Inconvenient truths like that how most of your 'problems with the EU' were simply home made?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Printable View
Inconvenient truths like that how most of your 'problems with the EU' were simply home made?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That's not true.
And now you even doubled down on the irony!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I've not pretended everything is hunkydory or been the one flinging out insults.
Must've been someone else then who thinks that Brexit is the best thing since sliced bread.
with tea and jam
But no Prosecco, mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Must've been. I was the one who decided it was on balance the right thing to vote for but was torn and only swung that way quite late. Had I felt it was the best thing since sliced bread I'd have not been torn - and it would have been an easy decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Brexitanian logic; when in doubt, break glass and jump off the cliff.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Rand has been an all in type for as long as I can remember. Once he thinks he finally has something figured out he doesn't waver or second guess. Its a final all-in decision. He's displayed this in both his political opinions and in snippets of his life stories.
That's quite insightful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It's why when I play poker I often end up chip leader and then losing.
*shrug* It's a popular way to run a business or a political campaign.
Ramoanier logic: when in doubt do nothing and stand still on the road/train tracks/in the burning building.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You are mistaking me for someone I presume.
Well, currently you're playing poker with your country's economy. Your experience in that game should give you pause.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
We've already pushed our chips in, too late to fold now.
Chips in indeed, let's see how those cards play out.
~
A new Brexit project kicks off in earnest tomorrow at my bank which I'll have a little involvement with; Euro-clearings shifting over from London to Paris.
As things stand today, this is the only material change at the bank that has resulted from the vote to leave.
The card game unfolding will decide what else, if anything, the banks eventually do.
If there is any room for common sense on the side of the British government there will be an agreement to end EU membership and the start of a transitional period which lasts till the end of the current budget cycle. The UK will withdraw from the organization once the two years are up (or earlier if possible) but otherwise the Treaties will be appliccable untill at least the end of the transitional period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
This approach will mean that indeed Brexit is Brexit. It will avoid presenting the UK with something that resembles an exit bill. Also it will enable the UK starting up talks with the wider world and it will give the UK a decent number of years to come to a new type of accomodation with the EU without a huge risk of falling off the cliff. Advantage for businesses is that they will know from the beginning what will be on the table and what will not.
What is an absolute condition for this to happen is a settlement for the rights of EU27 citizens living in the UK up untill at least Brexit and probably the end of the transitional period that from the British point of view is gold plated. The reason why it needs to be gold plated is that for the vast majority of Brits living in the EU27 that will be what they will get on the basis of present legislation. Any hint that British citizens get the better deal would mean political suicide for the EU side. And that is something thats not going to happen.
Interesting; seems the EU is going to instruct the UK Home office on how not to treat EU citizens. That aggressive attitude, sending people with absolute right to be in the UK letters telling them to prepare to leave, really has paid off.
There was no aggression. Bureaucratic incompetence strikes again, you are aware that those who got those pro forma letters have already been told they don't need to leave right?
The template for if someone's request for right to remain gets rejected is to advise them to leave or appeal the decision because people who already have right to remain rarely apply for it redundantly. A surge of people who already had right to remain seeking it but not filling in the ridiculously bureaucratic papers correctly has caused this "computer says no" nonsense.
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.
It was not clear whether or not they would have a right to remain and that uncertainty was a result of govt. policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No it was not. They have right to remain still, nothing has changed on that and the government has made clear it would like that to continue. There has been no policy change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
As I said, it was incompetent. It was also cleared up as soon as it came to light - ages ago.Quote:
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.
It is crystal clear they still have a right to remain. The government policy is to negotiate a reciprocal right to remain but the EU has not agreed to it yet. That is not our government that is standing in the way of that. An offer was made and rebuffed to agree a reciprocal agreement before Article 50 was invoked but that offer was turned down. In the Article 50 invocation letter we made clear our wish to resolve this ASAP. So what policy are you objecting to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You can talk untill your tongue turns blue but the fact of the matter was that that a government agency handed ut decisions in direct violation of the law. On the basis of a standing policy. If the officers writing those letters did not know they were acting unlawful that does not absolve the political leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You should be ashamed of the fact that the EU needs to take action to force your government to apply the law and act in a decent way with its clients.
It is clear they have every right to stay. The outrage is that they need to go to court to make a government agency confirm that they fucked up on an epic scale. If I were living in the UK I would not believe anything the British government tells me about my status. They now tell people to not apply, despite the fact that they have just shown to not apply the law, nor common decency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It was not clear because they could not count on the UK to do the right thing, hence the tremendous surge of "unnecessary" applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The British government has consistently said that we want a reciprocal deal. Can you see anyone saying anything to the contrary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Actions speak louder than words.
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?
The EU does not need to take any action. The UK already took action to fix the mistake as soon as it came to light. That the EU has chosen to jump on the bandwagon afterwards says nothing of any merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If the EU fixed its own problems before others jumped on them to do so we'd be in a much better state.
They don't need to go to court, the agency confirmed they'd messed up the second these letters originally reached the media. As for being shown not to apply the law, they did apply the law - and common decency. There was a mistake on the paperwork, the mistake came to light and they immediately said "ignore that, it's wrong". Oh big whoop. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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.
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.
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 :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The real story, as opposed to Randblade's alternative 'facts' http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7708536.html
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
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.