So far.. do you think it is good or bad, fair or unfair particularly when we see the migration figures over the last few years and many are here without families but many are waiting and ready to come ? Last years figures amounted to approx. the population of Liverpool. Nationally up 7 million since the year 2000.

I suppose we will now all get the bleating and the 'So Unfair Gang' out to play have massive disruptions and they'll use it as another lever to attempt anarchy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40376083

Brexit: May unveils 'fair and serious' offer on EU citizens

About three million EU citizens living in the UK would be allowed to stay after Brexit, Theresa May has proposed.

A new "UK settled status" would grant EU migrants who had lived in the UK for five years rights to stay and access health, education and other benefits.

Proposals were unveiled at a Brussels summit but are dependent on EU states guaranteeing Britons the same rights.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the plan a "good start", but Labour said it was "too little, too late".

May hasn't been entirely honest on this one, the EU has already made an offer a few weeks ago, we have not been told the details of the offer. She could be doing a Cameron and making an offer which is identical to the EU one, or this is just an opening gambit.

What I would think is fair is that any EU citizen who has paid UK tax in the last three years and has been resident for more than one year in the the last three years is entitled to residency.

Any direct relative/partner of one of the above would have to go through the normal immigrant channels.

There are far too many EU citizens coming here and earning money (blackmarket or otherwise) but are not paying UK tax and the money goes back home.

Seasonal workers and the like have been catered for in the UK long before any of us were born and that process can continue as normal.

The EU has made it clear that any negotiation should be done through the agreed channels, and May should shut up. Her interference is neither welcome nor beneficial.

I don't think resident for 12 months is good enough. Three years and paid tax is probably a better option. I just don't get what their problems are, what exactly do they want. I know there are chunnerings about the Judicial side of it, but not all EU citizens could be married to other EU citizens, they could be married to Indians or Red Indians, so why would that coe under the European constitution. I think they are hoping, i.e. those who originally said, "Brexit means Brexit, there will be no turning back" as threats before the referendum, seem to have changed their tune a 360 degrees and seem to be saying, " don't go, you can change your mind " on a public place for the whole of the EU and world to see, firstly by the new French chap (who had obviously been instructed by the EU commanders) and now a few more are making it quite clear that they are uttering the same. Now we get Juncker who had made the same point, showing his nastier side because we haven't listened to him. They are ALL behaving abysmally, and this tit for tat , we are going to win from ALL sides just really shows what numpties are actually running the show.

Bring back Farage. Stick him in Number 10.. although I don't think he's too far away.
We sit and wait to see what the Corbyn chap is about to attempt to do. We probably all know his and McDonnell's next move.
Who knew that Corbyn when told about the child abuse going on in his constituency of Islington, chose to ignore the allegations, as did Margaret Hodge ? Both of them contacted and both ignored the concerns.

It is not up to us. It is up to the EU. Be under no illusion. We are in no position to argue about it. We have nothing to bargain with.

The best we can hope for is free movement of people in exchange for no tariff barriers. This would make brexit a bit pointless, but it is anyway I suppose. Anything else involves thousands of Brits being repatriated, and severe damage to our economy. The pound will be so low that it will be almost impossible to get anyone from the 27 to work in the EU, even if they ar allowed in, and we shall have crops rotting in the fields.

I suspect that in the end it will not be the UK that walks out of the brexit talks, but the EU - from sheer frustration at negotiating with cretins with unrealistic demands.

I really don't understand why brexiteers are unable to understand that WE HAVE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO OFFER THE EU.

If you check the records (not including the Daily Mail's version) you will find Corbyn did not ignore the Islington child abuse allegations. he acted on them as best he could as a backbench MP. Margaret Hodge (who blocked the investigations) has confessed to this numerous times since. Nobody in any of the investigations since has implicated Corbyn in any cover-up.

I notice there are a lot of Brexit articles saying that 2019 is the year Brexit will happen whether we like it or not, this is not what Article 50 states, it allows for Brexit to happen at any time, as with most things, it is negotiable.

One sticking point is that the EU wants to retain control of the UK after Brexit by having the European Courts of Human Rights still capable of over-ruling our own courts. This is of course preposterous.

Nothing preposterous about it. If a British expat is in dispute with the Spanish Law he needs a court which is independent of all countries to decide the issue.

What's your problem with the ECHR?

