FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit Work Permit
Brexit Work Permit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"It has been widely leaked over the last week on certain social media blogs that within days of triggering article 50 it is May intents to withdraw the right of permanent residence from all EU citizens who enter the UK after a cut off date. The date I have seen mentioned as the cut off is 15/3/17. I do not know if this is true or not but the sources are generally pretty much on the money. I wonder if the scum have just picked up the story and are now trying to 'own' it rather than credit the original sources because they are left wing political whistle blowing blogs?" OK, but I don't know how this works legally with the rights of EU citizens in the EU whilst we are EU members. From europa.eu: "As EU national, you automatically acquire the right of permanent residence in another EU country if you have lived legally there for at least 5 years continuously. You can then apply for a permanent residence document, which confirms your rights to live in the country where you now live permanently, without any conditions. This is different from the registration certificate which is compulsory in many countries. The permanent residence document is not compulsory." I'm not quite sure the distinction between the automatic right you get, and the permanent residence document you can then apply for. I guess the point is the latter would be relevant even if the UK leaves the EU? And that is the document that a lot of EU nationals living in the UK are now rushing to get in order to confirm their residency here? If so, I still don't quite see what this permit does or how it fits into things? Is it that as of next month as an EU citizen coming to live and work in the UK you would get this 5 year permit, and then if, say, the UK leaves the EU in 2 years time, you still have a further 3 years guaranteed here? -Matt | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"She is doing the right thing , hard for me to compliment her as a hater of the Tory party but if she didn't do this there would be a huge influx over the next two years . " Why a huge influx? And how you define 'huge'? Given the net EU migration was 174,000 in 2014 and 184,000 in 2015, it doesn't seem to be going up much. Admittedly it has dropped in 2016... for stats so far, prob because of the referendum. -Matt | |||
"She is doing the right thing , hard for me to compliment her as a hater of the Tory party but if she didn't do this there would be a huge influx over the next two years . " 
It's a step in the right direction, free movement of people from the EU here cannot continue as it is, that was made clear during the referendum and I'm glad to see Teresa May has taken it on board. | |||
"She is doing the right thing , hard for me to compliment her as a hater of the Tory party but if she didn't do this there would be a huge influx over the next two years .
It's a step in the right direction, free movement of people from the EU here cannot continue as it is, that was made clear during the referendum and I'm glad to see Teresa May has taken it on board. "Will these policies take place before Brexit? If so why did we vote for Brexit for controlled borders of they're doing it before. | |||
| |||
"She is doing the right thing , hard for me to compliment her as a hater of the Tory party but if she didn't do this there would be a huge influx over the next two years .
It's a step in the right direction, free movement of people from the EU here cannot continue as it is, that was made clear during the referendum and I'm glad to see Teresa May has taken it on board.
Will these policies take place before Brexit? If so why did we vote for Brexit for controlled borders of they're doing it before."Exactly, that is what I don't understand about what is being proposed. Oh, and to Centaur, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, nothing was made clear during the referendum. If it was we would be in a far better position right now. -Matt | |||
"She is doing the right thing , hard for me to compliment her as a hater of the Tory party but if she didn't do this there would be a huge influx over the next two years .
It's a step in the right direction, free movement of people from the EU here cannot continue as it is, that was made clear during the referendum and I'm glad to see Teresa May has taken it on board.
Will these policies take place before Brexit? If so why did we vote for Brexit for controlled borders of they're doing it before.
Exactly, that is what I don't understand about what is being proposed.
Oh, and to Centaur, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, nothing was made clear during the referendum. If it was we would be in a far better position right now.
