Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[Sputnik1]

Cameron promised article 50 would be triggered immediately in the event of a brexit vote. Remember that.

Neverland makes you forget.

 

 

Feb 2016

Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday set out the details of the UK-EU deal in the House of Commons. He argued that the referendum would be “a straight democratic decision… Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper.” He went on to say that “If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.” Cameron also said that in recommending a vote to remain inside a reformed EU he had “no other agenda than what is best for our country,”

 

Maybe fucking pigs causes you to forget things. 

[Gnasher]

We have loads of Greeks living in Germany, I don't see them whining too much. In fact I have spoken to quite a few (one of my neighbours is Greek, not worked a legal day in the 5 years I've lived here but always working on the black) and they lay the blame on their own Government as much as they do the EU.

 

In fairness if they live in Germany they should be OK. Youth unemployment is not running at 45% is a big plus.

 

Otherwise,

 

 

http://www.antiimperialista.org/greek_leftist_students_against_eu

[KopOut]

House prices will never be affordable as the banks and economy are built on that money. Dont forget the government like high house prices as they have everyones head in a noose so you cant walk from your job or strike without fear of repossession.

 

 

 

Immigration won't slow(as leave leaders have said) you want to trafe freely with the EU you have to accept freedom of movement

 

We have always been in control of our own laws. The difference was if the government stepped over board the EU could hold back the worst of them

 

There has already been reports thst this could guck fishermen more than being in tbe EU

UKIP will save the day. Farage has a mandate to replace the BOE with Tally Sticks. Gonna be 500 yrs of zero inflation. Nigel The Conquerer.

[jimmycase]

Don't be so sensitive - I didn't know if I was wrong or right. I was asking.

 

As it happens though, these appear to disagree with you

 

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_4

 

There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach. A European regulation allows a country such as the UK to return an adult asylum seeker to the first European country they reached. This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more asylum seekers than others. Some of the countries through which people travel to get to Europe are not safe places and many have not signed the Refugee Convention, meaning that people who remain there will not get international protection and be able to rebuild their lives.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position

 

There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined.

 

The immigration rules state, however, that the secretary of state will only remove an asylum seeker to a safe third country if there is clear evidence that the country concerned will admit the person. This will be so if the person has arrived in the UK via another safe country and had an opportunity at the border of or within that country to claim asylum. The mere fact that the person has passed through another country does not necessarily mean there was an opportunity to claim asylum; if an agent planned the journey and the person was hidden in a vehicle for the duration of it, for example, there is unlikely to have been any realistic opportunity for the person to approach the authorities.

 

 

 

But on the whole I think Europe would naturally work together to home refugees.

 

I think you'll find its you being sensitive.

 

The EU laws are very clear on this. You can quote any refugee convention or international law you like, the EU recognises the Geneva Convention, ECHR.

 

Article 3 (1) of theDublin Regulation(Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013) requires thatEU Member States examine any application for international protection lodged by athird-country national or a stateless person and that such application be examined by one single Member State.

 

http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/handbook-law-asylum-migration-borders-2nded_en.pdf

 

The EU Law on refugees and economic migrants is clear. Any refugee or economic migrant must seek asylum in the first member state they reach.

 

Italy has recently asked for this measure to be lifted during the current migration crisis stating it was unfairly being burdened and was why Merkle, Sweden and a few others took in additional people.

[cochyn]

Let's come back to it in 5 years time and we'll see.

 

 

How's this for starters: Osborne 'to abandon 2020 budget surplus target'

 

So, that'll be yet more austerity, restricted growth, higher public debt and no EU money coming in to our most impoverished regions.

[dennis tooth]

How's this for starters: Osborne 'to abandon 2020 budget surplus target'

 

So, that'll be yet more austerity, restricted growth, higher public debt and no EU money coming in to our most impoverished regions.

Tax breaks for corporations also

[RoboRiise]

If a second vote showed 52% Remain and 48% Leave, would you call for a third vote?

 

Why not, that's what Farage said should happen in the event of a 52/48 split to remain.

 

However a 52/48 split to leave obviously represents a solid mandate from the British people.

[Bruce Spanner]

Gove just promised that every word of what he said on the campaign trail was true, even the £350m for the NHS figure which has been largely ridiculed as lies.

 

He now says that he'd now give the NHS £100m per week, this confirms his claim about not lying as that's what the £350m is now worth you thieving Tory bastard because of your lies and determination to destroy public services!

[M_B]

I think you'll find its you being sensitive.

 

The EU laws are very clear on this. You can quote any refugee convention or international law you like, the EU recognises the Geneva Convention, ECHR.

 

Article 3 (1) of theDublin Regulation(Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013) requires thatEU Member States examine any application for international protection lodged by athird-country national or a stateless person and that such application be examined by one single Member State.

