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
It was not clear whether or not they would have a right to remain and that uncertainty was a result of govt. policy.Originally Posted by RandBlade
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
As I said, it was incompetent. It was also cleared up as soon as it came to light - ages ago.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?
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.
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.
Congratulations America
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.
Congratulations America
It was not clear because they could not count on the UK to do the right thing, hence the tremendous surge of "unnecessary" applications.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote