Hard or Soft Brexit?

[Tangled up in Blue]

As per normal londonblue gets his figures in a muddle.

Suggest you check posts 1554 and 1558 again.No idea if the figures are correct but they certainly seem to add up.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

"A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips. It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU."

Labour Party Manifesto.2017.pp24.

I know who I'd vote for, given the chance.

 

[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.)

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.

Suggest you check posts 1554 and 1558 again.No idea if the figures are correct but they certainly seem to add up.

The home office figures from 2010 - 2016 are 6000....that's where the figure comes from.

The figure as a mechanic is Direct denial at entry + Deportations + use of European arrest warrant which gives us this total.

The discussion put forward by LB is that Leave lied regarding the UK's ability to refuse entry to EU criminals, and is using this figure as evidence to support his claim.

The 400 figure which I am using (where EU criminals successfully appeal against removal/right to enter) comes from CPS/ Border agency figures and are purely based on the year 2010.

Beyond the figures LB is citing the EU citizens directive of 2004 which clearly states ;

Admission to the UK can be blocked "on grounds of public policy, public security or public health", according to EU rules. Under no circumstances can it be on economic grounds.

Refusal of entry on public policy or public security grounds must be done on a case-by-case basis rather than with a blanket ban.

A person must represent a "genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society".

The same directive also states;

"criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures".

In addition to the provisions of Article 8 which are also embedded.

Is LB right? , if the individual can be proved to pose a current risk then the answer is yes....if not then No.

 

[Bielzibubz]

"A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips. It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU."

Labour Party Manifesto.2017.pp24.

I know who I'd vote for, given the chance.

Oh give it a rest, you're like an old 78 that refuses to stop playing at the end. You have absolutely no idea what is involved in negotiating our leave from the EU. You have no clue as to what should be said when and absolutely no idea what should be done when. It's all very well saying I'd do this and I'd do that. All very good soundbites and easy to say, much more difficult to do.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Oh give it a rest, you're like an old 78 that refuses to stop playing at the end. You have absolutely no idea what is involved in negotiating our leave from the EU. You have no clue as to what should be said when and absolutely no idea what should be done when. It's all very well saying I'd do this and I'd do that. All very good soundbites and easy to say, much more difficult to do.

A bit like Theresa May then.

 

[londonblue]

The home office figures from 2010 - 2016 are 6000....that's where the figure comes from.

The figure as mechanic is Direct denial at entry + Deportations + use of European arrest warrant which gives us this total.

The discussion put forward by LB is that Leave lied regarding the UK's ability to refuse entry to EU criminals, and is using this figure as evidence to support his claim.

The 400 figure which I am using (where EU criminals successfully appeal against removal/right to enter) comes from CPS/ Border agency figures and are purely based on the year 2010.

Beyond the figures LB is citing the EU citizens directive of 2004 which clearly states ;

Admission to the UK can be blocked "on grounds of public policy, public security or public health", according to EU rules. Under no circumstances can it be on economic grounds.

Refusal of entry on public policy or public security grounds must be done on a case-by-case basis rather than with a blanket ban.

A person must represent a "genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society".

The same directive also states;

"criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures".

In addition to the provisions of Article 8 which are also embedded.

Is LB right? , if the individual can be proved to pose a current risk then the answer is yes....if not then No.

You have it the wrong way around. The person would have to prove that they were no-longer a threat. We don't have to prove anything. A person who has committed a serious (and let's assume violent) crime would never be able to prove in court that we as a country were wrong to deny them entry. For that reason alone the leave campaign's assertions were a lie, and people on here swallowed it.

 

[Bielzibubz]

A bit like Theresa May then.

A well thought out and concise reply. Well done :clap:

 

[rigsby]

You have it the wrong way around. The person would have to prove that they were no-longer a threat. We don't have to prove anything. A person who has committed a serious (and let's assume violent) crime would never be able to prove in court that we as a country were wrong to deny them entry. For that reason alone the leave campaign's assertions were a lie, and people on here swallowed it.

