Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

my information came from a lawyer's website.

Can the UK Control Its Borders if It Remains in the EU?

by Lawyers - In For Britain

The UK’s rights to control its borders and to check anyone entering the UK no matter where they come from are explained below.

• Like all EU Member States, the UK is subject to obligations to ensure the freedom of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the EU. Freedom of movement of workers and rights of establishment in other Member States were fundamental aspects of the common market well before the UK joined the EEC in 1973 and have remained of significance to the internal market programme.

• These rights do not undermine the UK’s ability to control its borders, for three principal reasons.

o First, the largest category of migrants to the UK come from outside the EU, and are not entitled to rely on EU laws on freedom of movement. The UK’s ability to restrict entry to this group is unaffected by its membership of the EU.
o Secondly, whereas many Member States have replaced individual controls with a common policy at their common frontier (known as the Schengen Area), the UK chose to retain its right to independent border control and is entitled to check the identity of every individual entering the country.
o Thirdly, EU law does not provide nationals from other EU Member States with an unlimited right to enter or remain in the UK. Most importantly, the right to live in the UK without any conditions or formalities only lasts for three months. In addition, the right is subject to limitations “on grounds of public policy, public security or public health”. Specifically, the UK retains the right to restrict the freedom of movement and residence of EU citizens and their family members, where their personal conduct represents “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” and the home Member State of any expelled EU nationals must allow those nationals to re-enter their territory.

• The debate about economic migration within the EU needs to be put into context. While immigration is an emotive topic and can cause substantial social unrest, freedom of movement within the EU internal market helps address skill shortages and the consequences of an ageing population. According to the OECD, migrants are more likely to be net contributors if they are younger, in work and skilled. The evidence suggests that on average, EU migrants make a net contribution to UK public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that immigration will reduce public sector net debt as a share of UK GDP over the long term relative to the levels it would otherwise reach.

• As well as tightening up the rules on sham marriages and on suspected terrorists and criminals coming to the UK, the recently agreed Settlement introduces an “emergency brake” to restrict EU migrants in the UK claiming in-work benefits for a period of up to four years. This restriction is operable over a seven-year period. The Settlement also gives the UK an option to index child benefit payments to the cost of living in the country where the child resides, for all new arrivals to the UK. This mechanism can be extended to all existing workers from 1 January 2020

[Lordo]

so significant work still to be done.

what the hell were they doing taking 2 months to decide who will be leader followed by summer recess and take 5 weeks to prepare the queen's speech and force parliament to have conferences when it would have been their choice to do so and now they have just a few days to negotiate. what they need is some brains but you can't buy that unfortunately.

blind leadig the blind more likely.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50032500

[Lordo]

so significant work still to be done ey

what the hell were they doing taking 2 months to decide who will be leader followed by summer recess and take 5 weeks to prepare the queen's speech and force parliament to have conferences when it would have been their choice to do so and now they have just a few days to negotiate. what they need is some brains but you can't buy that unfortunately.

blind leadig the blind more likely.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50032500

[cyprusgrump]

The problems in obtaining a deal are explained very simply...

“There is also a fourth French objection to the Johnson plan — one that France stresses more than other EU countries. Theresa May’s agreement with the EU promised a level playing field in employment, industrial and other regulations between the UK and the EU. Johnson has abandoned that pledge.

France fears that, combined with a back-door into the EU market through Ireland, this would give Britain an unfair competitive advantage.”

Clicky...

The text highlighted tells you all you need to know about the EU, T May and the French.

The EU is a rules based regime. Rules enforced by bureaucrats (not Courts of Law) enabled to apply sanctions as they see fit. Which does not mean that the rules are ‘lawful’ in Common Law terms.

It also shows the absolute disconnect between the ambitions of Brexiteers (like me) and the EU. And this obviously means that there is No Deal that will suit both parties. There can be no consensus. Why? A major part of Leaving the EU was precisely to enable differences. To not have a ‘level playing field’.

