Federal Europe is a central belief to the EU it is not an ideology held only by a wacky few on the fringe.
Consent of all members......Lisbon treaty shows how that can be circumnavigated
United States of Europe by 2025
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
- Status
Federal Europe is a central belief to the EU it is not an ideology held only by a wacky few on the fringe.
Consent of all members......Lisbon treaty shows how that can be circumnavigated
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
I am not a defender of the EU but some of the issues you bring up are of the UK own making.
We can get rid of criminals - we simply have chosen not to as we didnt have proper exit and entry controls. There are cases where lawyers as is their remit will try any excuse in court to get their client off including ludicrous claims but they have not worked - judges are not stupid.
Benefit scroungers - not sure exactly what you mean by this. Universal Credit is no walk in the park.
Schools and Infrastructure -these have been stretched due to Austerity cuts and idiotic policies like Give Free Schools where money is pumped into Academies who are sitting on millions. Again this is a real issue but its one created by ourselves.
You hit the nail on the head - our Government policies require migration - we cut bursaries to Nurses, we charge the highest tuition fees (NAO report today says if Universities were banks they would be sued for miss selling).
But migration control has always been under our control.
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/
Your issues as the EU expansion and federalisation are way stronger arguments than those concerning schools, immigrations etc because those are ones you can put at the foot of Government.
Ive always thought that to be the height of madness. Surely it would be best to pay tuition fees for some subjects like Nursing, medicine etc.
Instead we pay recruitment teams to go to Spain to try and encourage nurses to work in the UK -it makes no sense at all.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
Actually it costs more to hire the staff on short term contracts from abroad. Also thank god the NHS Agency responsible for Agency staff was not privatised. It would have been sold at a knockdown prices to some Private Equity house only to be flipped a few years down the line like NHS Blood Plasma sold to Bain Capital for £230m in 2013 and sold it on for £820m to a Chinese company in 2016.
http://nhap.org/nha-issues-warning-about-selling-nhs-blood-plasma-supplier-to-chinese-company-creat/
Its now simply selling off the silver to your friends - we could call it corruption anywhere else.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,606
- Reaction score
- 550
- Country
Someone made this point in a discussion and if it transpires to be correct - this is ironic.
EU citizens within the UK will have more rights than UK citizens as they will still be able to appeal to the ECJ which UK citizens will not be able to as we will not technically be in the ECJ.
EU citizens within the UK will have more rights than UK citizens as they will still be able to appeal to the ECJ which UK citizens will not be able to as we will not technically be in the ECJ.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Is that your opinion? Or do you have anything to support your belief?
The Magna Carta shows how capitalism can be imposed on serfs.
Comments like that mean zilch.
D
Doggit
So very True.
UC isn't a walk in the park, but EU immigrants are entitled to it, just as the home grown scroungers are. In Germany, you can't get benefits until you've paid into the system, and if we were the same, then I think we wouldn't have so many trying to get here.
Austerity is only part of the problem. There are schools in Kent where the majority are now immigrants, and that requires more resources to support them till they learn English. Totally agree with you on Cleggs free schools for everyone, as many schools didn't have the infrastructure and facilities to provide them. Now we could go into why we've got austerity, but I know you feel that it's okay to borrow money, whilst I don't, so we'll leave that ne alone.
We should be counting and checking people both in and out, but that wouldn't control migration; the EU won't allow that. We have to accept the free movement of anyone from the EU, regardless if they have a job or not. Anyone can come here, get accommodation, and then look for work, and if they can't find any, they can then apply to go on UC, after 3 months I think. If we could stop these people, then this alone would reduce the pressure on housing and services.
Your link makes it look as though we have controls, but we don't, we have to accept them coming in, and then we have to find a reason to get rid of them, and then go through the extradition process, which they have the right to challenge. In France, they are hard nosed, and just put them on plane, unfortunately, we have no backbone, and even give them money to finance the challenge. It's thing like this that make me disgusted with the government of any colour.
So why do you think that the UK governments, elected by UK citizens, chose not to follow EU rules on benefits and migration?
Are you going to try to blame the EU for the UK's mistake?
Is that true?
No.
No.
We can. Britain chooses not to.
Yes we do. Britain chooses not to use them.
The examples you quote are reason to deport them. Britain chooses not to use them.
That's not extradition.
How does France manage that?
Exactly, so the Government's fault; not the EU's.
As I said in another thread, there are more people employed in Britain today than there ever has been before, so how can there be so many immigrants scrounging and doing nothing?
D
Doggit
Which rules are you referring to.
As I've time and time again criticised the governments ineptitude, I can't see why you think that I would.
What rules am I referring to? You start. Show me the rules you think you've heard of.
That's five rules you think exist. Show me.
Where did you get your information from? You're not a Daily Wail reader, are you.
That's five rules you think exist. Show me.
Where did you get your information from? You're not a Daily Wail reader, are you.
D
Doggit
I just asked as a point of discussion to reply to John, not as a challenge.
Yes I do read the Mail, But I also check things I don't understand, or want clarified. The mail isn't my only source, just as the Guardian, isn't yours - I hope.
Yes I do read the Mail, But I also check things I don't understand, or want clarified. The mail isn't my only source, just as the Guardian, isn't yours - I hope.
Here are some starters for your search. I have quoted a few paragraphs that you might find particularly interesting. There is also case law.
DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC
(9) Union citizens should have the right of residence in the host Member State for a period not exceeding three months without being subject to any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport, without prejudice to a more favourable treatment applicable to job-seekers as recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice.
(10) Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.
(12) For periods of residence of longer than three months, Member States should have the possibility to require Union citizens to register with the competent authorities in the place of residence, attested by a registration certificate issued to that effect.