The guy who murdered that 14 year old in West London along the towpath must have past the test then because he had just completed a 7 year sentence for murdering his wife after taking her into the woods and battering her with a scaffold pole. In between murders he was actually arrested in London for sexual assault but released and allowed to stay because obviously he didn't pose a 'serious threat'.

How about the Romanian in last nights Echo. Part of a gang who trafficked young Eastern European girls, some as young as 14. Usual story of rape, prostitution and violence used against them and he was given just 3 years prison he will be out in 18 months Even if he is deported he may well sneak back in as others have done.

Shame he hadn't wore a red coat and hunted foxes instead. Then we might have seen these young girls get some justice. Hell we might even get a comment from the spineless lefties on Shrimperzone.

 

[callan]

You have it the wrong way around. The person would have to prove that they were no-longer a threat. We don't have to prove anything. A person who has committed a serious (and let's assume violent) crime would never be able to prove in court that we as a country were wrong to deny them entry. For that reason alone the leave campaign's assertions were a lie, and people on here swallowed it.

This of course is an important point, and where perhaps a lot of confusion lies.

For guidance we would look towards Article 28, which states;

Article 28

Protection against expulsion

1. Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host
Member State shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has
resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and
cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the country of
origin.

2. The host Member State may not take an expulsion decision against Union citizens or their
family members, irrespective of nationality, who have the right of permanent residence on its
territory, except on serious grounds of public policy or public security.

3. An expulsion decision may not be taken against Union citizens, except if the decision is based
on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States, if they:
(a) have resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years.

This clearly states what the expectation is of a member state, in addition to the fact that previous criminal convictions alone cannot constitute expulsion.

If I have it the wrong way round, can you point to the relevant part of the 2004 directive which states the burden of proof is on the respondent?

 

[londonblue]

This of course is an important point, and where perhaps a lot of confusion lies.

For guidance we would look towards Article 28, which states;

Article 28

Protection against expulsion

1. Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host
Member State shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has
resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and
cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the country of
origin.

2. The host Member State may not take an expulsion decision against Union citizens or their
family members, irrespective of nationality, who have the right of permanent residence on its
territory, except on serious grounds of public policy or public security.

3. An expulsion decision may not be taken against Union citizens, except if the decision is based
on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States, if they:
(a) have resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years.

This clearly states what the expectation is of a member state, in addition to the fact that previous criminal convictions alone cannot constitute expulsion.

If I have it the wrong way round, can you point to the relevant part of the 2004 directive which states the burden of proof is on the respondent?

We're not talking about expulsion. We're talking about not letting them in in the first place. We have the legal right to deny entry. They can appeal, but would lose. None of that was made clear by the leave side during the referendum, and was a big fat lie.

You're still coming over as someone that simply won't accept that the leavers may have told a white lie. We know both sides did. This is one of the leave ones.

 

[callan]

We're not talking about expulsion. We're talking about not letting them in in the first place. We have the legal right to deny entry. They can appeal, but would lose. None of that was made clear by the leave side during the referendum, and was a big fat lie.

You're still coming over as someone that simply won't accept that the leavers may have told a white lie. We know both sides did. This is one of the leave ones.

Leave and correct me if I'm wrong were talking about EU criminals that were already here and we are unable to deport....in most cases because prior to 2012 there was little in existence to stop them coming....we have already established that some while ago.

Here is the bbc's report from the time;

EU free movement rules weaken the UK's ability to remove foreign criminals from the country, justice minister and Leave campaigner Dominic Raab has said.
Vote Leave has published an "illustrative" dossier of 50 criminals the UK has been unable to deport.
Mr Raab said British families were being put at risk - and argued leaving the EU would make the UK "safer".
Immigration minister James Brokenshire, who backs Remain, said the UK had deported 6,500 EU criminals since 2010.
And he said Prime Minister David Cameron's EU renegotiation gave the UK greater control over deportation - but Mr Raab said the EU had "refused any change" to the rules.