Clearly, France is scared of losing the barriers that protect its inefficient producers...

[erolz66]

Sorry for taking a while to reply on this, contrary to the narrative of some, usually worse 'offenders' themselves, I do not live on this forum. Olive picking season is upon us and is far more enjoyable than participating here.

I've always said that I didn't believe Johnson would or could deliver on his promises. That's beginning to look like a winning bet.

well you did say here

The latest a typically spiteful campaign against Johnson (the man most likely to actually honour that result of course)

which seems somewhat contradictory of your winning bet to me. I would guess you do realise you can not win a bet if you do not actually stake anything ?

Not really. I believe I said that Johnson was the man most likely to deliver Brexit. Given the dismal make up of the rest of the playing field I don't really regard that as much of a commendation.

So according to you there is no contradiction between your claim that "Johnson was the man most likely to deliver Brexit" and "I've always said that I didn't believe Johnson would or could deliver on" Brexit. And you talk about my lack of credibility apparently without any shame. lol.

As far as betting goes, nowadays I regard my vote to leave the EU, along with those of the other 17,410,741 as becoming a bit of a long shot. Mostly due to our betrayal by lying politicians of both main parties and 40 months of incessant undermining activities by "Democrats" like yourself.

So I as a private individual, with no power at all, according to you, I am to blame for Brexit not being delivered. Yet politicians like the 'Spartans', people with actual votes and power, who have consistently blocked every attempt to deliver any form of Brexit that does not suit their minority desires, are in your view, apparently, entirely blameless. I personally attribute blame to those who if they had acted differently it would have led to a different outcome. You would appear to assign blame to those who have a different opinion to you.

Don't kid yourself, you are absolutely not a democrat and in that respect IMHO have no credibility at all.

So you first declare me as 'not democratic' and then use that as your 'reason' (excuse) for being able to ignore everything and anything I say, every expression of my identity. How convenient for you. What an easy way of just writing off anyone who does not agree with you and anything they say.

You declaring me 'not democratic' is no different from those Cypriots who when faced with a view different from theirs just declare me a 'Turk' as an excuse to then just ignore anything I might say. That I am not a Turk, not in my head, not in my heart, not in what I say, not in any legal sense, not in any physical sense - all of that is simply irrelevant. So too then with your use of 'not democratic'. It is nothing to do with any reality but is just simply a means by which you can excuse yourself from having to hear or consider any view that does not suit you. That my position is and always has been that I support any means of leaving the EU that has majority support, the definition of democratic, is simply irrelevant. You none the less just declare me 'not democratic' and then present that as a reason why you can then just ignore anything I say. How very convenient for you.

Again just as with the Cyprus problem, I do not subscribe to the false binary dichotomies that others like you have to impose in their head to be able to ignore anyone with a different view. I have more in common with many GC than I do with many TC. The spectrum is not 'GC to TC' for me. My spectrum is 'absolutists to non absolutists' with the likes of ELAM and the Grey wolves on the SAME and opposite end of the spectrum as me and countless other Cypriots regardless of their GC/TC status. So too with Brexit. I have more in common with leave voters like Adrian Yalland and countless others like him than I do with many remain voters. This however is a reality that does not sit easily with what you want to be true. You have no answers to what the like of Yalland , or I, say. So in order to protect yourself you just declare me 'not democratic' or 'Turk' as a means of being able to just ignore anything that challenges what you want to believe.

All of the above is 'to varying material degrees' and imho.

[erolz66]

It also shows the absolute disconnect between the ambitions of Brexiteers (like me) and the EU. And this obviously means that there is No Deal that will suit both parties. There can be no consensus. Why? A major part of Leaving the EU was precisely to enable differences. To not have a ‘level playing field’.

Yet that is not how leaving was 'sold' to the people, which is why significant numbers of those who did vote leave have explicitly expressed that view and why you have to ignore this reality to maintain your fiction of the 'will of the people'. Brexiteers 'like you' do not represent a majority will of the people.