-Matt"The leavers claim it wasn't about immigration, then it was about immigration, then it wasn't, then it was etc etc. I can't keep up! | |||
| |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. " My sentiments as well, and I voted leave, A balanced well thought out reply. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. " Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered." Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!  | |||
| |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to! "There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor. | |||
| |||
"I think it's a good thing the Lords are voting to ensure that EU citizens who are here now should be safe and be entitled to reside in the UK. After all this is about putting the package together in which to negotiate the deal with the EU it states the intention if the UK to be fair and put the ball in the EU's court to do the same for UK citizens living within the EU memeber countries. " agreed But the problem with Expats is most are pensioners - not particularly rich - just about managing. If a deal is not done, up to a million could be forced back, and possibly be destitute, if they can't sell their foreign property? Imagine the stress on the NHS and social welfare housing them all? | |||
"I think it's a good thing the Lords are voting to ensure that EU citizens who are here now should be safe and be entitled to reside in the UK. After all this is about putting the package together in which to negotiate the deal with the EU it states the intention if the UK to be fair and put the ball in the EU's court to do the same for UK citizens living within the EU memeber countries. agreed But the problem with Expats is most are pensioners - not particularly rich - just about managing. If a deal is not done, up to a million could be forced back, and possibly be destitute, if they can't sell their foreign property? Imagine the stress on the NHS and social welfare housing them all?" Theres always Dignitas  | |||
"I think it's a good thing the Lords are voting to ensure that EU citizens who are here now should be safe and be entitled to reside in the UK. After all this is about putting the package together in which to negotiate the deal with the EU it states the intention if the UK to be fair and put the ball in the EU's court to do the same for UK citizens living within the EU memeber countries. agreed But the problem with Expats is most are pensioners - not particularly rich - just about managing. If a deal is not done, up to a million could be forced back, and possibly be destitute, if they can't sell their foreign property? Imagine the stress on the NHS and social welfare housing them all? " But they are spending thier money in those countries taxes ect and so are contributing to those economies | |||
"She is doing the right thing , hard for me to compliment her as a hater of the Tory party but if she didn't do this there would be a huge influx over the next two years .
It's a step in the right direction, free movement of people from the EU here cannot continue as it is, that was made clear during the referendum and I'm glad to see Teresa May has taken it on board.
Will these policies take place before Brexit? If so why did we vote for Brexit for controlled borders of they're doing it before.
Exactly, that is what I don't understand about what is being proposed.
Oh, and to Centaur, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, nothing was made clear during the referendum. If it was we would be in a far better position right now.
-Matt
The leavers claim it wasn't about immigration, then it was about immigration, then it wasn't, then it was etc etc. I can't keep up! "couldn't it be just one of many reasons  . | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor."The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor.
The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this. " no comments | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor.
The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this. "So 1.5 million jobs become available. Great. How many unemployed do we have? We can really solve British issues now. So easy. | |||
"She is doing the right thing , hard for me to compliment her as a hater of the Tory party but if she didn't do this there would be a huge influx over the next two years .
It's a step in the right direction, free movement of people from the EU here cannot continue as it is, that was made clear during the referendum and I'm glad to see Teresa May has taken it on board.
Will these policies take place before Brexit? If so why did we vote for Brexit for controlled borders of they're doing it before.
Exactly, that is what I don't understand about what is being proposed.
Oh, and to Centaur, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, nothing was made clear during the referendum. If it was we would be in a far better position right now.
-Matt
The leavers claim it wasn't about immigration, then it was about immigration, then it wasn't, then it was etc etc. I can't keep up! "The leavers dont all have exactly the same reasons for voting leave , you talk about them like they are just one person with one view. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor.
The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this. "Well no, because we are one country, and they are 27 countries. I know they are not spread evenly from all 27, but if we imagine they are, we take but 1.6m (according to your figures), and they take back 111,111 each, so thats quite a big difference isn't it. Also seeing as countries like Poland and Romania and Hungary etc. will be getting back working age people, whilst we would get a considerable number of retired people, you can see how we are doubly fucked. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor.
The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this.
So 1.5 million jobs become available. Great. How many unemployed do we have? We can really solve British issues now. So easy."Yeah, except your surgeon isn't going to be a German doctor with 15 years experience anymore, instead you are going to have a long term unemployed bloke with 2 GCSEs doing your operation, but he should be fine because he's spent the last 5 years watching Quincy so he should know what to do. | |||
| |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor.
The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this.
So 1.5 million jobs become available. Great. How many unemployed do we have? We can really solve British issues now. So easy.
Yeah, except your surgeon isn't going to be a German doctor with 15 years experience anymore, instead you are going to have a long term unemployed bloke with 2 GCSEs doing your operation, but he should be fine because he's spent the last 5 years watching Quincy so he should know what to do. "That's my point. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor.
The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this.
So 1.5 million jobs become available. Great. How many unemployed do we have? We can really solve British issues now. So easy.