 

http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/handbook-law-asylum-migration-borders-2nded_en.pdf

 

The EU Law on refugees and economic migrants is clear. Any refugee or economic migrant must seek asylum in the first member state they reach.

 

Italy has recently asked for this measure to be lifted during the current migration crisis stating it was unfairly being burdened and was why Merkle, Sweden and a few others took in additional people.

 

I don't see that stated in the document. One member state yes, but it doesnt state it must be the first country the immigrant enters anywhere in that document.

 

That fact is, it isn't international law. Its an agreement between EU nations. But we won't be part of the EU anymore, so its up to them.

 

In reality though I agree - I think all European countries will work together to solve the refugee crisis. I don't think this will be lumbered upon us just because we leave.

[dennis tooth]

Brexit: why nobody wants to trigger Article 50

July 1, 2016 - 8:22am - Marina Gerner

If the UK does formally leave the EU it will have to renegotiate hundreds of trade agreements. But the UK parliament 'does not currently have the capacity to cope with a full Brexit', says a House of Commons spokesperson.

The majority of members in the Houses of Parliament were on the 'remain' side, says the spokesperson, and a full Brexit would bring immense legislative difficulties in its wake. However, a full Brexit may not actually happen.

On 23 June, the announcement of the EU referendum result threw the economy into turmoil. But the EU referendum is not legally binding and the formal procedure of leaving the EU can only be done through Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

It may be the case the Article is suspended forever, says the House of Commons spokesperson: 'The withdrawal notice could be sitting somewhere in a cupboard in Brussels for decades to come.'

  NEGOTIATIONS

If the UK actually does decide to tell the EU it is withdrawing under Article 50, the UK's exit then has to be negotiated with the remaining 27 members of the EU and ultimately each member state would have to approve it.

The UK will not be part of the ensuing discussion; as Article 50 states: 'The member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.'

When David Cameron announced that he would step down, he refused to trigger Article 50, leaving it to his successor. At the same time the EU has declared that it won't negotiate informally with the UK until Article 50 is officially triggered.

In recent times the EU has been the UK's most important trading partner. In 2014 it accounted for 45 per cent of UK goods and services exports (£230 billion) and 53 per cent of imports to the UK (£289 billion).

The UK government contributed an estimated £8.5 billion to the EU in 2015, which is around 1 per cent of total public expenditure and equivalent to 0.5 per cent of GDP.

LENGTHY PROCESS

Hundreds of trade deals as well as huge amounts of other legislation would have to be renegotiated if the UK does leave the EU.

The number of civil servants and resources would have to be doubled, says the House of Commons spokesperson. In order to properly scrutinise the legislation involved in new trade agreements, many more researchers and advisers would have to be employed.

In addition to that, every member state would have to ratify new trade deals. And parliament would have to pass these new deals through a legislative process in the UK, which would be a huge legislative burden.

To put that into perspective, Switzerland has spent the past 45 years negotiating agreements on everything from trade to immigration. Many of these deals, particularly those on trade, have mandated that Switzerland adopts EU regulations in return.

As a result 40 per cent of Swiss legislation derives from EU rules - more than twice that of the UK's current legislation. Switzerland has adjusted its domestic policies to fit with EU legislation, in areas including welfare provisions and the free movement of labour.

[RedPaul]

 

The EU Law on refugees and economic migrants is clear. Any refugee or economic migrant must seek asylum in the first member state they reach.

 

 

 

In the grand scheme of things it's a small number that actually end up falling within this rule, i.e. only where we can definitively prove that the migrant was in another member state or safe third country and had the opportunity to make their application there. Some stats which show that for the period Jan15 - Sep15 the UK made 2026 requests (I presume where we considered there was sufficient evidence that another country should have responsibility for the application). In the same period we only transferred out 510. All applications rely on the receiving member state accepting their responsibility too. We also accepted 150 applications from other countries (as it works both ways of course).

 

http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/united-kingdom/asylum-procedure/procedures/dublin

[moof]

I'm not leave or remain because neither path is clear but I think the outcome of the vote should be respected.

Anarchy!! Fuck the system!!

[moof]

And they should be sent straight back across the channel to claim asylum in the first safe country they came to, as per the Geneva Convention. If the EU want to play hardball we should do so too.

 

Ideas like this are what will cause difficulties for us and for ALL in the EU. Farage is right; there needs to be a sensible and grown-up discussion about where we go from here with no animosity.

Jesus tittyfucking christ.

[kalasoma]

Farewell to Boris Johnson - the great political wrecker of his age

 

The Gove email landed - and all hell broke loose

 

Tom Peck Parliamentary Sketch Writer @tompeck 10 hours ago26 comments

 

When there is power to be had, the Tories let blood like a shark with a machete.

 

That, sums it up nicely for me.

[Lee909]

As soon as you say Farage is right you are wrong.

