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).

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

Misti That was exactly what I was about to post. These mangled versions of history pop up far too often and too consistently not to have a common anti EU and pro Russian source. Russia after all was one of the main providers of arms to the Balkan conflicts, though the UK provided arms too.

I am not pro russian

Slippery How did you arrive at this version of history? It came from somewhere and it was not from the academic or mainstream Press discourse on the subject. It is not my specialist subject but I lived through the events and have travelled in the Balkans and whilst the EU dragged its heels and appeased the nationalists, largely as a result of British influence, it is certainly not seen as the main factor in the escalation of the conflict. That lies firmly with the forces of nationalism. Villages and cities where Eastern Orthadox /other Christians and / or Muslims had coexisted were hijacked by nationalists and all traces of the other ethnicities were eradicated. As with all international intervention the process of getting UN consensus was also protracted (and guess which country was the brake on that?)

The Brussel Journal linked to above, for those not familiar with it, is what I guess you could call one of the "proto alt-reich" sites. It's been dead for a couple of years now - presumably the rise of Breitbart and infowars et al have rendered it surplus to requirements.

It's old school alt-reich from back in the days when Russia was the enemy not the inspiration.

You are right.

It was not from the mainstream press.

I have read some academic papers like the one I posted earlier from researchgate.

I do not wait for narrative to be fed to me from the press. I read a combination of statistics, policies and academic papers to form my opinions of historical events and to make judgments for the future.

Failures in diplomacy escalated the problems. Of course the problems were already there but made worse by eu policy and poor diplomacy. Read the paper I posted if you like.

The thing about history is that it not a narrative story where forces align to push us forwards on an upward trajectory. That is the sort of History favoured by politicians who seek to shape it as a political tool, especially the Chinese, Russians and now the Conservative Party. In reality it is a messy business where conflicting forces of the personal, the political, the economic and the social come together to shape events in often inconsistent ways that do not lend themselves to easy and simple analysis. By all means let's have a debate on the messy reality but trying to assert that the EU was responsible for the Yugoslavian wars just comes over as ignorant and influenced by one of those purveyors of propaganda....

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

Anyone can upload a paper to Researchgate. It is not a peer reviewed academic source. If you want your academic papers to be from reputable academic sources then go to JSTOR or other sources where papers have been published in reputable academic journals. It is a useful way for students to get exposure for their papers but some of the papers in there will have the same level of academic rigour as the weapons of mass destruction dossier......

In most conflicts, attempts to intervene have at some point aggravated the situation, and opportunities to diffuse the conflict have been missed. The history of war is essentially the history of missed opportunities. I don't understand why the EU (which btw did not even exist at the start of the Balkans conflicts: it was still called the EEC and had 12 members in 1992) should be singled out here.

Yes... history comes in all shapes and sizes and is useful for political propoganda.

The problem is... if you are only open to one part of it, shutting off anything which does not fit the version of history you prefer then you will never get a balanced view.

2 people can be in the exact same situation at the same time and their perception of events can be very different!

"Alternative facts" ààaaaaaaaaaaaargh

History is often only told from one viewpoint.

Unhelpful history is often labelled as "wrong"

So what other sources did you use to arrive at this considered analysis?

Ok yes it was called the eec at the time. I think you got the gist of what I was saying though

What sources have you considered to arrive at yours?

Are we having a discussion or an interrogation.

I think you got the gist of what I was saying though

I've understood that you get your version of history from extreme right wing websites whose raison d'être is the promotion of a white Christian Europe...

Ok why have you formed that opinion?

I am a postgrad historian and I can assure you that the academic discourse on any given topic such as the Yugoslavian wars evolves from the consideration of many different evidenced viewpoints and perspectives. For sure individual historians will argue from their own viewpoint but there will be other historians arguing against them and all will be researching and exposing evidence for their point of view. The one time I have seen historians united in their view was in the attempts by the Conservatives to shift the History curriculum in schools to an Empire (and powerful white men's ) centric version of history (neatly I might add subverted by secondary History teachers ).

Is researchgate such a website?

I am a postgrad historian

Oh my word Ron haven't you understood yet that we don't want any of your dastardly "expertise" round here?

I've understood that you get your version of history from extreme right wing websites whose raison d'être is the promotion of a white Christian Europe...

MistigrI. Why have you formed this view?

Slippery I am not the one trying to lay the blame for the Yugoslav wars on the EEC. I actually linked a contemporary source that mirrored my memory of events, and my other sources are my discussions with Croatian and Serbian people and actually seeing the ruined Eastern Orthadox churches that are all that remain of sizeable communities that were ethnically cleansed.

As I say not my specialist subject but your version of events just does not reflect the reality of the experience of nationalism I have encountered. In terms of the EEC response it is perhaps more significant to discuss the British role in holding back EEC condemnation of nationalist atrocities right at the start of the conflict, perhaps Milosovic would not have gone on to the extremes that he did, but at the same time he had unleashed powerful forces and a military response probably was all that could have stopped the brutality.

As a Croatian , Serbian, Bosnian who suffered in the conflict I would undoubtedly feel that the EEC and international community could have done more to prevent the worst bloodshed but I would not hold them responsible, the blame lies firmly with the Nationalists

Misti I know, I thought that even after I had written it, but it is my community that is being rubbished here 🤓

"The one time I have seen historians united in their view was in the attempts by the Conservatives to shift the History curriculum in schools to an Empire (and powerful white men's ) centric version of history (neatly I might add subverted by secondary History teachers )."

I wonder if modest conservative views then are enough to be accused of the following

"I've understood that you get your version of history from extreme right wing websites whose raison d'être is the promotion of a white Christian Europe..."

The scottish National party have a one sided view of history, which mainly neglects the brutal role scotland played in the Empire. As does the education of children in Scotland. They rose to power on socialist credentials, so that's ok.

Why have you formed this view?

Because you chose to support your weird view (about the EU being like a totalitarian communist state) by linking to a website whose raison d'être was the promotion of a white Christian Europe?

Slippery Anyone can post a paper on researchgate, that includes the alt right and ultra left wing, there is no quality filter. Do you not think that both extremes will use any forum or tool that is not subject to some sort of check on the academic quality of the arguments and research, to push their agenda (including of course Mumsnet)