Clearly, France is scared of losing the barriers that protect its inefficient producers...

But the UK is not ? It will not place it's own barriers to protect it's own inefficient producers, should it 'no deal / clean break' leave ? More fairy stories as far as I can see.

[cyprusgrump]

It also shows the absolute disconnect between the ambitions of Brexiteers (like me) and the EU. And this obviously means that there is No Deal that will suit both parties. There can be no consensus. Why? A major part of Leaving the EU was precisely to enable differences. To not have a ‘level playing field’.

Yet that is not how leaving was 'sold' to the people, which is why significant numbers of those who did vote leave have explicitly expressed that view and why you have to ignore this reality to maintain your fiction of the 'will of the people'. Brexiteers 'like you' do not represent a majority will of the people.

Clearly, France is scared of losing the barriers that protect its inefficient producers...

But the UK is not ? It will not place it's own barriers to protect it's own inefficient producers, should it 'no deal / clean break' leave ? More fairy stories as far as I can see.

You’ve clearly missed the point but I expected no more of you…

The point being that MAY wasn’t committed to Brexit, she wanted BRINO, effectively remaining in the EU and tied to its political and economic aims.

If she’d actually been committed to leaving the EU as was promised in the referendum her negotiating position would have been much stronger.

And please, give up with the bollox about people not knowing what they were voting for because that is exactly what is is, demonstrable bollox.

[erolz66]

It also shows the absolute disconnect between the ambitions of Brexiteers (like me) and the EU. And this obviously means that there is No Deal that will suit both parties. There can be no consensus. Why? A major part of Leaving the EU was precisely to enable differences. To not have a ‘level playing field’.

Yet that is not how leaving was 'sold' to the people, which is why significant numbers of those who did vote leave have explicitly expressed that view and why you have to ignore this reality to maintain your fiction of the 'will of the people'. Brexiteers 'like you' do not represent a majority will of the people.

Clearly, France is scared of losing the barriers that protect its inefficient producers...

But the UK is not ? It will not place it's own barriers to protect it's own inefficient producers, should it 'no deal / clean break' leave ? More fairy stories as far as I can see.

You’ve clearly missed the point but I expected no more of you…

As you have clearly missed mine. My point is that you as an individual knew when you voted leave that that meant leaving all EU institutions entirely and all on the same day and that there could be no other way of leaving the EU at all. Your problem is you have to also claim that every single one (or 98%) of the 17 odd million who voted leave in the referendum also did so 'knowing' this. A ridiculous proposition but one that is mandated by your need to claim what you personally want is the 'will of the people'.

And please, give up with the bollox about people not knowing what they were voting for because that is exactly what is is, demonstrable bollox.

Which is different from you claiming to know exactly the basis on which 17 million people who voted leave, how ? That countless people who DID vote leave have stated openly and directly that they did so on the belief and understanding that a deal was the means by which we would leave, from 'people in the street' to people like the boss of Iceland and Theo Paphitis, is just ignored by you. You can not face that reality so you ignore it and when it is pushed in front of you you revert 'stop saying people did not know what they were voting for'. You ignore, have to ignore the reality that the likes of Ardian Yalland, a politican who has spent 30 years advocating that the UK should leave the EU is now saying things like "the Brexit many voted for in good faith, is now dead. " These things do not fit your narrative, what you want to believe, what you apparently have to believe, so you just behave as these people have not said these things.

[miltiades]

Out of the 17.4 million who voted leave the 17 million did not know that Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and other Asian countries were not ...EU members !! Thick Plonkers !!

[Lordo]

they simply refuse the fact that 4 million labour voters did not vote for no deal or even any tory deal as it does not protect the human and work rights and the environemt either. not even all the tories did not vote for no deal either. one third of tories either want soft brexit or remain. thats another 4 million odd.

the problem is the average level of intelligence of a brexshitter. they are as thick as two short planks.