states. A freedom many British people exercise.

I don't believe the British Equality Act and related legislation is necessary to oblige the UK government to accept EEA nationals in many civil service posts.  The directive removes the most obvious impediment, but either the treaty directly or another directive prevents unjustified discrimination by the government.

 

Not sure what you are getting at, Richard; not even sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me!

 

In the UK it is illegal for an employer, or anyone,  to discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics; one of which is nationality.

 

But, of course, this does not mean a UK employer must employ immigrant labour; it simply means that they cannot refuse employment to someone purely because that person is an immigrant.

 

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

Perhaps it is an unwelcome right, but the effective right of a British citizen child to live in the UK derives from the EU treaty.  This is how a daughter-in-law of Abu Hamza was able to stay in the UK, rather  leave with her British citizen child.  Surinder Singh rights also derive from EU law - though perhaps you will argue that they apply to the non-British family members.

 

Surely the right of a British child to live in the UK is nothing to do with the EU, but is because they are British!

 

If, however, you are talking about Zambrano then yes, like Surinder Singh that derives from a ruling by the ECJ.

 

But the family life as a parent route to settlement is part of the UK's immigration rules  which, as you know, are set by the UK parliament,  not the EEA regulations.

 

You brought her up, so tell us; which route did Abu Hamza's daughter in law use to remain in the UK with her British children?

 

 

[jpinx]

23 hours ago, 7by7 said:

How does that "not apply in the UK" and "cut across the UK cultures?" The UK not only accepted immigrant labour long before we joined what is now the EU, it actively recruited it!

 

For example London Transport directly recruiting people in the West Indies in the 1950s.

 

Plus, of course, the Freedom of Movement Directive does not 'force' the UK government nor any UK employer to accept immigrant labour from the EEA; it simply means that EEA nationals have the freedom to work, and seek work, in all other EEA member states. A freedom many British people exercise.

 

 

You miss the point.  That was a different situation altogether,.  Now anyone from EU can get on a plane to UK and be employed immediately, without control.  The employer can pay that person a very low wage, lower than the local cost-of-living.  This is the issue the Dutch minister was referring to recently.

[dick dasterdly]

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

How does that "not apply in the UK" and "cut across the UK cultures?" The UK not only accepted immigrant labour long before we joined what is now the EU, it actively recruited it!

 

For example London Transport directly recruiting people in the West Indies in the 1950s.

 

Plus, of course, the Freedom of Movement Directive does not 'force' the UK government nor any UK employer to accept immigrant labour from the EEA; it simply means that EEA nationals have the freedom to work, and seek work, in all other EEA member states. A freedom many British people exercise.

 

 

Agree entirely about immigrant labour being directly recruited many decades ago.  It resulted in some irrational race hate that had largely been overcome.

 

There's a HUGE difference though compared to the current situation where impoverished EU countries are allowed to freely seek work in the UK - which is partially responsible for the stagnation of wages at the bottom of the pyramid, which has continued upwards.  But not for those at the top of course.

[Richard W]

49 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Not sure what you are getting at, Richard; not even sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me!

 

In the UK it is illegal for an employer, or anyone,  to discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics; one of which is nationality.

 

But, of course, this does not mean a UK employer must employ immigrant labour; it simply means that they cannot refuse employment to someone purely because that person is an immigrant.

There may have been a relaxation, but on p6 of the Essex constabulary's recruitment pack there is a requirement to be a British Citizen or citizen of a country that is a member of the European Economic Area.  So far as I am aware, Section 6 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 is still in diluted force.  The section reads, "After the passing of this Act no alien shall be appointed to any office or place in the Civil Service of the State".  The get-out clause in the Equality Act 2010 is Schedule 22 Section 5, which allows the Crown and public bodies to restrict employment on the basis of "rules restricting to persons of particular birth, nationality, descent or residence".

 

The original dilution of Section 6 arises from EU (probably originally EEC) law.

 

Surely the right of a British child to live in the UK is nothing to do with the EU, but is because they are British!

 

If, however, you are talking about Zambrano then yes, like Surinder Singh that derives from a ruling by the ECJ.

 

But the family life as a parent route to settlement is part of the UK's immigration rules  which, as you know, are set by the UK parliament,  not the EEA regulations.

 

You brought her up, so tell us; which route did Abu Hamza's daughter in law use to remain in the UK with her British children?

 

 

 

Alas, all I have on her case is press reports, e.g. 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/13/uk-can-decide-whether-to-deport-abu-hamza-relative-eu-court-says

, which make it less  clear what the ultimate outcome is.  However, it's fairly clear that she was using the derivative right of residence, whose details are based on court judgements rather than the freedom of movement directive itself.  The key point is that the matter was dependent on ECJ rulings or opinions.

 

I don't know what has happened to the father (prison?), but I'm pretty sure the British child is 'expected' to leave if the mother does.  That's why I referred to the  'effective right'.

[Grouse]

On 25/01/2017 at 7:26 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Sturgeon's only agenda item is Scottish Independence, with herself as leader. She represents one area within the UK which has 7-8% of the total UK population.

The small Scottish population enjoys a very high proportional representation at Westminster with over 50 MP's. They also have a devolved local government that enjoys significant powers - although many criticize their performance and lack of focus on what is their responsibility.

 

It's not so long ago Sturgeon claimed she had the power to veto Brexit (claiming May told her this when they first met), then implied an independent Scotland could remain in the EU when the EU leadership stated the opposite; constantly demands things she wants but  refuses to respect the previous referendum result and generally tries to cause as much disruption and divisiveness as she can. She whined about not being included and informed when it's nothing to do with her and she's shown many times she lies and can't be trusted.

 

Many Scots see through her and are embarrassed about her antics. 

8% of 650 = 52

 

Not close enough for you?

 

If the Scots feel ignored by Westminster, there WILL be trouble....