Bit of Brexit info required. | Page 247 | Vital Football

Bit of Brexit info required.

As has been explained many times, we do have control over immigration, even EU immigration. The UK government CHOOSES not to implement the rules that would deport the minority of EU immigrants who are a burden on the state.

The VAT rules are set so as not to distort the single market. It is something we drew up, to help the common good, including us. The single market has been amazingly good for British exports and imports.
Even so, we CAN set our own VAT levels. In fact we are doing so right now. The EU only sets baseline VAT - at 15%. If we wanted to reduce our VAT by a quarter, we could. But we choose not to. That is a British government decision.

Compliance with EU laws and euro courts are rules that we set up. The jurisdiction covers health and safety, environmental protections, citizens rights, workers rights, and so on. I fear a bonfire of these rules.


So, since you are plain wrong on your statement about immigration and your statement about VAT, and the picture with respect to the law is more nuanced than you make out, maybe you DO need to start investigating rather than swallowing the anti-EU propaganda.
 
Also consider whether leaving the EU will solve any of the problems you see, or if, on balance we will have more problems.

There won't be trade deals without visas or aligned regulations.
 
in_the_top_one said:
As has been explained many times, we do have control over immigration, even EU immigration. The UK government CHOOSES not to implement the rules that would deport the minority of EU immigrants who are a burden on the state.

The VAT rules are set so as not to distort the single market. It is something we drew up, to help the common good, including us. The single market has been amazingly good for British exports and imports.
Even so, we CAN set our own VAT levels. In fact we are doing so right now. The EU only sets baseline VAT - at 15%. If we wanted to reduce our VAT by a quarter, we could. But we choose not to. That is a British government decision.

Compliance with EU laws and euro courts are rules that we set up. The jurisdiction covers health and safety, environmental protections, citizens rights, workers rights, and so on. I fear a bonfire of these rules.


So, since you are plain wrong on your statement about immigration and your statement about VAT, and the picture with respect to the law is more nuanced than you make out, maybe you DO need to start investigating rather than swallowing the anti-EU propaganda.
Click to expand...

In the 9 months to Sept 2018 202,000 EU citizens came to stay in the UK. What percentage do you think we have control over? It should be 100%. You say we can get rid of those "who are a burden". So what percentage of the 202,000 do you estimate that is? Who decides who is a burden? It amazes me that young people tend to be more pro-EU when they are the ones largely suffering the house price increases, lower wages, gig economy all brought about by an unlimited supply of cheap labour.
 
EU soft on crime: Romanian criminal cannot be deported from UK under this EU law
A MAN from Romania who was convicted of a series of criminal offences including robbery and knife possession cannot be deported as he is protected by EU law.

Denis Viscu, 20, has lived in the UK with his family since 2007. But during July 2014 and March 2017 he received 14 convictions for 20 offences. The Home Office tried to deport him in September 2017 as they deemed him a “persistent offender”.

Chapter IV of the Citizens' Directive also states: “Union citizens who have resided legally for a continuous period of five years in the host Member State shall have the right of permanent residence there.”

A member state can only deport an EU resident where they have strong grounds to believe they pose a risk to the public.

The EU has added the caveat that “previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for” stopping an EU citizen having the right of residency.

The Court of Appeal has now ordered the case to be heard again in full.
 
We can't reduce VAT on gas, electricity and various other goods (tampon tax?). We also can't reduce it below 15%.

The claim: Vote Leave says the UK cannot lower VAT rates as long as it is in the European Union. Michael Gove said the 5% rate of VAT on household gas and electricity bills could not be scrapped because of EU rules.

Reality Check verdict: EU rules mean the UK cannot reduce VAT on goods and services below 15%, the standard rate of VAT in the EU. The standard rate of VAT in the UK is 20%, so the government could reduce it by up to 5% today if it wanted. Domestic fuel is on a special list of pre-approved goods and services that are subject to lower VAT rates and it would require the agreement of all other EU members to reduce it further.
 
And I get accused of not understanding the EU!!

https://www.city.ac.uk/news/2017/november/when-britain-can-deport-eu-citizens-according-to-the-law


There are only three situations in which deportation is allowed.