Yeah, except your surgeon isn't going to be a German doctor with 15 years experience anymore, instead you are going to have a long term unemployed bloke with 2 GCSEs doing your operation, but he should be fine because he's spent the last 5 years watching Quincy so he should know what to do. "Your point is irrelevant. Leaving the EU is going to stop mass uncontrolled immigration of unskilled Labour from the EU. We can then only let in the highly skilled workers that we need to fill vacancies in shortage areas. As we leave the EU our immigration will be more fair and all immigrants from all over the world will be treated equally and fairly. The EU free movement of people immigration policy is discriminatory and favours EU immigrants over non EU immigrants. If that highly skilled German doctor no longer wants to come here after Brexit then we can attract a highly skilled Indian doctor or an American doctor or an Australian doctor instead. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Well the thing that those Brits in Spain don't realise is that they probably wont pass the habitual residents test and won't get all the things that they think they are entitled to!
There is more than 1 million British immigrants in Spain, and more than 3 million spreaded all over Europe; will it be easier for them to get another citizenship or call for a second referendum?... It seems time is not in their favor.
The official figures released from the government said there are around 3 million EU citizens living and working here in the UK and only around 1.6 million Brits living and working in the EU. So as the EU have more of their citizens here its more in their interest to do a reciprocal deal on this.
So 1.5 million jobs become available. Great. How many unemployed do we have? We can really solve British issues now. So easy.
Yeah, except your surgeon isn't going to be a German doctor with 15 years experience anymore, instead you are going to have a long term unemployed bloke with 2 GCSEs doing your operation, but he should be fine because he's spent the last 5 years watching Quincy so he should know what to do.
Your point is irrelevant. Leaving the EU is going to stop mass uncontrolled immigration of unskilled Labour from the EU. We can then only let in the highly skilled workers that we need to fill vacancies in shortage areas. As we leave the EU our immigration will be more fair and all immigrants from all over the world will be treated equally and fairly. The EU free movement of people immigration policy is discriminatory and favours EU immigrants over non EU immigrants. If that highly skilled German doctor no longer wants to come here after Brexit then we can attract a highly skilled Indian doctor or an American doctor or an Australian doctor instead."An excellent post . I always thought it odd that we give preference to EU citizens in these cases . Now we can select from a World Market . | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market ." What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? " give equal rights to people | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? " Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? give equal rights to people" Freedom of movement from all countries? | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. " The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported. "Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? give equal rights to people Freedom of movement from all countries? " No, EU citizens will be treated equally on the same footing as non EU citizens. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported. "Exactly... That's the reason why we don't have any illegal immigrants here, because everybody that comes here with no job voluntarily goes home after 6 months. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply. "Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax. Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK. "Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months "School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children. NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance. Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident. Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home. So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? "a tourist should have insurance Nhs does not turn people away We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative "I never said that tourists dont have insurance. The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer. We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back."they are only covered for 3 months on the NHS | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
they are only covered for 3 months on the NHS"See even CandM agree with me! | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered." Why would Spain even consider doing that ? Most of people to whom you refer will already have made a significant contribution to the local economy in Spain. | |||
"If it was any other area the Right would be arguing that the State is fundamentally incapable of making better decisions than the market. Yet when it comes to having people of different colour or native language living next door, regardless that it is overwhelmingly positive for their pockets on a national scale, THAT is where they think the socialism trumps capitalism. Not health, not education, not science, not large infrastructure projects, cutting edge research for knowledge sake, not law and order, no not any of those things the State should be tasked with, is better suited than the private sector to and does a better job. No, the area they think the State should intervene in is the general labour market and they think they can predict the requirements of all the myriad different and interlinked sectors better than the emergent properties that history has shown no-one can really predict. There should be only one condition on immigration that the state should impose. Have you got a job?! Conceivably that could have a period of months before being asked to leave, certainly before any benefits become an entitlement,but other than that and security issues the state should fuck off deciding who will benefit us by being here. That is not to say, lest the gobshites jump in, that immigration cannot cause localised problems but they can all be addressed in other ways, such as minimum wage regulations, by sector if need be, and making sure uk businesses give U.K. Nationals an equal chance of employment rather than favouring overseas workers. This