Brexit and financial services/City of London

[Rog]

33 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

So some people have more rights than others then? Human rights can't operate like that. 

 Care to give examples of minorities before moving on to the foreigners angle?

Let's start with those with absolutely no right to even be in the UK because they have deliberately ignored the requirements of The Dublin Convention.

IMO if people are in the UK illegally they are entitled to little more than food and water and being kicked out at the earliest opportunity.

Then those who have lied about their country of origin and move rapidly on to those who ignore our laws and attack our society and form gangs to abuse our children under the guise of "that which your right arm possesses is yours" or words to that effect.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

No, the immigration appeal tribunals took decisions that overruled the UK law

Here are the paras from the EU law that look applicable:

(10) Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.

(12) For periods of residence of longer than three months, Member States should have the possibility to require Union citizens to register with the competent authorities in the place of residence, attested by a registration certificate issued to that effect.

There are others but you can read those yourself rather than clogging up this thread.

I therefore deduce that EU law was not used in the ruling (defaulting to the 1998 UK Human Rights Act) OR they were not claiming state help. Your postulation quote above therefore looks rather suspect.

 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Then those who have lied about their country of origin and move rapidly on to those who ignore our laws and attack our society and form gangs to abuse our children under the guise of "that which your right arm possesses is yours" or words to that effect.

I'd feel easier about this if that was common. I realise some really want to believe all those with dark skin from 3rd world countries who turn up without their families are a risk to children (sorry OUR children) but this is not the case is it? However I agree that anyone who has destroyed documentation should be very closely scrutinised for reasons nothing to do with children.

[Rog]

41 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Here are the paras from the EU law that look applicable:

(10) Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.

(12) For periods of residence of longer than three months, Member States should have the possibility to require Union citizens to register with the competent authorities in the place of residence, attested by a registration certificate issued to that effect.

There are others but you can read those yourself rather than clogging up this thread.

I therefore deduce that EU law was not used in the ruling (defaulting to the 1998 UK Human Rights Act) OR they were not claiming state help. Your postulation quote above therefore looks rather suspect.

 

The facts on the ground tell a very different story.

[Rog]

35 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

I'd feel easier about this if that was common. I realise some really want to believe all those with dark skin from 3rd world countries who turn up without their families are a risk to children (sorry OUR children) but this is not the case is it? However I agree that anyone who has destroyed documentation should be very closely scrutinised for reasons nothing to do with children.

The issue is not skin colour, it is people from "cultures" that are totally at odds with OURS, people with values, ambitions, and morality that is totally at odds with OURS, and who ride roughshod over OUR society.  If this was in the past the same lilly-livered cumbya "everybody's equal" nonsense would have seen our enemies being welcomed and even legislation prohibiting the truth about what was taking place from being spoken and even our kids in our schools being brainwashed by unwashed stupid "Libtard" so-called school teachers which is precisely what is taking place today.

This will not end well. 

[woody2]

19 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

SO the judge concluded under UK not EU law then?

no eu law....

[Barrie Stevens]

19 hours ago, woody2 said:

no, you claim uk based financial services won't be able to operate in the eu, the beeb was unable to find one that didn't have offices already in the remaining 27, so they will be able to continue regardless of a deal....

if you know different then please share.....

I have already shared.

You are confusing "cross border rights"...with the emphasis on "rights"...and the ability to trade services cross border by virtue of establishing a network of offices and agencies within the EU post-Brexit.

The various headlines referring to thousands of jobs being transferred from London and elsewhere to the EU post-Brexit refer to this also.

Also referred to is the UK hope that the City and fiscal services will get a special Brexit deal as if the "rights" were not in jeapordy and paying for this privilege has also been mooted

I referred to the loss of "rights" that is to say "Passported rights" post Brexit.. As an EU member the UK has "passported rights" cross border. It is these automatic "rights" that are threatened hence the need to open up in the EU rather than work centrally unhindered from London and elsewhere in the UK. There it is said some two million jobs linked in to "passported rights".

Also the seeming loss of UK "passported rights" post-Brexit is causing other centres to offer themselves as alternatives. ie Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris.

That being said, just setting up the likes of HSBC (Paris)/Lloyd's Frankfurt etc plus a host of smaller branches will not suffice. The Single Market is all about mirroring regulation so as to be compatible and if you do have a subsidiary operation in the EU of 27 post-Brexit then there remains the issue of licensing and back to back compliance with the operation in the UK.

This is why the UK has recently been on the Continent begging for concession.

It is the "rights" at issue not the loss of ability to trade in the EU post-Brexit by contrived means. The whole idea of the Common Market was originally unfettered cross-border singularity.

 

[woody2]

3 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

Here are the paras from the EU law that look applicable:

(10) Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for Union citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions.

(12) For periods of residence of longer than three months, Member States should have the possibility to require Union citizens to register with the competent authorities in the place of residence, attested by a registration certificate issued to that effect.

There are others but you can read those yourself rather than clogging up this thread.

I therefore deduce that EU law was not used in the ruling (defaulting to the 1998 UK Human Rights Act) OR they were not claiming state help. Your postulation quote above therefore looks rather suspect.

 

but that can't be used.....

[woody2]

3 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said:

I have already shared.

