New EU immigration regulations may lead to deportations

[Mistigri]

Article on new HO regulations concerning the rights of EU citizens in the UK:

www.freemovement.org.uk/briefing-legal-status-eu-citizens-uk/

On the face of it, these new rules would appear to give the HO the right to deport any EU citizen without permanent residency rights, who is not currently exercising treaty rights and who does not have private health insurance. This will include many EU spouses of UK citizens who are not currently working and cannot document a 5 year period during which they exercised treaty rights - regardless of the amount of time they have spent in the UK.

This gives a whole new slant to those HO letters suggesting that EU citizens make plans to leave. Might be time for affected EU citizens to consider legal advice :-/

(Weird and hostile way of opening negotiations with the EU27 over migrants' rights - I am coming to the conclusion that May may actually want the negotiations to fail).

we are a union of nations not one state

Which is why, for the first time in centuries there hasn't been a war on mainland Europe for nearly 70 years.

?

NATO

slippery Jesus christ, talk about an apt name

You claim that Merkel can effectively impose immigration rules on other EU members. I demomstrate the opposite. You change subject ...

NATO was formed to defend against USSR. Between EU nations there have been no wars since 1945.

The EU worsened two armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the Ukraine.

NATO is the foundation of peace in europe.

Somewhere along the line the eu have forgotten that we are a union of nations not one state.

And yet this is something brexiters conveniently forget whenever it suits their argument (or maybe were just ignorant of it in the first place; bit of both probably).

In the EU, some issues are decided by the EU, some by a combination of EU and national institutions - so called "shared competence" - whereas others (like non-EU immigration) remain within the remit of national governments who continue to make their own law. I've yet to meet a brexiter who understands this - or at least, not one of the brexit-or-bust persuasion (you almost never meet the other sort on social media).

How did the EU worsen those conflicts?

I agree with Misti's previous point.

whereas others (like non-EU immigration) remain within the remit of national governments who continue to make their own law

Individual countries got involved in that war, but not the EU. And there still hasn't been a war between EU countries since 1945.

It's misleading or mistaken to think the EU is a homogeneous entity. It is imperfect but peace and humanity to all citizens are more valuable than flags.

Being patronisong will not help you.

Whatever we think of DT, Europe are playing a silly game by not reinstating visas.
America is a big partner in NATO. Many European member states will not stump up the cash for their own protection.
Our government doesn't much like him either. We accept that the situation is not ideal, but look at the other leaders European countries are willing to chummy up to when it suits them.

All other nations were happy with a deal for expats being made prior to negotiations. Merkel was due to have a meeting with the PM to discuss it. Merkel cancelled the meeting and said it would need to wait until negotiations. You can hardly place the blame at tms door.

Europe basically reconstructed the Soviet Union in western Europe.
EU meddling spread to Ukraine, causing the country to split in two and threaten war with Russia.

In the 90s, EU diplomacy failures helped push Yugoslavia into ethnic civil war. Peace was finally imposed by Nato military action.

The EU is not the Soviet Union
Ukraine wanted to join the EU. Putin didn't.
Tito and ostensibly communist rule kept the peace between warring ethnic groups in Yugoslavia, until the collapse of communism.

slippery seeing that the EU has quite a big frontier with Russia, I'm not surprised that it is involved in politics involving Russia and its wishes of expansion.
From here, right in the opposite side of Europe, it might feel like something very far away. ASk Poland or Lithuania and they would probably have a very different POV.

I don't agree with the involvement of NATO in keeping peace in Europe.
I do think that worldwide, it has helped keeping some peace between the two big blocks that were present during the Cold War, aka the US and the USSR.
I also think that neither the US nor Russia are happy with the EU taking more and more power, both economically, and the EU is now a really big economical force, just as big as the US, nor politically.
It is also impossible to separate politics from the economy, see the TPP with the US, just as it is impossible to separate the movement of people with economy or FTA.

BUT that is very very far from all the issues with the EU and EU citizens in the uk as well as Brits in the EU!!

I have tried to post a link to a research h paper on the issue, which you may havery found interesting, but it will not let me.

If you fancy a read on how eu policy aggravated the situation go to researchgate and read publication number
235672055

Of course trade and economy between nations act as stabilisers. Tm will be trying to achieve a suitable deal for these things.

She will also be trying to come up with a good deal for the rights of European and British expats.

I wouldn't want TM near my mobile phone contract let alone negotiations with the EU

I don't agree with the involvement of NATO in keeping peace in Europe.

I always primarily saw NATO as an American venture to promote the Cold War. Britain's involvement was to do with kidding ourselves that we were still important - still playing our our Great Game over India. Just my opinion, which could be totally wrong.

Yes I believe that to be very wrong, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Europe's failure to be more diplomatic towards Trump could be catastrophic for them in the end. I hope that the posturing from Europe over visas will stop. NATO is central to peace in europe. I also hope that European nations step up their own defence payments because TRUMP is not a happy bunny and the involvement of America in NATO is crucial.

We are not used to having a dick head like trump in the Whitehouse, but it does not give us any reason to treat him any worse than other unpalatable leaders especially if it is in our interests not to.

Europe basically reconstructed the Soviet Union in western Europe

Good Lord Slippery. Do you even know anything about the Soviet Union? or the EU?

I must have missed the political repression, the Gulag, the deliberate famines, the slaughtering of whole segments of society, the out-of-control heavy metal and chemical pollution of natural resources including drinking water, the institutionalised anti-Semitism and the, ahem, ethnically-based mass deportations.

Europe basically reconstructed the Soviet Union in western Europe.

I sincerely hope this is the most ignorant thing I read today.

Genuine question: when and where were you born? Are you old enough to remember the decline and fall of the USSR?

Europe basically reconstructed the Soviet Union in western Europe.

To be fair, if somebody genuinely believed this (gobsmacked though I am!), it would certainly be a reason for wanting to exit the arrangement.

In the 90s, EU diplomacy failures helped push Yugoslavia into ethnic civil war. Peace was finally imposed by Nato military action.

Where to start on this as well. The ethnic and nationalist tensions that led to the Yugoslav wars had their roots in the first years of the twentieth century and the "Balkan question" was an issue throughout those years, there were clashes during the Second World War (with Croatia being the agressor against the Serbs in setting up a Nazi backed state ) until the Yugoslav partisans succeeded in uniting the different factions. The EU were most certainly not responsible for the rise of nationalists like Milosovic but they did persist at the start, largely due to UK influence (David Owen was the chief EU negotiator) in treating the conflict as a Civil War, and in so doing persisting in the policy that Yugoslavia should remain a unified state, and trying to minimise involvement to humanitarian aid, Malcolm Rifkind was the main proponant of that policy in the Major government.

www.wrmea.org/1993-april-may/why-europe-failed-to-halt-the-genocide-in-bosnia.html

Yes I am quite old

www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

I was looking for a copy of this speech FYI. I can only fond it in the Brussels journal ATM. This is not an endorsement for this particular journal. I have read it elsewhere and it is very interesting.

The transcript of Vladimirs speech in europe us very interesting.

history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/bosnia

This is a link to a history of the Balkan conflict from a US point of view - even the Americans admit that the US and NATO were very late to this particular party.

The roots of the conflict of course went back decades - to the Second World War and before - as even my youngest knows from his school history lessons. Anyone who thinks the conflict was triggered by the EU has been getting his/her history lessons from alt-reich websites. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight all parties (including the UN, the US, and NATO as well as the then EEC - the EU did not exist at the time that war first broke out in the former Yugoslavia) could have and probably should have acted differently, but you can say that about literally any conflict ever.