Hard or Soft Brexit?

[rigsby]

Actually,I misunderstood your original post.I thought you were talking about a Lithuanian national who'd been sent back to prison in Lithuania.

I'd be extremely suprised if this guy is allowed to stay in the UK once released.Nor should he.

I would certainly agree that the rights of all law abiding EU citizens in the UK should be respected.Your conclusion is of course a non sequiter.:winking:

The fact is he had all ready been sent back to Lithuania because he was wanted for Raping a girl age 16. Under the rules he was free to travel the EU after his release. He chose to pick Essex as his next hunting ground, so its tough luck on some local girls because those are the rules you insist on keeping. In fact in your and JC's world we should confirm this even before the real negotiating begins......Laughable totally laughable.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The fact is he had all ready been sent back to Lithuania because he was wanted for Raping a girl age 16. Under the rules he was free to travel the EU after his release. He chose to pick Essex as his next hunting ground, so its tough luck on some local girls because those are the rules you insist on keeping. In fact in your and JC's world we should confirm this even before the real negotiating begins......Laughable totally laughable.

All you are doing here is confirming what the Tory party already knows.Immigration is more important to many Leave voters than the state of the economy.That's bad news for the UK in an election year.

 

[rigsby]

All you are doing here is confirming what the Tory party already knows.Immigration is more important to many Leave voters than the state of the economy.That's bad news for the UK in an election year.

Your denial and utter EU blindness to even consider any reforms, leaves the remain voters who wanted action on immigration with no choice. We all ready know the last people you would put in charge of the school fete cake stand are JC and Dianne Abbott.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Your denial and utter EU blindness to even consider any reforms, leaves the remain voters who wanted action on immigration with no choice. We all ready know the last people you would put in charge of the school fete cake stand are JC and Dianne Abbott.

The EU, (for all its faults), works well for the majority of its citizens.It's disingenous of you to imply that you have any notion of what remain voters want, with regard to immigration or indeed, anything else.

 

[rigsby]

The EU, (for all its faults), works well for the majority of its citizens.It's disingenous of you to imply that you have any notion of what remain voters want, with regard to immigration or indeed, anything else.

So just to be clear I can't comment on the opinions of my own friends and family but you speak on behalf of everyone else in 28 countries......Most of which you have probably never set foot in......:hilarious::hilarious:

 

[callan]

You do realise that you've swallowed one of the biggest Leave lies here don't you? You might want to read this:

DIRECTIVE 2004/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004

In fact leaving the EU will make this more likely as we might (note I only said might) not be able to access this information in future.

The historic issue, with the current system is that it is only as good as it's own data...the sharing of which did not come into place until 2012 (Your link is 2004).

It is certainly not fool proof and of course there are 50 plus examples of serious crimes committed in the UK by EU nationals that were not flagged up to UKBF, as the offenders entered the UK.

So in short the current system is far from perfect, albeit the UK do have the right to turn away Criminals at our borders assuming they are flagged and of course as your link from 2004 states 'can only be applied to serious offenders'.

Article 8 of the Human rights act gives individuals the right to a family life, and is often triggered in response to deport a foreign criminal by the state.

No doubt all will recall from the referendum this formed part of Camerons (re) negotiation and also Clegg was keen to see 'better co-operation' with regard to sharing of information.

Vote leave highlighted the 50 cases above where sharing of information failed.

 

[londonblue]

The historic issue, with the current system is that it is only as good as it's own data...the sharing of which did not come into place until 2012 (Your link is 2004).

It is certainly not fool proof and of course there are 50 plus examples of serious crimes committed in the UK by EU nationals that were not flagged up to UKBF, as the offenders entered the UK.

So in short the current system is far from perfect, albeit the UK do have the right to turn away Criminals at our borders assuming they are flagged and of course as your link from 2004 states 'can only be applied to serious offenders'.

Article 8 of the Human rights act gives individuals the right to a family life, and is often triggered in response to deport a foreign criminal by the state.

No doubt all will recall from the referendum this formed part of Camerons (re) negotiation and also Clegg was keen to see 'better co-operation' with regard to sharing of information.

Vote leave highlighted the 50 cases above where sharing of information failed.

The data share set up in 2012 is a group of linked databases for the police. It has nothing to do with this.

That said, I do agree that a system (whatever it is) is only as good as the data and, the people that run it. However, that isn't the point. The point is that it was a lie to say we aren't allowed to turn away criminals. We are. Whether or not we manage that is a matter of competence, not law.

 

[callan]

The data that was shared in 2012 is a group of linked databases for the police. It has nothing to do with this.

As there was no EU law prior to 2012 to share information it has everything to do with this.

By the EU's own admission the sharing of information on criminals is rudimentary at best....

Your contention at the end of your original post is that we will / might not be able to access information...in over 50 cases having access has not helped.

 

[callan]

The data share set up in 2012 is a group of linked databases for the police. It has nothing to do with this.