(16) As long as the beneficiaries of the right of residence do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State they should not be expelled.
Therefore, an expulsion measure should not be the automatic consequence of recourse to the social assistance system. The host Member State should examine whether it is a case of temporary difficulties and take into account the duration of residence, the personal circumstances and the amount of aid granted in order to consider whether the beneficiary has become an unreasonable burden on its social assistance system and to proceed to his expulsion. In no case should an expulsion measure be adopted against workers, self-employed persons or job-seekers as defined by the Court of Justice save on grounds of public policy or public security.
(17) Enjoyment of permanent residence by Union citizens who have chosen to settle long term in the host Member State would strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship and is a key element in promoting social cohesion, which is one of the fundamental objectives of the Union. A right of permanent residence should therefore be laid down for all Union citizens and their family members who have resided in the host Member State in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Directive during a continuous period of five years without becoming subject to an expulsion measure.
(19) Certain advantages specific to Union citizens who are workers or self-employed persons and to their family members, which may allow these persons to acquire a right of permanent residence before they have resided five years in the host Member State, should be maintained, as these constitute acquired rights, conferred by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State 1 and Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed capacity 2.
(21) However, it should be left to the host Member State to decide whether it will grant social assistance during the first three months of residence, or for a longer period in the case of job-seekers, to Union citizens other than those who are workers or self-employed persons or who retain that status or their family members, or maintenance assistance for studies, including vocational training, prior to acquisition of the right of permanent residence, to these same persons.
(22) The Treaty allows restrictions to be placed on the right of free movement and residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In order to ensure a tighter definition of the circumstances and procedural safeguards subject to which Union citizens and their family members may be denied leave to enter or may be expelled, this Directive should replace Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special
measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals, which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health 1.
(23) Expulsion of Union citizens and their family members on grounds of public policy or public security is a measure that can seriously harm persons who, having availed themselves of the rights and freedoms conferred on them by the Treaty, have become genuinely integrated into the host Member State. The scope for such measures should therefore be limited in accordance with the principle of proportionality to take account of the degree of integration of the persons concerned, the length of their residence in the host Member State, their age, state of health, family and economic situation and the links with their country of origin.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF
Contrary to a lie told by a Conservative politician in a televised speech, ownership of a cat does not prevent a person being expelled. For some reason, anti-European newspapers and politicians are particularly prone to publishing lies about the EU. Perhaps they do it to curry favour amoung their more ignorant supporters. The lying conservative politician's name was Theresa May.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/oct/04/theresa-may-wrong-cat-deportation
DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC
(9) Union citizens should have the right of residence in the host Member State for a period not exceeding three months without being subject to any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport, without prejudice to a more favourable treatment applicable to job-seekers as recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice.
(10) Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.
(12) For periods of residence of longer than three months, Member States should have the possibility to require Union citizens to register with the competent authorities in the place of residence, attested by a registration certificate issued to that effect.
(16) As long as the beneficiaries of the right of residence do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State they should not be expelled.
Therefore, an expulsion measure should not be the automatic consequence of recourse to the social assistance system. The host Member State should examine whether it is a case of temporary difficulties and take into account the duration of residence, the personal circumstances and the amount of aid granted in order to consider whether the beneficiary has become an unreasonable burden on its social assistance system and to proceed to his expulsion. In no case should an expulsion measure be adopted against workers, self-employed persons or job-seekers as defined by the Court of Justice save on grounds of public policy or public security.
(17) Enjoyment of permanent residence by Union citizens who have chosen to settle long term in the host Member State would strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship and is a key element in promoting social cohesion, which is one of the fundamental objectives of the Union. A right of permanent residence should therefore be laid down for all Union citizens and their family members who have resided in the host Member State in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Directive during a continuous period of five years without becoming subject to an expulsion measure.
(19) Certain advantages specific to Union citizens who are workers or self-employed persons and to their family members, which may allow these persons to acquire a right of permanent residence before they have resided five years in the host Member State, should be maintained, as these constitute acquired rights, conferred by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State 1 and Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed capacity 2.
(21) However, it should be left to the host Member State to decide whether it will grant social assistance during the first three months of residence, or for a longer period in the case of job-seekers, to Union citizens other than those who are workers or self-employed persons or who retain that status or their family members, or maintenance assistance for studies, including vocational training, prior to acquisition of the right of permanent residence, to these same persons.
(22) The Treaty allows restrictions to be placed on the right of free movement and residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In order to ensure a tighter definition of the circumstances and procedural safeguards subject to which Union citizens and their family members may be denied leave to enter or may be expelled, this Directive should replace Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special
measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals, which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health 1.
(23) Expulsion of Union citizens and their family members on grounds of public policy or public security is a measure that can seriously harm persons who, having availed themselves of the rights and freedoms conferred on them by the Treaty, have become genuinely integrated into the host Member State. The scope for such measures should therefore be limited in accordance with the principle of proportionality to take account of the degree of integration of the persons concerned, the length of their residence in the host Member State, their age, state of health, family and economic situation and the links with their country of origin.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF
Contrary to a lie told by a Conservative politician in a televised speech, ownership of a cat does not prevent a person being expelled. For some reason, anti-European newspapers and politicians are particularly prone to publishing lies about the EU. Perhaps they do it to curry favour amoung their more ignorant supporters. The lying conservative politician's name was Theresa May.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/oct/04/theresa-may-wrong-cat-deportation
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Doggit is showing his true colours: foreigner hating!
Good, I dont like cats!
Now if it had been dogs, then maybe the rule should be different, nothing wrong with dog owners
- Status
