Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Brexit could cost UK its UN Security Council seat, warns leading Tory

http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-euro ... ding-tory/

A leading Tory, (Personally I've never heard of him) obviously a 'remainer', expressing his opinion ........ of what he thinks could happen in the future on a range of scenarios. I don't think the UK is on the UNSC as a permanent member because of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. They are there because they have nuclear weapons!

[Robin Hood]

Paul ZKTV

A syrian can PAY TAXES and he might be a doctor etc - A Brit OAP can stand in the Q next to the syrian to see if they qualify for a residence visa ,which is up to the internal political wims of the local government.

You seem to be very good at moving the goal posts!

Makes no difference! You obviously don't know much about Immigration in Cyprus!

The Syrian could be a €100k a year brain surgeon ...... but his income would be from within the State. The OAP could be on the same pension €100k but ALL his income is from another State.

Any government would its salt will ask you to put your assets in local banks to help the local economics.

Contradictory argument!......You don't understand either money or banking. Money in the bank does not enter the economy, quite the contrary. Money needs to be spent into the economy not just sit on the banks books.

I can only speak of SPAIN which has had the EU rules given on this and MEDICAL CARE FOR NON-EEA OAPS people starts at €450 a month.

I can find no official explanation that gives any such figure for a non-EU OAP’s contribution to their health care system. It applies apparently, to non-residents with an income in excess of €100K or non-qualifying visitors! If you have that sort of income and have to pay €4500 a year for a second rate service, you would get private cover. If you are a permanent resident AND an OAP ...... the rules are different.

when do you think they will get round to sorting out people who are in the end britexit collateral and live on a small island .

What do you think these ‘negotiations’ are all about ........ the price of cheese?

i live on an island with more people then cyprus - due to cut back the british office is open 3 days a week for a total of six hours

Yes, I know your background Paul! You use your business as your forum identity ?

[Robin Hood]

Pyrpolizer:

NOBODY can close the door to refugees.These people have rights according to the UN charter, not according to some EU law.Once a person fulfills the criteria to be a refugee, EVERY Nation who's door s/he is knocking is obliged to accept him. Same with those seeking political asylum.
The case of the Syrian refugees was a very special one in that their numbers were huge and most of them wanted to settle in Germany. Imo the EU has done a fairly good job in arranging for their spreading them all over Europe.
So let's separate the two issues.
The first issue is whether the UK or any other country can refuse to accept refugees. It cannot, either it's in the EU or out of it.
The 2nd issue is providing them support. There is no super costly EU directive for that.Other than food and shelter some medical care and education for the children no one is obliged to offer them anything else. The UK was simply too generous without been obliged to be so.
In Cyprus they provide them food and shelter and some minimum cash. By the minute they are offered a job and they refuse to take it the cash is cut off. Many of them get tired in their "prison like" campuses and return willingly to their countries Others get normalized and carry on as normal citizens. Did the UK have to abandon the EU to apply such simple measures??? Will it be able to close the door to refugees, let them drown in the sea, shoot them at her shores, or let the starve to death without any reaction from the UN?

I agree with you when this is applied to refugees but, Merkel opened the door to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants and the same rules cannot apply. The UK was overgenerous to economic migrants, the ‘take-it-or-you’re-out’ principal did not apply because they had the right to travel from poor Eastern European countries, without restraint. That made the UK too attractive. Yes, the UK had to abide by EU directives, the EU Commission refused to compromise, so the UK left (or is leaving) their club. IMO: I think in the long run that will turn out to be the right decision.

There are great rumblings of discontent in many European countries, not just regarding immigrants. I read that there are currently 34 referendums on the go on a host of items that Europeans are less than happy with.

[miltiades]

On June 23rd, referendum day, STG against US $ was at 1.49 and against the Euro it stood at 1.31 to the pound.

A week later and Sterling has lost 11% against the Dollar and just over 9% against the Euro.