The first requires that alongside the public policy or public security reasons, deportation can only be allowed if adequate consideration of various factors are taken into account. These include how long the person has been living in the country, their age, health, family and financial situation, and how well they’ve integrated into society.

The second situation concerns permanent residents, those who have have lived in a member state for five years or more (you are not required to have documents proving this, though it is necessary for British citizenship applications).

For permanent residents, only serious grounds under public policy or public security will justify expulsion. What a “serious” ground is must be justified by the member states, but there is no guidance in the directive as to what constitutes “serious”. It must relate to a fundamental interest of society. These include preventing unlawful immigration, maintaining public order, preventing tax evasion, countering terrorism and preventing repeat criminal offences.

The third situation is for those who have been in a member state for the last ten years – or minors. In these cases, only imperative grounds of public policy or public security will be accepted. Again, “imperative” grounds are up to the member states to justify and the directive offers no definition. However, it is clear that they are stricter than “serious” grounds. Therefore, the longer you have been in a country, the more difficult it becomes to deport you. Case law has accepted being involved in a drug dealing organisation as an imperative ground of public security, but the general meaning of “imperative” remains unclear.
 
Lienking said:
We can't reduce VAT on gas, electricity and various other goods (tampon tax?). We also can't reduce it below 15%.

The claim: Vote Leave says the UK cannot lower VAT rates as long as it is in the European Union. Michael Gove said the 5% rate of VAT on household gas and electricity bills could not be scrapped because of EU rules.

Reality Check verdict: EU rules mean the UK cannot reduce VAT on goods and services below 15%, the standard rate of VAT in the EU. The standard rate of VAT in the UK is 20%, so the government could reduce it by up to 5% today if it wanted. Domestic fuel is on a special list of pre-approved goods and services that are subject to lower VAT rates and it would require the agreement of all other EU members to reduce it further.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant, none story. The UK will never reduce VAT below 15%. VAT is free money for the coffers so why on earth would any government want to lower it.
 
Lienking said:
EU soft on crime: Romanian criminal cannot be deported from UK under this EU law
A MAN from Romania who was convicted of a series of criminal offences including robbery and knife possession cannot be deported as he is protected by EU law.

Denis Viscu, 20, has lived in the UK with his family since 2007. But during July 2014 and March 2017 he received 14 convictions for 20 offences. The Home Office tried to deport him in September 2017 as they deemed him a “persistent offender”.

Chapter IV of the Citizens' Directive also states: “Union citizens who have resided legally for a continuous period of five years in the host Member State shall have the right of permanent residence there.”

A member state can only deport an EU resident where they have strong grounds to believe they pose a risk to the public.

The EU has added the caveat that “previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for” stopping an EU citizen having the right of residency.

The Court of Appeal has now ordered the case to be heard again in full.
Click to expand...

Lovely, sensationalist story from the express and I'll post the part you conveniently forgot to copy and paste.for a bit of context. It is/was a technicality.

"But a judge said Viscu was a juvenile so he could not be sentenced to prison which meant his residence in the United Kingdom had been 'continuous and uninterrupted' availing him of special EU protection"

Had he been an adult I am sure he would have been deported. FFS the HO managed to deport a generation of West Indians who fought in WWII and helped rebuild the country.
 
Bremen Tree said:
Lovely, sensationalist story from the express and I'll post the part you conveniently forgot to copy and paste.for a bit of context. It is/was a technicality.

"But a judge said Viscu was a juvenile so he could not be sentenced to prison which meant his residence in the United Kingdom had been 'continuous and uninterrupted' availing him of special EU protection"

Had he been an adult I am sure he would have been deported. FFS the HO managed to deport a generation of West Indians who fought in WWII and helped rebuild the country.
Click to expand...

And West Indians are covered by the EU legislation???? There was an immigration programme on recently . We were trying to deport a woman who had lived here for about thirty years, with her two kids who were born here. They had gone to a UK school for 18 years, but couldn't go to University because they were "here illegally" even though they were born here! The UK government clearly pick on the wrong people !

As for Viscu, I couldn't care less if he had been in the UK for 50 years, or was a juvenile. He clearly should be deported. WE should also have the right to make OUR decision, not be overruled by EU legislation. He is also now 20, not a juvenile.
 
