Im not sure you can deport eu citizens that easily unless they are involved in crime. I have come across this situation in real life.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Why the feck would you be trying to deport an EU Citizen if they weren't involved in crime?
You can ask an EU citizen to leave after they have become a burden to the government and dont have a job.
In the UK, you can claim benefits after 3 months and if you haven't found a job another 3 months later you can be asked to leave.
Obviously there are a crazy number or flaws in this
I dont know if Belgium deports eu citz that easily, but its possible
I know that France and Belgium do it all the time and the reason is often as simple as unemployment, NGOs complain about it though.
A mate of mine was threatened with it for claiming dole money while out of work
Some here might find the following funny, frightening, depressing or all of those things..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iteer-argument-call-in-standoff-a7835011.html
"Three Thirds of the world".
What do they say about debating with idiots...
I'm not sure that's legal, would like to hear about examples or read about them on the net
UK's stance
5 years – 10 years when the UK can deport individuals for serious reasons of public policy and public security
It's legal, what is illegal is to make it systematic. According to EU laws, it should be done case by case and people should be given time to find a new job but from the moment you are elligible to benefits a country can expel you. Also, if I'm not mistaken it only applies for people that have spent less than 5 years in the country because after that you are a long term resident and have the same right than any other long term resident.
Well my German mate had worked 5 years in Holland and made a claim for benefit after redundancy. Cameron is / was talking about rocking up without a job and making a claim I believe which is something I totally agree with. IMO you should not be allowed to move somewhere and claim a penny without having worked.
Exactly, the threat of deportation was done to spook him off claiming
People are actually expelled, they receive their expulsion notification. It's not just a threat to spook them off.
Based on what?
Based on the numerous reports since 2008. It was a big subject in Belgium a few years ago.
I have seen several reports like this in the last 6-7 years:http://www.euronews.com/2016/03/11/belgium-says-jobless-europeans-not-welcome
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sit...tial-principles-financial_settlement_en_0.pdf
Q: Are you saying that as long as the UK does not accept it has financial obligations, you won’t talk about anything else?
Barnier answers with a single word, in English: Yes.
Q: Are you saying that as long as the UK does not accept it has financial obligations, you won’t talk about anything else?
Barnier answers with a single word, in English: Yes.
James O'Brien was definitely over selling the deporting EU Citizens bit slightly, but the take away is, we've always had the chance to tighten immigration. We just never have done.
Did anyone ask him how much the EU is asking for?
Belgium alleged actions or that I give credits to such reports? In France we do it for Roms and I have heard about other Europeans being expelled but I believe that we are more lenient.
Think Davis will find out next week when he goes through it line by line
So no then.
We have this demand that we say you must agree to pay before we discuss anything else but we do not know how much the demand is for yet.
Why are discussions taking so long to get started, doesn't the UK realise it takes a long time to do these deals.
So no then.
We have this demand that we say you must agree to pay before we discuss anything else but we do not know how much the demand is for yet.
Why are discussions taking so long to get started, doesn't the UK realise it takes a long time to do these deals.
The actual number isn't mentioned but here you have the EU opinion on what and for how long the UK should contribute.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pub...-essential-principles-financial-settlement_en
PS: With the general tone of the thread, I feel the need to say that I'm just sharing the information.
It is meaningless without numbers though, isn't it?
No, because normally the UK Exchequer knows exactly how much it represents, the question is do the UK agrees with it or do they think that some elements shouldn't be paid for?
Though obviously for you and I it's a bit more complicated to have an idea about the actual amount without one of the sides telling us.
So why aren't the numbers in there then given the UK and Brussels already know them?
Honestly I'm not sure. My guess is that since we are talking about several dozens of different obligations it's best to not put them in a package until both sides agree on what should be in the said package. They referenced them individually in the annexes.
In this case though, with the EU making it a deal breaker, agree or we don't negotiate on anything else, it is very strange that they don't want to put supposedly obvious numbers next to the supposedly obvious boxes.
At issue here is whether we even take another step or blow the whole negotiation. It is going to be contentious whatever numbers they ask for.I guess I'm hoping they are not stupid enough to get the UK populous behind a no deal Brexit by asking for the moon on a stick.