 

That cunt could tell me the earth is round and it orbits the sun and he would still be wrong

[M_B]

 

I don't see that stated in the document. One member state yes, but it doesnt state it must be the first country the immigrant enters anywhere in that document.

 

That fact is, it isn't international law. Its an agreement between EU nations. But we won't be part of the EU anymore, so its up to them.

 

In reality though I agree - I think all European countries will work together to solve the refugee crisis. I don't think this will be lumbered upon us just because we leave.

 

To answer my own question

 

"The position on removal to other countries in the European Union is governed by a regulation, which came into force in September 2003, known as “Dublin II“. This sets out criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining any asylum claim made within the EU. One of the main criteria is the point of entry into the EU. Unless other factors such as family unity or existing residence documents are in issue, the member state into which the person first arrived from outside the EU will be responsible for determining any claim for asylum made within 12 months. After that time responsibility lies with the last member state where the asylum seeker has lived continuously for a period of at least five months."

 

So it is an EU regulation. However we won't be in the EU, so presumeably we would have no legal right to return an asylum seeker to an EU member state.

[dennis tooth]

To answer my own question

 

"The position on removal to other countries in the European Union is governed by a regulation, which came into force in September 2003, known as “Dublin II“. This sets out criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining any asylum claim made within the EU. One of the main criteria is the point of entry into the EU. Unless other factors such as family unity or existing residence documents are in issue, the member state into which the person first arrived from outside the EU will be responsible for determining any claim for asylum made within 12 months. After that time responsibility lies with the last member state where the asylum seeker has lived continuously for a period of at least five months."

 

So it is an EU regulation. However we won't be in the EU, so presumeably we would have no legal right to return an asylum seeker to an EU member state.

In any case you have to prove where they entered the EU.

At which point it just become less expensive and time consuming to just grant them citizenship and a years dole money.

[M_B]

Bank of England is going to start Quantitive Easing next week and might cut Banks capital requirements as well according to Bloomberg.

 

In other words, it is worried about British Banking liquidity (cause they have been humped since the vote) and they want them to lend to stimulate the economy.

 

 

Edit: Gove has said he will not trigger article 50 this calender year.

[jimmycase]

To answer my own question

 

"The position on removal to other countries in the European Union is governed by a regulation, which came into force in September 2003, known as “Dublin II“. This sets out criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining any asylum claim made within the EU. One of the main criteria is the point of entry into the EU. Unless other factors such as family unity or existing residence documents are in issue, the member state into which the person first arrived from outside the EU will be responsible for determining any claim for asylum made within 12 months. After that time responsibility lies with the last member state where the asylum seeker has lived continuously for a period of at least five months."

 

So it is an EU regulation. However we won't be in the EU, so presumeably we would have no legal right to return an asylum seeker to an EU member state.

 

The Dublin arrangements are in force until they are changed. The EU is looking to change this because, although you seem to suggest it doesnt exist, the EU requirement that says asylum seekers must seek asylum in the first member state they arrive in, means countries like Italy were shouldering most of the responsibility to grant them asylum in the present circumstances and want that changed.

 

Whether the UK is outside or inside the EU is immaterial. Outside and until any new arrangements come into effect, the member states will still have to accept asylum seekers in the first member state.

 

As for having no legal right to return asylum seeker to a member state, are you serious? What do you think happens currently for any non EU asylum seeker trying to enter the UK? If they dont satisfy the UK's asylum seeking criteria, they get sent back to whence they came. The UK has a very legal right to deport people who do not satisfy the asylum seeking criteria.

 

Any asylum seeker granted asylum in the EU and trying to get into the UK post exit, can legally be sent back to where they came from (the EU member state) because they would only have satisfied the EU's asylum seeking criteria not, the UK's. You seem to forget freedom of movement only applies in the EU and the UK no longer being in the EU would pre empt that ability. Yes, I know some are saying free movement will be a requirement for access to the single market but that's by no means definitive.

 

You then have to ask yourself why having granted that person asylum in the EU, the EU member would then send them on their way or, why that person having been granted asylum in the EU would then want to try their luck at getting to the UK. Bizarre.

 

France has already declared the UK Border controls in Calais wont be removed so legally, they couldnt get beyond Calais anyway.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

[skend04]

Bank of England is going to start Quantitive Easing next week and might cut Banks capital requirements as well according to Bloomberg.

 

In other words, it is worried about British Banking liquidity (cause they have been humped since the vote) and they want them to lend to stimulate the economy.

 

 

Edit: Gove has said he will not trigger article 50 this calender year.

No one wants to be the person who presses the button on the UKs economy. Not even the guy whose Dad had his fishing business go bust because of the EU.

[M_B]

Whether the UK is outside or inside the EU is immaterial. Outside and until any new arrangements come into effect, the member states will still have to accept asylum seekers in the first member state.

