It's not like I don't think there is good cause to distrust the British government. That doesn't mean though that the right to stay was not obvious. No judge could uphold those rubbish rejections.Originally Posted by Aimless
It's not like I don't think there is good cause to distrust the British government. That doesn't mean though that the right to stay was not obvious. No judge could uphold those rubbish rejections.
Last edited by Hazir; 04-26-2017 at 11:13 PM.
Congratulations America
The British government has consistently said that we want a reciprocal deal. Can you see anyone saying anything to the contrary?
It was a conscious policy choice made by the conservative government. No matter how hard you try, we know what you plastered on vehicles before you put that humongous lie on the side of a double decker bus.
You lot make a mess of everything you touch and then start blaming the fallout on others.
There is no excuse whatsoever for a government agency sending a letter to a person stating the exact opposite of his actual rights under the law.
Congratulations America
Actions speak louder than words.
Congratulations America
Yes and our actions include: offering a reciprocal deal to be completed before Article 50 is invoked so people aren't used as pawns (an offer that was rejected), offering a reciprocal deal in our formal invocation document etc, etc, etc
What action has there been that was "a result of govt. policy" (Aimless's words) that means that these people are losing right to remain?
It a government agency issues a decision you can't make it go away with a statement on a website. Applying the law in these cases means applying EU law, not some chickenshit UK circular.
Congratulations America
Correct, if a decision had been made to deport people then you would be right but it had not. Learn some actual facts for a change
Unlike Brits I am not used to a government being totally incompetent. The fact that you can't deport someone doesn't mean you can send them official decisions that they have to leave. Especially not if those decisions are in total disregard for the actual law applicable.Correct, if a decision had been made to deport people then you would be right but it had not. Learn some actual facts for a change
Congratulations America
Lucky that's not happened then. Find me anyone who has been given an official decision to leave and telling them a date they have to leave by.
What actually happened is that those who sought a visa were advised pro forma that since their visa was denied they should now prepare to leave but that was not a final decision, there was no leave date set and they were advised that was not the case as soon as it came to light.
In a much more interesting developement; it seems that there is talk about turning the 73 seats the UK will have to vacate on Brexit into a federal constituency. Appearantly that is an easier solution than redistribut the seats or abolish them alltogether.
Congratulations America
The real story, as opposed to Randblade's alternative 'facts' http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7708536.html
Congratulations America
What facts that are there contradict what I have written?
Like her contention that it is a matter of "common decency" to reassure those who are here that they can stay. I agree, as did my government, unfortunately it was your side that lacked the common decency to agree as well. Nevermind, once it is resolved then we can give those reassurances but I'm glad my government is sticking up for its own citizens here since you guys want to use them as pawns and not agree an early solution.
Rubbish; we don't need such legislation because we already have it in the directive about longterm residents from third countries. We are not going to change that into something worse because airheads like you thought you can fly if you jump off a cliff and voted accordingly.
Congratulations America
Please show me anything in law that states that long term residents without a permanent residency visa can stay permanently, I will apologise for incorrectly assuming you need a permanent residency visa or equivalent in order to do so.
See the third scenario in this post for one analysis:
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.se/201...es-if.html?m=1
Although this may touch on a topic that Hazir works with, I am confident his characterization is an oversimplification of what things really would be like for British expats in the EU, at least so much of an oversimplification that many Brits in other EU countries would in reality be justified in having a similar reaction to brexit as non-British EU-citizens in the UK had.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Read the directive. It's available in English and quite readable. The requirement is legal residency. A EU citizen has to really try hard to be an illegal alien.
Congratulations America
No link. According to the link Aimless gave:
1: A long term resident doesn't automatically gain permanent residency, they can apply for it (same as those who live in the UK are applying for it).
2: There are terms and conditions to it like "integration" rules about speaking the local language etc - rules that are not presently the case and pensioners for instance may not meet.
3: Current rules guaranteeing pensions etc would not apply.
Etc - so not the same thing.
EU nationals automatically gain the right to permanent residency in many EU countries after residing there continuously for a number of years but may be required to apply for documents that confirm that right. However the question is whether or not many British residents of other EU countries would end up being treated the same way as other non-EU citizens. For those who have already acquired permanent residency rights under EU law things may be reasonably safe but for those who aren't quite there yet and especially those who may not get there in time things are very uncertain. In most countries you can apply for permanent residency even if you haven't lived there for the full five years but it's unclear what guidance the various immigration authorities have received wrt such applications from British expats.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What most people don't know is that there is actually a difference between residency rights on the basis of EU law and on the basis of national law. Even though Randblade technically is right that residency needs to be applied for, the grounds for rejection are severely limited. All kinds of requirements that can be put in your way on the basis of national law are swiped aside by this directive. Pretty much anybody who lived in the EU long enough automatically is entitled to longterm resident status.
Congratulations America
So there shouldn't be much standing in the way of your agreeing the reciprocal agreement we want.
Since you don't have this generosity, the ball is on your side to come up with an equivalent.
Congratulations America
It's not a generosity. Especially since it has major restrictions. Eg to even be eligible you need to have been resident for five years. Free movement applies until our final day of membership it didn't end three years ago.
So everybody who lived in the EU on the day of Brexit then already has at least 2 years under the belt. If you suggest to waive the entire 5 year period for all residents I am confident that would be agreed in a new york minute. But are you willing to drop all your bureaucratic hurdles?
Congratulations America
The 5 year period is neither here nor there, it is a straw man you are bringing up. People who've moved under free movement had that right to move on day one not day 1,827. I'm suggesting we agree a deal honouring all commitments made to people who have exercised their rights whether it was yesterday, last year or in the 1990s.
It's your government demanding of people proof of every move they made over decades in the process of applying for residency. It's really time you start to wake up and smell the coffee Randy; the only way the UK is exceptional, is in its dishonest way of dealing with reality.
Congratulations America
A requirement that those who come in from traditional non-EU means are required to follow and informed on arrival that they're required to follow. Same as the requirement to acquire private medical insurance as opposed to relying upon the NHS - those that come in from traditional non-EU means and wish to acquire permanent residency are informed from the beginning that it is a legal requirement. The problem is that people who came in via free movement are then seeking non-free movement permanent residency and being informed of a load of pre-existing conditions that they didn't know about because they came in via free movement. No shit Sherlock, you didn't know as this system wasn't designed for you.
The solution is to agree a deal to provide certainty for those who travelled via free movement rather than seeking to make those who moved via free movement fit into pre-existing non-free movement boxes.
You seem to forget that the day the UK leaves the EU, you are third country citizens. Also, the health insurance is a standing requirement in the UK regulations.
Congratulations America
Not sure what you mean about them health insurance. It is a requirement for third party citizens but not EU ones AFAIK.
As for forgetting the day we leave etc no I'm not. That's the whole bleeding point and why we need to sort this out before then. If that wasn't the case there'd be nothing to sort out.
Oh well, with your PM living in Lala land it doesn't look there will be any deal at all. Have fun picking up the pieces. It will be interesting to see who is interested in ever working with you again.
Congratulations America
You would be justified in thinking so because that would be the intuitively sensible as well as legal scenario, but, as is so often the case, they like to do things in a particularly crazy way in the UK.
The UK maintains that many EU citizens residing in the UK must have comprehensive sickness insurance for the duration of their stay if they wish to obtain permanent residency--even though they're allowed to use the NHS. They've been under investigation for years now for this violation of the freedom of movement directives and the case is ongoing.
More info here:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release....htm?locale=en
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote