Not when they are more concerned about their own circumstances and not the welfare of the people of this great country.
You need to read up on this W_Y. Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of EU member states - this was given to citizens of members states by the Maastricht Treaty. This is additional to national citizenship and affords rights, freedoms and legal protection to all of its citizens. You say that EU. citizens will still be able to visit the UK. as before - which means without a Visa (which is already different to Papua New Guinea). But once in is in and Britain has not done such a great job on regulating employment up to now, which is why Britain has around a quarter of a million non EU. citizens working illegally. So the plan is to add to that number ? The reason why Britain is so popular is that people think that the chances of picking up casual, semi legal, cash in hand jobs there is higher than anywhere else, and they are right. It must make sense to favour short distance migration (ie. from the EU), because research has shown that short distance migrants maintain more contact to their homelands than migrants from longer distances. Poles and Rumanians will send money home, and eventually return to their original countries - those from eg. Pakistan will not. Another point is that targetted migration eg. medical staff from the Phillipines or South Africa, can only be done if there is a surplus of appropriately trained people in those countries. Poaching workers in this way can lead to a shortage there if they have no surplus - which, in turn, can lead to compensation money being paid at the national level. Britain has already been ordered to pay South Africa for poaching workers in this way for NHS staff.
Whilst I vehemently disagree with WY I am genuinely pleased to see him back making a contribution.Good to see some old friends back posting
The legal case on this is far from clear and still needs to be clarified by the ECJ. Article 20 TFEU ''precludes national measures that have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union''. A proposal was made by Guy Verhofstadt of ''Associate Citizenship'' which would have worked as an opt out from Brexit for ex pats living in the EU. This would have allowed for Visa free working and movement on the basis of this associate citizenship. The British Government ruled this one out - so now tell me again that May is looking after the rights of citizens !
I am not talking about the same case SH. A claim has been made in the Netherlands by ex pats there, which has been referred by the Dutch Courts to the ECJ. regarding the enforced stripping of EU. Citizenship rights. Your 'High Court' has no jurisdiction in such cases as what I am referring to.
There is no legal basis for being a Citizen of the EU, it is just a group of words - you even state that yourself above "this was given to citizens of members states" They are Citizens of the country of their nationality. Even having the EU printed on a passport has no legal basis - the passport if issued by the Country and requests other countries the right of unhindered passage (hence passport) to the holder.
There are such things as inalienable rights Yorkie. In terms of so called acquired rights gained through residence in another country - basically the longer the residence, the more rights you have. These are established in the Vienna Convention, which Britain is signatory to. The government may huff and puff about what rights to grant to those EU. citizens, and may try to appear generous, but the truth is that a lot of these acquired rights are guaranteed by International laws and conventions which are independent of the EU. A person cannot be stripped of citizenship in this way - the question now is to look at the substance of EU Citizenship to see if it was/is over and above that of national citizenship. Initial indications suggest that this cannot be taken away by the actions of individual national governments - and that EU Citizenship would actually survive independently for the individual citizen. The situation is not completely clear and is being worked on by both the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights. If a British citizen refused to give up EU. citizenship and actually takes it to an international court then it could be a very tricky case - but, as always, the 'individual' often doesn't have the financial resources for this step, and the reality is often different to theory.
More mindless abuse, with no counter argument based on any facts. Of course ignored by the Liberal Left clique alliance.More clueless xenophobic nonsense
Please look up on the status of EU. Citizenship before coming back on this W_Y. As for South Africa. In 2000, the South African Government, increasingly frustrated at the large numbers of skilled nurses leaving the country, called for compensation from destination countries (not just Britain), and used international courts for this purpose. Complaints to the British Government about the loss of nurses led the NHS to advise its hospitals to stop recruiting South African nurses. The problem is that filling up necessary gaps in the labour market can only be done from countries which have a surplus in the required profession - if one of these countries develops a shortage as a result of our targetted poaching of workers then it can all get very messy.
Just to add to my previous post the numbers of illegal workers in the UK: Drwan from a variety of sources beginning with the Home Office study based on Census 2001 data released in March 2005. Updated by research team from LSE commissioned by the GLC, published in 2009. Later University of Oxford study at the end of 2011. Obviously the exact numbers are difficult to count because illegal immigrants do not want to be counted ! All studies show that the number oscillates between 417,000 (lowest estimate) and 863,000 (highest) - so it appears that my quarter of a million was the most conservative of estimates from these.
So 15 years ago, SA went to some International Court (which you cannot name) and they ordered the UK to pay some compensation - what laws did they break?