That said, I do agree that a system (whatever it is) is only as good as the data and, the people that run it. However, that isn't the point. The point is that it was a lie to say we aren't allowed to turn away criminals. We are. Whether or not we manage that is a matter of competence, not law.

We are...but there is a 'however' from the 2004 link you posted.


Previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone.

Public policy or public security decisions to deport someone should be “proportionate”, and based exclusively on the behaviour of the individual involved.

The person’s behaviour must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”

In addition too constraints built up by 'length of stay rights....again from the CD link you posted

0-3 months when the UK can refuse individuals entry or deport them for public policy, public security and public health reasons

3 months – 5 years when the UK can deport individuals for public policy and public security reasons

5 years – 10 years when the UK can deport individuals for serious reasons of public policy and public security

10 years plus when the UK can deport individuals for imperative reasons of public security

So what does all of this mean?...again from the link you posted;

Public policy or public security decisions to deport someone should be “proportionate”, and based exclusively on the behaviour of the individual involved

Previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone

The person’s behaviour must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”...posted above already but from the the link it's also in the summary.

Countries can’t deport a person just to make an example of them.

Competence only became an issue after the law was introduced to share information....as already stated this was some 8 years after the directive of 2004 came in to use....and from the link you posted I have highlighted the difficulties in refusing entry.

 

[londonblue]

We are...but there is a 'however' from the 2004 link you posted.


Previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone.

Public policy or public security decisions to deport someone should be “proportionate”, and based exclusively on the behaviour of the individual involved.

The person’s behaviour must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”

In addition too constraints built up by 'length of stay rights....again from the CD link you posted

0-3 months when the UK can refuse individuals entry or deport them for public policy, public security and public health reasons

3 months – 5 years when the UK can deport individuals for public policy and public security reasons

5 years – 10 years when the UK can deport individuals for serious reasons of public policy and public security

10 years plus when the UK can deport individuals for imperative reasons of public security

So what does all of this mean?...again from the link you posted;

Public policy or public security decisions to deport someone should be “proportionate”, and based exclusively on the behaviour of the individual involved

Previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone

The person’s behaviour must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”...posted above already but from the the link it's also in the summary.

Countries can’t deport a person just to make an example of them.

Competence only became an issue after the law was introduced to share information....as already stated this was some 8 years after the directive of 2004 came in to use....and from the link you posted I have highlighted the difficulties in refusing entry.

As I said, the issue isn't one of law. It's one of competence. Even if you're correct that it only became law to share data after 2012 (although to me that is a red herring), that means it has been for at least 5 years. The assertion that it is illegal for us to deny someone entry on the basis of previous convictions was, and still is, a big fat lie.

Your timescales above are irrelevant in this discussion as we're talking about allowing/denying people entry, we're not talking about deporting people who are already here. We have the right in law to do, and always have.

If we haven't got our arses in gear that's our problem.

 

[callan]

As I said, the issue isn't one of law. It's one of competence. Even if you're correct that it only became law to share data after 2012 (although to me that is a red herring), that means it has been for at least 5 years. The assertion that it is illegal for us to deny someone entry on the basis of previous convictions was, and still is, a big fat lie.

I think it probably all comes down to how you interpret the following, which is directly from your link;

Previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone...

Contrasting with

The host country can interfere with free movement rights for reasons like public policy, public security and public health...also from your link.

So in summary, at best the 2004 directive can only be applied to serious offenders...not all, and only on the assumption you can prove a threat to Policy, Security or health.

For me the 2012 law on data sharing has a relevance, as there are articles from the 2004 directive that allowed built up rights over time, this were highlighted in my last post.

Also there needs to be further consideration to the application of the rights to family life which are protected under Human rights law.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So just to be clear I can't comment on the opinions of my own friends and family but you speak on behalf of everyone else in 28 countries......Most of which you have probably never set foot in......:hilarious::hilarious:

I've certainly been to most (if not all) the EU's 28 member countries and lived in three of them.:raspberry:

Edit:23 out of the 28.

 

[rigsby]

I've certainly been to most (if not all) the EU's 28 member countries and lived in three of them.:raspberry:

Edit:23 out of the 28.

If you go on BBC Iplayer at the moment you can watch the case about a convicted drug smuggler who absconded to Britain whilst on day release from a Spanish prison. How he got in is another matter but it took 3 years to finally arrest him as he was using false passports. Whilst waiting to be deported he appealed against the decision not to grant him bail and was released......Human rights is nice work if you can get because its the tax payer who foots the bill.

 

[londonblue]

I think it probably all comes down to how you interpret the following, which is directly from your link;

Previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone...

Contrasting with

The host country can interfere with free movement rights for reasons like public policy, public security and public health...also from your link.

So in summary, at best the 2004 directive can only be applied to serious offenders...not all, and only on the assumption you can prove a threat to Policy, Security or health.

For me the 2012 law on data sharing has a relevance, as there are articles from the 2004 directive that allowed built up rights over time, this were highlighted in my last post.

Also there needs to be further consideration to the application of the rights to family life which are protected under Human rights law.