At issue here is whether we even take another step or blow the whole negotiation. It is going to be contentious whatever numbers they ask for.I guess I'm hoping they are not stupid enough to get the UK populous behind a no deal Brexit by asking for the moon on a stick.
So no then.
We have this demand that we say you must agree to pay before we discuss anything else but we do not know how much the demand is for yet.
Why are discussions taking so long to get started, doesn't the UK realise it takes a long time to do these deals.
I'm sure both the EU and the UK know what the amounts are, it depends on what they agree to pay out of the pages of items listed.
Months ago the EU said they wanted the UK to agree in principle to pay their dues, not an exact fee nor to paid immediately.
The delays come because idiots like Boris start posturing saying they are not going to pay anything.
Already the UK have lost nearly 4 months because of the elections and stupid posturing.
If they don't get down to discussing and agreeing the financial obligations , the EU & UK citizens status and the Irish border question in the next set of talks then time will run out before anything is agreed.
If I'm not mistaken the deal breaker is on the UK potentially not respecting their obligations and recognizing their existence which any honest person would agree on, particularly when the UK are supposed to benefit from them until the end of the current period even when they leave.
The problem in all that is that the press tried to create an hostile atmosphere with the various numbers that they threw out and the exit "bill" that isn't one, then a couple of UK's official talked about not respecting those obligations and Juncker acted like the prick that he is.
In theory both side know what is supposed to be paid since they already agreed on it when they created the current budget, now they just need to formally agree on it and call it a single settlement.
Hopefully both sides will act like grown ups.
I see your point but we aren't the ones saying we won't talk about it along with everything else, the EU is. Two sides and all that.
Again though without numbers it's meaningless, the current budget runs to 2020. the UK contribution is 10 billion a year if the EU asks for 100 billion I can't see us staying at the table for very long as there is no political leader left in the UK who could carry the country to accepting anywhere near that amount.
Are you willing to have a guess as to how much the EU will ask for?
I don't know how much the EU owes to the UK so I'm not able to give you a meaningful number but for fun I would say 50Bn.
Correct explanation, the 'exit fee' will be mostly what the UK would have been paying anyway if we weren't leaving. It's just a winding down of obligations rather than a total cut-off on an exact date. The same goes for contributions to pensions, the UK would still have to pay for accruals so far if we remained. Exit fee is just a misleading term.
‘Brexit is dying’ and is in ‘terrible trouble’, says former Tory MP
http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/13/brexi...terrible-trouble-says-former-tory-mp-6775680/
http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/13/brexi...terrible-trouble-says-former-tory-mp-6775680/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40593588
Regarding Euratam David Davies compared the UK position to a game between Manchester United and Real Madrid. I wonder why the EU would accept this 'association' agreement with the UK at all. It will soon be a third party country. Let them sort these things by themselves.
Regarding Euratam David Davies compared the UK position to a game between Manchester United and Real Madrid. I wonder why the EU would accept this 'association' agreement with the UK at all. It will soon be a third party country. Let them sort these things by themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/14/brexit-eu-referendum
Interesting take on the whole mess, even if I disagree with his conclusion that it must go ahead. In my opinion, it is worth enduring some potentially unpleasant political fallout to avoid this tragedy/farce.
Interesting take on the whole mess, even if I disagree with his conclusion that it must go ahead. In my opinion, it is worth enduring some potentially unpleasant political fallout to avoid this tragedy/farce.
Most MP's were anti-Brexit prior to EU referendum election. However, our preoccupation with the democratic process has shifted our focus away from the requirement of doing right for the country. The sooner we realise our mistake, the better.
Only a complete capitulation by the rest of the EU can possibly save hard Brexit now.
"Yes, please have all the benefits of membership and don't think about putting your hands in your pockets or having to abide by the rules"
Wouldn't be shocked if the end 'deal' is nothing more than an agreement to continue indefinitely with current arrangements with an agreement to look again at negotiations to leave within an undefined timescale.
"Yes, please have all the benefits of membership and don't think about putting your hands in your pockets or having to abide by the rules"
Wouldn't be shocked if the end 'deal' is nothing more than an agreement to continue indefinitely with current arrangements with an agreement to look again at negotiations to leave within an undefined timescale.
If it's indeed a terrible idea, why does it have to happen?
The vote was advisory.
And why on earth would the EU accept such incertainity?