So leave were talking about expiulsions....back to you.

 

[londonblue]

Leave and correct me if I'm wrong were talking about EU criminals that were already here and we are unable to deport....in most cases because prior to 2012 there was little in existence to stop them coming....we have already established that some while ago.

Here is the bbc's report from the time;

EU free movement rules weaken the UK's ability to remove foreign criminals from the country, justice minister and Leave campaigner Dominic Raab has said.
Vote Leave has published an "illustrative" dossier of 50 criminals the UK has been unable to deport.
Mr Raab said British families were being put at risk - and argued leaving the EU would make the UK "safer".
Immigration minister James Brokenshire, who backs Remain, said the UK had deported 6,500 EU criminals since 2010.
And he said Prime Minister David Cameron's EU renegotiation gave the UK greater control over deportation - but Mr Raab said the EU had "refused any change" to the rules.

So leave were talking about expiulsions....back to you.

In that case you've got totally the wrong end of the stick. I replied to Bielzibub's comment about not being allowed to refuse people entry.

 

[Bielzibubz]

In that case you've got totally the wrong end of the stick. I replied to Bielzibub's comment about not being allowed to refuse people entry.

I was asking a direct question to Tangled. No where did I say we didn't have the right to deny access to the UK. I asked him if he respected that persons rights to come here regardless of a criminal record, not whether we had the legal power to stop them. I fail to see what lie I've fallen for.

Here's what I actually wrote and you replied to......'What about the free movement rights of other EU nationals that have long and sometimes violent criminal records. Do you respect his/her rights to come here regardless of the obviously high than normal potential to do harm to a UK national? Shouldn't that person be classified as an undesirable and barred from entering just like we are barred from entering certain other countries?

Now, you may be confusing it with my next post which detailed the fact that the European Human Rights Act is used by criminals to avoid deportation and there's bugger all our government can do about it if they do use it and win.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://youtu.be/DjiNNTLUzso

Worth looking at for an academic's take on immigration in the Brexit debate.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Oh give it a rest, you're like an old 78 that refuses to stop playing at the end. You have absolutely no idea what is involved in negotiating our leave from the EU. You have no clue as to what should be said when and absolutely no idea what should be done when. It's all very well saying I'd do this and I'd do that. All very good soundbites and easy to say, much more difficult to do.

You're as way out with respect to my age as you are regarding my opinions.

 

[callan]

In that case you've got totally the wrong end of the stick. I replied to Bielzibub's comment about not being allowed to refuse people entry.

Indeed you did....you also included you observations on Leaves claims in the run up to the Referendum (which of course centered on a dossier of 50 Criminals who were already here, and we were unable to deport).

None the less, this particular part of the discussion has probably run it's course.

 

[Bielzibubz]

You're as way out with respect to my age as you are regarding my opinions.

I didn't say you were 78 :hilarious: It was a reference to old vinyl. Oh why do I bother :hilarious:.....And I maintain, just like everyone else on this site, you have no idea what's involved in Brexit negotiations.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I didn't say you were 78 :hilarious: It was a reference to old vinyl. Oh why do I bother :hilarious:.....And I maintain, just like everyone else on this site, you have no idea what's involved in Brexit negotiations.

I reckon HMG's negotiators will be in for a bit of a suprise come September onwards too.

 

[callan]

I reckon HMG's negotiators will be in for a bit of a suprise come September onwards too.

Why's that then?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why's that then?

:net:

Fairly obviously,because the negotiations are likely to be a lot more complex than the British people are being led to believe by the endless repetiton of the mantra "strong and stable government".That won't be anywhere near enough,on its own, I'm afraid.As I've suggested before, I doubt if the EU care at all about the size of the Tory party majority going into negotiations.