 

As for having no legal right to return asylum seeker to a member state, are you serious? What do you think happens currently for any non EU asylum seeker trying to enter the UK? If they dont satisfy the UK's asylum seeking criteria, they get sent back to whence they came. The UK has a very legal right to deport people who do not satisfy the asylum seeking criteria.

 

As it stands we will have no legal right to relocate a refugee to an EU member state they have travelled through.

[jimmycase]

Bank of England is going to start Quantitive Easing next week and might cut Banks capital requirements as well according to Bloomberg.

 

In other words, it is worried about British Banking liquidity (cause they have been humped since the vote) and they want them to lend to stimulate the economy.

 

 

Edit: Gove has said he will not trigger article 50 this calender year.

 

In other news, the Euro zone is in crisis but because they're locked into fiscal and monetary union, individual states can do little but turn to austerity programmes.

 

Europe's banking sector is braced for chaos, with Italian giants desperate for a bailout and Germany’s biggest lender deemed a threat to the world economy.

 

In Italy, politicians begged the European Union for permission to bail out troubled lenders sitting on more than £300bn of bad loans.

 

Meanwhile, Portugal – long feared to be a future flashpoint in the eurozone crisis – has been urged to double down on austerity measures in the uncertain times ahead.

 

+1

Dark days: The IMF said that Germany’s Deutsche Bank posed more risk to the global financial system than any other lender

And the International Monetary Fund said that Germany’s Deutsche Bank posed more risk to the global financial system than any other lender.

 

Concerns were already raging over Italian banks due to the huge amounts of dangerous credit on their books.

It led to the launch of a £4bn privately-backed rescue fund in April to shore up suffering lenders, but there were fears this still might not be enough.

 

The country’s problems are compounded by EU state aid rules which prevent its government from stepping in. And despite increasingly frantic requests for wriggle room from Italian ministers, eurozone bosses were refusing to budge last night.

Italy is understood to have requested flexibility in light of Brexit but the pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was asked about the issue at an EU summit. ‘We can’t come up with new rules every two years,’ she said in reply.

 

It echoes the view of the European Commission, which oversees finance and competition guidelines.

‘The commission is ready to help but so far it has not been convinced by what has been proposed in Italy,’ an official told Reuters.

 

‘Can the Italians really prove that there is a systemic problem caused by the British vote? I don’t know. There is a special impact on the banks, this is true, but everyone has been affected, not just Italy.’

 

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said he was confident savings could be protected under existing rules. However, Italy is not the only nation thought to be at risk from the vote.

Portugal’s left-wing government has been urged to slash costs by the IMF. The country, which is in the throes of a long recovery, was told to tighten its belt to ‘improve the economy’s resilience to shocks’. IMF experts warned Portuguese growth would be 1 per cent this year and 1.1 per cent the year after, and said its public debts – the largest in the eurozone – were a cause for concern.

 

This poses a problem for the nation’s anti-austerity socialist government. The IMF said there had been a ‘regrettable’ lack of progress on public sector reforms, and called for a ‘stable and predictable tax system’.

In more conservative Germany, the IMF said Deutsche Bank’s close links to other major lenders made it a risk to the world economy.

 

This means that if it collapsed, the ripple effects would be felt across the world.

HSBC and Credit Suisse were the second and third most risky lenders, the IMF said. It closely followed news that Deutsche Bank had failed a US Federal Reserve stress test for the second year in a row.

This was because of ‘broad and substantial weaknesses’ in its capital planning.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3666354/Chaos-Europe-s-big-banks-Italy-begs-40bn-bailout-German-giant-risk-economy-Portugal-faces-austerity.html#ixzz4D9sPuABV

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[FanchesterCity]

In any case you have to prove where they entered the EU.

At which point it just become less expensive and time consuming to just grant them citizenship and a years dole money.

 

We wouldn't have to prove where they arrived in the EU.

We're obliged to host them until their claim has been processed, and often whilst a second claim is processed (if the first failed).

If we reject their claim, they're supposed to leave the country of their own accord, or we eject them forcibly - one assumes to their home nation (clearly at some cost to us!) or to the nation they arrived from.

 

Basically, if they make it to our shores, and put in an asylum claim, we can't kick them out until processed. And we must pay for that processing.

The Geneva Convention and ECHR both cover this and we can't get out of either very easily, regardless of being in the EU or not.

 

It would be interesting to know how much it does cost to actually 'process' a person. 

[FanchesterCity]

Bank of England is going to start Quantitive Easing next week and might cut Banks capital requirements as well according to Bloomberg.

 

In other words, it is worried about British Banking liquidity (cause they have been humped since the vote) and they want them to lend to stimulate the economy.

 

 

Edit: Gove has said he will not trigger article 50 this calender year.

 

It's funny how leaving was the best thing since sliced bread, but he'll hesitate to press the button.