is something the Swiss are doing rather than commit the folly of leaving the single market. We are not too full. We need young healthy driven migrants contributing their skills and energy to the economy and their taxes to the pensions of the miserable old bastards who need it yet voted against it. The failures around immigration are all our own failures of planning. Agreed. Now imagine all the 60+ years old Brits in Spain after Spain decides to apply the same measures the UK will apply on EU migrants: You will be flooded with all sort of patients! how will your NHS deal with them all specially with the lack of medics and nurses, many coming from EU? Not a good future after article 50 is triggered. Why would Spain even consider doing that ? Most of people to whom you refer will already have made a significant contribution to the local economy in Spain. " The answer to your question is in the post (the post is self explanatory). | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back."I consider a holiday to be a period or 1 or 2 weeks. How can you seriously say a period of 6 months is like a holiday/tourists? Yet again you are talking nonsense. Does anyone on here go on holiday for 6 months?  | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
I consider a holiday to be a period or 1 or 2 weeks. How can you seriously say a period of 6 months is like a holiday/tourists? Yet again you are talking nonsense. Does anyone on here go on holiday for 6 months? "Only the rich or unemployed. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back."But we fail to charge back more often than we do charge! I've spent an awful lot of time in hospital a&e, wards, etc over the last few years.... And have NEVER seen anyone ask for proof of i.d, address, an EHIC card, insurance, etc. Some years ago I received an invoice from the N'S for just over £7,000 for treatment. Someone had come over here, got treatment for an illness that they already had, and given my address. I've still got the invoice. Took me ages to sort out. When speaking to the lady at the NHS who eventually sorted it for me, she told me it happens all the time. So I'm afraid your assertion that we treat people, charge back to that person's country, and there is no cost to the taxpayer, is rather delusional. | |||
"There hasn't been any proposal to repatriate any EU citizens already here. Why has this turned into a discussion about that?" It's part of the remain project fear rhetoric. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
But we fail to charge back more often than we do charge!
I've spent an awful lot of time in hospital a&e, wards, etc over the last few years.... And have NEVER seen anyone ask for proof of i.d, address, an EHIC card, insurance, etc.
Some years ago I received an invoice from the N'S for just over £7,000 for treatment. Someone had come over here, got treatment for an illness that they already had, and given my address. I've still got the invoice. Took me ages to sort out. When speaking to the lady at the NHS who eventually sorted it for me, she told me it happens all the time.
So I'm afraid your assertion that we treat people, charge back to that person's country, and there is no cost to the taxpayer, is rather delusional."I think we lose up to £2 billion pounds in Health Tourism. We should treat everyone equally as do other countries . As a condition of treatment you should be required to pay up front or produce a valid insurance policy . No excuses should be accepted . Many people complain about NHS funding yet are prepared to accept Health Tourism.. | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
they are only covered for 3 months on the NHS
See even CandM agree with me! "Don't be ridiculous
what I'm saying is, if they are here for 6 months without working they would need insurance too because EHIC only covers you for the first 3 months. How hospitals would know how long you'v been here or if they would bother to check though is another matter | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
I consider a holiday to be a period or 1 or 2 weeks. How can you seriously say a period of 6 months is like a holiday/tourists? Yet again you are talking nonsense. Does anyone on here go on holiday for 6 months?
Only the rich or unemployed."How can an unemployed person afford to go on holiday for 6 months? | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
they are only covered for 3 months on the NHS
See even CandM agree with me!
Don't be ridiculous
what I'm saying is, if they are here for 6 months without working they would need insurance too because EHIC only covers you for the first 3 months. How hospitals would know how long you'v been here or if they would bother to check though is another matter"Ok, read what I said "NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance." and now read what you wrote, do you agree with me or not? (Sorry, I know this will be painful for you) | |||
"How can an unemployed person afford to go on holiday for 6 months? " The none too subtle inference is that being unemployed is one long holiday.  | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
they are only covered for 3 months on the NHS
See even CandM agree with me!
Don't be ridiculous
what I'm saying is, if they are here for 6 months without working they would need insurance too because EHIC only covers you for the first 3 months. How hospitals would know how long you'v been here or if they would bother to check though is another matter
Ok, read what I said "NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance." and now read what you wrote, do you agree with me or not? (Sorry, I know this will be painful for you)"missed that. Ok so for the first time in the history of the forums you got one thing right | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
they are only covered for 3 months on the NHS
See even CandM agree with me!
Don't be ridiculous
what I'm saying is, if they are here for 6 months without working they would need insurance too because EHIC only covers you for the first 3 months. How hospitals would know how long you'v been here or if they would bother to check though is another matter
Ok, read what I said "NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance." and now read what you wrote, do you agree with me or not? (Sorry, I know this will be painful for you)
missed that. Ok so for the first time in the history of the forums you got one thing right " | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
But we fail to charge back more often than we do charge!