You are confusing "cross border rights"...with the emphasis on "rights"...and the ability to trade services cross border by virtue of establishing a network of offices and agencies within the EU post-Brexit.

The various headlines referring to thousands of jobs being transferred from London and elsewhere to the EU post-Brexit refer to this also.

Also referred to is the UK hope that the City and fiscal services will get a special Brexit deal as if the "rights" were not in jeapordy and paying for this privilege has also been mooted

I referred to the loss of "rights" that is to say "Passported rights" post Brexit.. As an EU member the UK has "passported rights" cross border. It is these automatic "rights" that are threatened hence the need to open up in the EU rather than work centrally unhindered from London and elsewhere in the UK. There it is said some two million jobs linked in to "passported rights".

Also the seeming loss of UK "passported rights" post-Brexit is causing other centres to offer themselves as alternatives. ie Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris.

That being said, just setting up the likes of HSBC (Paris)/Lloyd's Frankfurt etc plus a host of smaller branches will not suffice. The Single Market is all about mirroring regulation so as to be compatible and if you do have a subsidiary operation in the EU of 27 post-Brexit then there remains the issue of licensing and back to back compliance with the operation in the UK.

This is why the UK has recently been on the Continent begging for concession.

It is the "rights" at issue not the loss of ability to trade in the EU post-Brexit by contrived means. The whole idea of the Common Market was originally unfettered cross-border singularity.

 

#fakenews

you are unable to name one company......

[Barrie Stevens]

19 hours ago, woody2 said:

why do remoans keep going on about the eu human rights? clearly this isn't needed due to the echr.......

The Council of Europe gave rise to the European Convention of Human Rights and was largely a UK driven concept created in London on 5th May 1949 under the London Treaty also known as the Statute of the Council of Europe.

New and aspiring members of the EU have to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is a moot point as to compulsion on existing members of the EU. Likewise Associate members of the EU/Third Countries.

The House of Commons Library website has a long and complex paper on the theme that if the UK's relationship with the EU is "special" post-Brexit, or if it becomes in effect a Third Country to the EU, then it too will be required to remain a signatory to the Human Rights Convention as a price of a trading deal even if it removes the current Human Rights Act domestically...

It is a long and complex read!

[Barrie Stevens]

2 minutes ago, woody2 said:

#fakenews

you are unable to name one company......

There is no company to name because that is not an issue. They probably all have or will have a presence post-Brexit.

The issue is will things stay the same unfettered as in "Passported services" or will the post-Brexit deal require in effect UK branch banking in the EU following the loss of "Passported services"?.

Service will continue one way or the other as it did in the good old days but under what sort of regime regime and to whose advantage overall ?

 

[woolley]

3 hours ago, Rog said:

The issue is not skin colour, it is people from "cultures" that are totally at odds with OURS, people with values, ambitions, and morality that is totally at odds with OURS, and who ride roughshod over OUR society.  If this was in the past the same lilly-livered cumbya "everybody's equal" nonsense would have seen our enemies being welcomed and even legislation prohibiting the truth about what was taking place from being spoken and even our kids in our schools being brainwashed by unwashed stupid "Libtard" so-called school teachers which is precisely what is taking place today.

This will not end well. 

You are totally correct of course. I spent years banging on about this stuff on here but I've learned my lesson. You are addressing those very brainwashed individuals to whom you refer above. It has now been going on for generations and they will not hear because all the natural instincts of self-preservation have been excised from them at an early age. They believe that they have the wisdom and you are some sort of ultra right jackbooted loon. There is only one way they will learn and that is the hard way. Such is the way that great civilisations crumble. They rot from within. It's the natural cycle of things.

[twinkle]

On 11/01/2018 at 10:55 AM, Mr. Sausages said:

Anti-Semitic views like this are all too common these days.

Where's the semitism?

[twinkle]

7 hours ago, woolley said:

You are totally correct of course. I spent years banging on about this stuff on here but I've learned my lesson. You are addressing those very brainwashed individuals to whom you refer above. It has now been going on for generations and they will not hear because all the natural instincts of self-preservation have been excised from them at an early age. They believe that they have the wisdom and you are some sort of ultra right jackbooted loon. There is only one way they will learn and that is the hard way. Such is the way that great civilisations crumble. They rot from within. It's the natural cycle of things.

this was how Adolph and his cronies operated;

"it has always been the EUSSR plan. Edward Heath was warned about it. Slowly over many years little changes have been made, new laws passed and democracy eroded at a pace that nobody would notice. They believed it would take 40 years for anyone to notice by which time the dictatorship would have full control and no nation would be able to leave. It almost worked. Orwell was right when he wrote 1984; newspeak is truly here. Patriotism and democracy have become xenophobia and populism; both dirty words. The EU only wants an army to suppress any rebellion".

[woody2]

22 hours ago, Barrie Stevens said:

There is no company to name because that is not an issue. They probably all have or will have a presence post-Brexit.

The issue is will things stay the same unfettered as in "Passported services" or will the post-Brexit deal require in effect UK branch banking in the EU following the loss of "Passported services"?.

Service will continue one way or the other as it did in the good old days but under what sort of regime regime and to whose advantage overall ?

 

they already have a presence so don't need passporting regardless.....

its eu based services that don't have a presence in the uk that are going to have to open in the uk= more jobs.....