Last edited:
Still waiting for someone to tell me what I haven't understood, and for ITTO to tell me what percentage of EU migrants we could stop coming here, if we wanted to.
 
Lienking said:
And West Indians are covered by the EU legislation???? There was an immigration programme on recently . We were trying to deport a woman who had lived here for about thirty years, with her two kids who were born here. They had gone to a UK school for 18 years, but couldn't go to University because they were "here illegally" even though they were born here! The UK government clearly pick on the wrong people !

As for Viscu, I couldn't care less if he had been in the UK for 50 years, or was a juvenile. He clearly should be deported. WE should also have the right to make OUR decision, not be overruled by EU legislation. He is also now 20, not a juvenile.
Click to expand...

Are you just being ignorant for effect? It was our own laws that prevented him from being deported. Anyhow it is clear that you do not care about the facts and the EU is the devil in soon to be 27 guises.

It is people of your mindset that are holding back the UK on the global stage and will see the UK suffer for the foreseeable future.
 
Lienking said:
Still waiting for someone to tell me what I haven't understood, and for ITTO to tell me what percentage of EU migrants we could stop coming here, if we wanted to.
Click to expand...

It's pointless. You wouldn't accept it if was hitting you in the face. Ignorance must be bliss.
 
Bremen Tree said:
Are you just being ignorant for effect? It was our own laws that prevented him from being deported. Anyhow it is clear that you do not care about the facts and the EU is the devil in soon to be 27 guises.

It is people of your mindset that are holding back the UK on the global stage and will see the UK suffer for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

It's the people who don't accept the result of a democratic vote that are holding the country back. Whatever happens, we will end up leaving at some stage as the EU blindly steamrollers it's useless Euro, EU army, EU tax rates and one size fits everything ideology.
 
Lienking said:
It's the people who don't accept the result of a democratic vote that are holding the country back. Whatever happens, we will end up leaving at some stage as the EU blindly steamrollers it's useless Euro, EU army, EU tax rates and one size fits everything ideology.
Click to expand...

Would that be the vote where it has been found criminal activity relating to spending and influencing people occurred?
 
Lienking said:
It's the people who don't accept the result of a democratic vote that are holding the country back. Whatever happens, we will end up leaving at some stage as the EU blindly steamrollers it's useless Euro, EU army, EU tax rates and one size fits everything ideology.
Click to expand...

75% of us are all in favour of those things in Europe (including you lot)

As a neutral in many ways, I dont see a 52% majority of a vote being democratic. I wouldnt like to appear in court and get hung with 6 out of 10 never mind 5.01. No, for any major change and fairness then it would logically need to be a 2-1 vote, then people cannot really argue about it. But to make a decision on what is, whichever way you dress it up, only half the uk then thats fooked.

By default, its therefore fooked to have stayed in under the same rules.

The only practical decision was a new 'contract' as it were, but just obviously not one that crashes you out f the Eurozone, I mean, from every mathematical and economic way of looking at that, never mind the absolute nightmare of 'small' businesses to actually do any trade in places like America (or want to) or China and have a month to wait for any supplies etc is just hilarious.

Of course when it comes to the GDP etc some might argue a case for big money. With pharma and IT/media and energy companies making a fortune and all the upper middle classes buying all the houses back cheap in the next couple of years because the house market crashes. (Landlords being one of the biggest money takers from the JAMS) so sure, in some aspects there wil be soem ups, for a few. The real working class tho, its just a blatant fact that they will suffer and more than austerity created.

I have this strange feeling that many of those leaver people have a morbid fascination with a potential disaster, like they find it a bit exciting or something? Maybe being in the Eu the last 50 years and avoided real conflicts since , they simply have forgotten how easy they have life, rather they see what they dont have as opposed to what they do, or they have nothing (believe they have nothing) so blame everybody else and dont care if everyone else is fooked too, that being like justice or something.

Either way, I think the biggest point is you cant fix a 50-50 split and also you cannot argue reason if reason isnt the reason for the stance, AND we have touched upon in other threads that there isnt 'debate' anymore, not in the true sense of the word.

Any political side taking one direction in it is just morally wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.