I've spent an awful lot of time in hospital a&e, wards, etc over the last few years.... And have NEVER seen anyone ask for proof of i.d, address, an EHIC card, insurance, etc.
Some years ago I received an invoice from the N'S for just over £7,000 for treatment. Someone had come over here, got treatment for an illness that they already had, and given my address. I've still got the invoice. Took me ages to sort out. When speaking to the lady at the NHS who eventually sorted it for me, she told me it happens all the time.
So I'm afraid your assertion that we treat people, charge back to that person's country, and there is no cost to the taxpayer, is rather delusional. I think we lose up to £2 billion pounds in Health Tourism.
We should treat everyone equally as do other countries .
As a condition of treatment you should be required to pay up front or produce a valid insurance policy .
No excuses should be accepted .
Many people complain about NHS funding yet are prepared to accept Health Tourism..
"Now ask yourself if that is the fault of the EU, or the UK? | |||
"Now we can select from a World Market . What will we be able to do after Brexit that we can't do now? Stop all the uncontrolled unskilled Labour coming in from the EU that we don't need. The market does that, if we don't need them, they dont get a job, if they don't get a job in 6 months they get deported.
Why bother letting those in who don't have a job? They come for 6 months and get sent back? What is the point in it? Better to stop them coming if they don't have a job in the first place. Also a proportion of those currently coming with no job for 6 months go missing into the black market to avoid being deported and are often exploited by criminal gangs or unscrupulous employers, and become illegal immigrants. Better to stop them coming in the first place and it also cuts off criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers Labour supply.
Because for 6 months they are customers, consumers and pay VAT and council tax.
Please explain how, from an economic point of view, an EU jobseeker in the UK differs from a tourist to the UK.
Children educated , NHS , housing and if say from Romania or Pakistan do you really think they can fund their selves for 6 months
School place, a fair point for people with children, but of course they dont all have children.
NHS, nope, they wouldn't be a UK resident so they wouldn't be eligible, they would need health insurance.
Housing. Do you mean social housing? Nope, they are not resident.
Romania or Pakistan? Well Pakistan isn't in the EU so different rules apply. As for a Romanian, you say they can't afford it, so how does that differ from a tourist? No benefits as "no recourse to public funds" so they either get a job or go home.
So an EU jobseeker is remarkably similar to a tourist then, and every agrees that tourism is good, right? a tourist should have insurance
Nhs does not turn people away
We can send eu citizens back if they can't support themselves after I think 3 months but we don't
You seem to post endlessly quality is better than quantitative
I never said that tourists dont have insurance.
The NHS wouldn't turn people away, but the costs will be charged back to their country of residence, so not cost to the UK tax payer.
We can send people back after 6 months, not 3 months, and I can assure you that we do send people back.
I consider a holiday to be a period or 1 or 2 weeks. How can you seriously say a period of 6 months is like a holiday/tourists? Yet again you are talking nonsense. Does anyone on here go on holiday for 6 months? "The question was, from an economic perspective, how does an EU jobseeker differ from a tourist. Not how long do you think a holiday is. In addition to the original question, would it be better or worse if tourists visited the UK for longer than 1 or 2 weeks? | |||
| |||
| |||
"What amazes me is how everybody's saying "this is the right thing" what is now being mentioned. Typical politicians trying to spin. The real facts are: 1. EU citizens living in another EU country can do so legally for 3 MONTHS. 2. Over 3 MONTHS they have to have: A. Comprehensive Medical Insurance policy which covers ALL medical cases. B. Have sufficient income to support themselves - so that they are not a burden to the host state. C. They do not represent a security risk. These checks and balances are already in place! So why are we not see this? No one should be a burden on the state- they have to be self sufficient? So why haven't we sent back those who are? Why wasn't this aired in the referendum? Did they know ( politicians )? If the truth was to come out - once again governments of all colours failing to do their job properly! To be legal you have to meet ALL 3 of these conditions - not 1 or 2 . We know expats here who don't have all 3 so being illegal migrants here!" Yes that is all true. But I guess it has probably never been enforced. Didn't the govt just admit recently that they couldn't even throw out EU nationals if they wanted to as they have no idea where they are. -Matt | |||