Various points of discussion on this. I do like Douglas Murray he has a good way of explaining his views and seems to hit the nail on the head every time.



[youtube]v-wz6geHfrQ[/youtube]

Re: Corbyn. Had it on good authority that he didn't even acknowledge or respond to those who made the initial contact and every attempt to get one step further was blocked.. by both of them, independently (That's my understanding)

They want ECHR to continue to preside over the UK after Brexit, ie they want to be able to ignore UK law. Brexit is pretty pointless if we still come under EU law, we would be the ultimate puppet.

A British expat in dispute with Spanish Law would not be going through the UK courts anyway?

The ECHR is nothing whatever to do with the EU. It was set up - and enthusiastically supported by Churchill and the UK - as part of the council of Europe of which we remain a member.

It is there to protect the human rights of individuals who find themselves in dispute with governments. Governments can and do establish laws which infringe the rights of individuals who are not their citizens and the ECHR is supported by countries in the council of Europe to consider such cases.

I am pleased you realise that my UK expat cannot expect any support from UK law, however sympathetic to his plight it may be. It has no power in Spain. The ECHR does have power to protect him there, and that is why we need to recognise it.

The reason why this government finds this irritating is that it would dearly like to put its own political interests above the human rights of individuals. A shameful ambition and one nobody should seek to support.

Individuals need supranational courts in disputes with governments.

While "The ECHR is nothing whatever to do with the EU" the counter to that is "The EU is something to do with the ECHR", membership of the EU prescribes that membership of the Council of Europe is compulsory specifically for the ECHR.

We were voluntary members of the Council of Europe, we also don't sign up to all the protocols of the ECHR. If the EU impose the ECHR on us will will not have the choice of which protocols apply.

A very simple example of where there could be conflict could be photography. A photographer thinks he has a right to photograph public places, a member of the public thinks he has the privacy right not to be photographed. Both have a human rights case, our country may decide one way, the ECHR may decide the other. Should it not be up to the country concerned to decide.

We already have the little used English Bill of Rights which was the basis of the ECHR anyway.

The British expat case is NOT affected by whether we come under the ECHR or not, it would be whether Spain came under the ECHR or not. Our membership of the Council would have no bearing on the case whatsoever. In any case my general take on people abroad is that they should obey the laws of the land they are in.

We have a legal system of five levels (Magistrate, Crown, High, Appeal and Supreme) which is already independent of the Government, we have laws which are put in place democratically (look how many Government u-turns have happened with new laws).

I am not suggesting that we should leave the Council of Europe, I am merely saying that we should not let the EU impose the full ECHR upon us when we are not in the EU.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the EU is not imposing the ECHR on us? It can't if we are no longer a member.

For that matter why is it so hard for you to understand that the EU has never imposed ANYTHNG on us without first securing our agreement to it?

It is simply a matter of recognising that some disputes cannot be justly settled by a single government, in which case you need a supranational court. That applies to us as a single country just as much outside the EU as within it. Indeed possibly more.

If you think the ECHR gets involved with arguments about photography, you understand it even less well than I assumed. Such a dispute doesn't involve any human rights and you would simply have to follow the law in the country where the photography took place.

Not that it matters. We are in any case unable to argue with the EU short of simply walking out of the negotiations. We have no clout whatsoever and have a team of negotiators that make you want to put your head in your hands and weep.

But they are imposing it, they want the ECHR to oversee the compliance of the agreements after Brexit. As the Brexit agreement (if it happens) covers lots of things, in fact almost everything directly or indirectly then we would be exposed.

You disagreed when I said it was preposterous yet now you are saying its not possible - I'm glad we are starting to have a slight meeting of minds.

You may not realise the diversity of the ECHR, some individual case make it there, the back-log of cases peaked at over 100,000 cases.

Our judicial system makes judgements, the Government makes decisions, the judicial system over-rides the Government.

We have loads of clout, that is why the EU doesn't just shut the door on us and why they are making so much noise and threats. If the EU doesn't get a good deal for themselves, the EU could collapse. Also they are struggling to see how they can get a good deal for the EU without giving a good deal to the UK, if we get a good deal, other countries might fancy going it alone.

Eventually some sort of deal will be knocked out which makes both sides look like losers when in actual fact they aren't.

The EU cannot force the ECHR on us if we are no longer in the EU.