Anyone with a serious conviction will be a threat to public safety. They may try to argue that in court on the basis of what you have said, i.e. that previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone (or deny them entry) but they would lose. There is simply no court in the country (or in the EU) that would argue a person with a serious conviction isn't a threat.

We have under EU law the right to deny these people access. This has been the case ever since we joined the EU. The directive of 2004 was just the latest iteration of that law. This is not a matter of law, this is a matter of our competence. However, it isn't just our competence, it is that of all countries for not sharing information well enough, but that is easily rectified, and will be done so without our input, or even our automatic right to share that information now.

To prove that point, according to Damian Green, more than 6,000 EU nationals have been prevented from entering the UK since 2010. (That number is as of 2016, so it will almost certainly be more than that my now.)

 

[rigsby]

Yet we have over 10,000 foreign nationals in our prisons at the moment. Like all things EU the system is not designed to work because its in the interest of a few for it not to work.

 

[callan]

Anyone with a serious conviction will be a threat to public safety. They may try to argue that in court on the basis of what you have said, i.e. that previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone (or deny them entry) but they would lose. There is simply no court in the country (or in the EU) that would argue a person with a serious conviction isn't a threat.

We have under EU law the right to deny these people access. This has been the case ever since we joined the EU. The directive of 2004 was just the latest iteration of that law. This is not a matter of law, this is a matter of our competence. However, it isn't just our competence, it is that of all countries for not sharing information well enough, but that is easily rectified, and will be done so without our input, or even our automatic right to share that information now.

To prove that point, according to Damian Green, more than 6,000 EU nationals have been prevented from entering the UK since 2010. (That number is as of 2016, so it will almost certainly be more than that my now.)

Firstly I'm glad you brought Damien green into this, and as you rightly point out Mr Green when supporting the Remain case on deportations gave the figure of 6000, which was then challenged by Dominic Raab, as it appears Mr green had decided to conflate two different sets of figures (extraditions - which of course came into play in 2010 under EAW, and actual deportations).

Mr Green is also helpful when it comes to your claim, that no court would protect the rights of a foreign criminal who poses a serious threat....from a 2012 interview in the Telegraph he tells us the following;

Mr Green said the situation is “not healthy for anyone” and calls the whole concept of human rights in to question.
The Government is currently examining how parliament can provide clearer guidance on how Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights show be interpreted with a view to restricting its use.
It follows concerns that foreign criminals and other illegal immigrants are able to use the right too easily to fight deportation.
In 2010, more than 400 criminals were allowed to stay in the UK after winning appeals, mainly on human rights grounds such as the right to family life.


Of course I don't need to point out that article 8 is enshrined in the CD 2004 link that you originally posted.

 

[Bielzibubz]

In 2010, more than 400 criminals were allowed to stay in the UK after winning appeals, mainly on human rights grounds such as the right to family life.

Exactly my point and that's 400 to many.

 

[londonblue]

Firstly I'm glad you brought Damien green into this, and as you rightly point out Mr Green when supporting the Remain case on deportations gave the figure of 6000, which was then challenged by Dominic Raab, as it appears Mr green had decided to conflate two different sets of figures (extraditions - which of course came into play in 2010 under EAW, and actual deportations).

Mr Green is also helpful when it comes to your claim, that no court would protect the rights of a foreign criminal who poses a serious threat....from a 2012 interview in the Telegraph he tells us the following;

Mr Green said the situation is “not healthy for anyone” and calls the whole concept of human rights in to question.
The Government is currently examining how parliament can provide clearer guidance on how Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights show be interpreted with a view to restricting its use.
It follows concerns that foreign criminals and other illegal immigrants are able to use the right too easily to fight deportation.
In 2010, more than 400 criminals were allowed to stay in the UK after winning appeals, mainly on human rights grounds such as the right to family life.


Of course I don't need to point out that article 8 is enshrined in the CD 2004 link that you originally posted.

So 6000 were denied entry, and 400 appealed. That sounds like the system is working pretty well. Do you know how many of the 400 were among the 50 cases cited? Of course it could work better, and it will once the share of information is progressed. The problem is that when this is, we won't have any input or any automatic right to share that information.

Now it just seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, i.e. you don't want to concede the possibly the leave side may actually have lied. Which it is quite plain to see, they have done.

 

[londonblue]

Exactly my point and that's 400 to many.

See my previous post. The number is irrelevant to your original point. We have the right in law to deny people entry, and the fact that 6000 have been proves that point. To say otherwise is a lie.

 

[rigsby]

So 6000 were denied entry, and 400 appealed. That sounds like the system is working pretty well. Do you know how many of the 400 were among the 50 cases cited? Of course it could work better, and it will once the share of information is progressed. The problem is that when this is, we won't have any input or any automatic right to share that information.

Now it just seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, i.e. you don't want to concede the possibly the leave side may actually have lied. Which it is quite plain to see, they have done.

As per normal londonblue gets his figures in a muddle.