I'd be very interested in what 'clout' you think we have. I cannot think of anything of substance, but please educate me. I keep hearing people saying they need us more than we need them, but this claim is never supported by anything specific. It would be good to hear what cards you believe we have.

And I think if anyone is making noise and threats it is our side, and they are ridiculously empty ones too. Just go back and look at what Boris has said for instance. Our departure is a relatively minor thing to the EU. We are one of 28 after all, and there are other nations queuing up to join, which is a much more exciting thing for them.

I look forward to your list of what we have that the EU needs though.

The EU is doing well financially despite, or perhaps because of our departure:

https://www.ft.com/content/0bbc026a-ea12-11e6-967b-c88452263daf?mhq5j=e3

So far as I can see, there is little appetite for 'free movement of people'.

European Courts of Human Rights, were responsible for taking so long to get Abu Hamza out of the UK..

"In past cases, the ECtHR has prevented the UK from deporting suspected foreign terrorists to places where they might be tortured. In Hamza's case, this has been extended to refusing extradition to a country where he might be jailed for life, and where the prison regime is judged too harsh "

Abu Qatada was another the ECHR supported.

It's bonkers, and we don't need a bunch of wonkers telling UK for evermore that we cannot deport foreign nationals who are guilty of crimes against the British Nationals or the security of this country, particularly in view of the present day environment ,and it would seem likely to continue long into the future. We can have our very own Court of Human Rights on which the ECHR was based .

So what will come about , is every Foreign National we might wish to expel will be running to the ECHR, we will have to foot the bill, there will be no resolve in such cases for a very long time, and our courts will eventually be amalgamated into a very much more complex system than what it is now, which will be the demise of any country having an independent voice.

" The Convention was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political democracy", from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom, France and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe, as said by Guido Raimondi, President of European Court of Human Rights:"

The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe.
Considering there are 47 states answerable to this , I can't see that all things are equal. How do Honour Killings and Arranged Marriages come into play on Muslim countries such as Turkey . How does Russia's refusal to allow someone stand for election, stand on the Human Rights platform, and particularly when the Convention is responsible for Democracy and freedom of speech. Ha ! there are quite a number of areas where the latter two points don't quite get recognised in many countries out of the 47.

Just as a matter of interest, what exactly is 'freedom of speech' in democratic countries these days ? Have the rules been changed without us knowing by the ECHR, because a number of other things have and as I understand it, freedom of speech used to mean you could say what you wanted. We still can towards The Queen, Prince Philip. Prince Charles, politicians, pop artists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims (ATM), doctors ,nurses, teachers, everybody but not about those who live in or are connected to Israel. So Muslims cannot say anything about Israel but Israel can say what they like about Palestinians etc. Israel is classed as being in Europe, just like Turkey is. Double standards all around.

Discrimination ? Who is discriminated against in this day and age ? Not the foreign nationals. Freedom of movement will just be a vast number of people from all different generic differences, from all over the world, once they are given permission to stay and be given citizenship within the EU. That then means that every bugger from anywhere will be able to arrive and stay. Threatening our own identity, and of course Eu want freedom of movement to include us, because we are one of the wealthiest countries and they need us to take half of the migrants as the other half of the EU states haven't got enough to keep them going, and they don't want to be invaded by Nationals from other countries . They've had their wars, eg Bosnia , Croatia , Serbia and they don't want it again. So we will get the residue from just about anywhere dumped on us to relieve the pressure else where. Romania is a Muslim country, Bulgaria is a Muslim country, Albania is a Muslim country, so it goes on. No we don't want them all here.

No freedom of movement or we will regret the day, eventually.

British citizens 2.5 children, Islam 6.7 plus, children !

Those who don't have a religion or don't believe in it, make sure you understand that a certain religion will NOT allow there own to lapse. So there is no way the world will be ridding itself anywhere of religion, but Islam will systematically become the most prominent, the law of averages degrees it.

Very confusing :..........

Article 14 – discrimination[edit]

Article 14 contains a prohibition of discrimination. This prohibition is broad in some ways and narrow in others. It is broad in that it prohibits discrimination under a potentially unlimited number of grounds. While the article specifically prohibits discrimination based on "sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status", the last of these allows the court to extend to Article 14 protection to other grounds not specifically mentioned such as has been done regarding discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

At the same time, the article's protection is limited in that it only prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the Convention. Thus, an applicant must prove discrimination in the enjoyment of a specific right that is guaranteed elsewhere in the Convention (e.g. discrimination based on sex – Article 14 – in the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression – Article 10). It has been said that laws regarding familial sexual relationships (or incest) are in breach of Article 14 when combined with Article 8.[26]

Protocol 12 extends this prohibition to cover discrimination in any legal right, even when that legal right is not protected under the Convention, so long as it is provided for in national law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Granny is evidently a totalitarian. She believes the interests of the state overrule the rights of an individual. This belief can lead into some very murky areas indeed.

I believe we need to jealously protect the rights of the individual against the state. The ECHR may be very inconvenient for a bullying government or one that panders to witch-hunts in an attempt to gain political brownie points, but that is exactly why we need it.

We shall simply have to agree to differ on this.

NO she isn't, and as already stated , we have the Supreme Court which is above and beyond Government.

You have already made it crystal clear that you consider the state to be more important than Abu Hamsa by berating the ECHR for stopping them simply chucking him out.

That is totalitarianism, pure and simple. Denying it is pretty pointless, I'd say.

ECHR Judges are selected by politicians.

UK Supreme Judges are selected by the judiciary.

One failing of the ECHR is that there is no appeal or corrective process if the ECHR makes a mistake. The judgement is final to all parties and the ECHR itself. In one case the ECHR judgement used its own previous case law but accidentally stated the polar opposite of what the case law had said.

In the UK legal system an appeal is always possible if new evidence comes to light, a mistake such as above is sufficient to apply for an appeal.

Abu Hamza's last hold-up from extradition was not by the ECHR it was by the UK High Courts. Prior to that the ECHR had delayed the process by remarkably showing concern that he might face life improvement in the USA, as it happens Abu Hamza ended up with a life sentence without parole in the USA anyway. This was believed by some to be an attempt by the ECHR to set a case that life imprisonment is a breach of human rights, the ramifications of such a decision would be far too reaching and could ultimately challenge the legality of using any prison sentence whatever the length, others believe it was just Abu Hamza playing the system.

That the UK high court happened after the ECHR shows that the ECHR breached its own protocols on the case when it made a judgement, the case should have been assessed as inadmissible because of "non-exhaustion of domestic remedies", a UK appeal was still available and hence the ECHR should not have got involved at that stage.

They say there are 12 million Brits leaving/working in Europe, but do they get the same rights/benefits as Eu migrants working/living here?
EU migrants work here for a year go home and get tax rebates! money gets filtered out to pay for homes in other countries,
Sorry just too many in this country, i work with a guy and he can't even speak English, he can say my name but ask him to do something, just looks at me and say's don't understand in broken English, so i end up doing his job as well, and another part of the place i work they sit in groups away from British workers won't join in and speak in their mother tongue all the time, and they are very rude, kick them all out i say, enoughs enough!
And as for paying £50 billion to leave, yeah you can sing for that also!

Are you telling me that the NHRI, SHRC,NIHRC, UNHRC have no place or impact at all in the UK ? We will still be signed to the European Convention of Human Rights, we just won't have the European Court of Human Rights being able to interfere in British Laws. They should have stuck to the Human Rights, but as per usual control eventually creeps into and becomes inclusive within other areas until full control appears. All pre- designed and destined. as are many other things that have not raised their heads in the EU BIG Take Over just yet.

Are you saying that because my views feel we need to ditch the ECHR to escape the ever controlling hand , although we will still be one of the 47 member states signed to the CofE, you feel it correct to use the word 'totalitarianism' . I assume you must conclude that prior to the setting up of the CofE, and the ECHR, UK must have been a totalitarian country, or pray tell me how were things run before, when respect for law was paramount in this country ?

Yes, I think Abu Hamsa was far less important to the people of this country,(did I mention the word 'State', as I generally don't when referring to UK ? Mostly because it is the EU that changed our status from 'country' to 'state', not us) and I dare say you and a few million others did too !

If you are happy to throw away our British laws, then I could call you a traitor to the British people. Nice, eh ?

Oh hear hear Granny. I love your posts replying to this nonsense, you are so more articulate and knowledgeable than I ever could be..All I know Hook should have been kicked out long before he was and more!!! Some of these human rights decisions, ludicrous!!!