Uncertainty is by no means congenial to the performance of financial markets, and this is just the beginning.
A few weeks down the line and we could see Sterling dropping to 1.10 , 1.15 to the Euro.

The drop in STG in just a week is likely to continue with dire consequences fuelling recession, since we import far more than we export the trade deficit is likely to increase considerably, a possible reduction of our exports to the EU will add to the existing deficit.

" The latest healthcheck from the Office for National Statistics on goods coming in and going out of the UK reveal that the gap between exports and imports in the first three months of 2016 widened by £0.7bn to £23.9bn."
Above figures do not reflect the current period, three months from now and who knows what out trade deficit will be.

Its not all doom and gloom as we now have our ....country back, and our NHS is or ...will be better off to the tune of 350 million a WEEK

The naive and rather old pro exit voters fell for it, their beacon the Clown has thrown in the towel and our political parties in a total mess. Lets get our country back, they were persistently tolld, well we have our country back following the disastrous result against a nation almost 200 time ( in population ) smaller than our own, by the way well done Wales !!

[Tim Drayton]

It seems the Tory's are out to get Gove, as well, now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07 ... eadership/

[Lordo]

Pyrpolizer:

NOBODY can close the door to refugees.These people have rights according to the UN charter, not according to some EU law.Once a person fulfills the criteria to be a refugee, EVERY Nation who's door s/he is knocking is obliged to accept him. Same with those seeking political asylum.
The case of the Syrian refugees was a very special one in that their numbers were huge and most of them wanted to settle in Germany. Imo the EU has done a fairly good job in arranging for their spreading them all over Europe.
So let's separate the two issues.
The first issue is whether the UK or any other country can refuse to accept refugees. It cannot, either it's in the EU or out of it.
The 2nd issue is providing them support. There is no super costly EU directive for that.Other than food and shelter some medical care and education for the children no one is obliged to offer them anything else. The UK was simply too generous without been obliged to be so.
In Cyprus they provide them food and shelter and some minimum cash. By the minute they are offered a job and they refuse to take it the cash is cut off. Many of them get tired in their "prison like" campuses and return willingly to their countries Others get normalized and carry on as normal citizens. Did the UK have to abandon the EU to apply such simple measures??? Will it be able to close the door to refugees, let them drown in the sea, shoot them at her shores, or let the starve to death without any reaction from the UN?

I agree with you when this is applied to refugees but, Merkel opened the door to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants and the same rules cannot apply. The UK was overgenerous to economic migrants, the ‘take-it-or-you’re-out’ principal did not apply because they had the right to travel from poor Eastern European countries, without restraint. That made the UK too attractive. Yes, the UK had to abide by EU directives, the EU Commission refused to compromise, so the UK left (or is leaving) their club. IMO: I think in the long run that will turn out to be the right decision.

There are great rumblings of discontent in many European countries, not just regarding immigrants. I read that there are currently 34 referendums on the go on a host of items that Europeans are less than happy with.

you really are just too stupid. merkel opened the door to the refugees from syria. for you to call them migrants as the russian and western warplanes are bombing them is contemtable.

[miltiades]

Pyrpolizer:

NOBODY can close the door to refugees.These people have rights according to the UN charter, not according to some EU law.Once a person fulfills the criteria to be a refugee, EVERY Nation who's door s/he is knocking is obliged to accept him. Same with those seeking political asylum.
The case of the Syrian refugees was a very special one in that their numbers were huge and most of them wanted to settle in Germany. Imo the EU has done a fairly good job in arranging for their spreading them all over Europe.
So let's separate the two issues.
The first issue is whether the UK or any other country can refuse to accept refugees. It cannot, either it's in the EU or out of it.
The 2nd issue is providing them support. There is no super costly EU directive for that.Other than food and shelter some medical care and education for the children no one is obliged to offer them anything else. The UK was simply too generous without been obliged to be so.
In Cyprus they provide them food and shelter and some minimum cash. By the minute they are offered a job and they refuse to take it the cash is cut off. Many of them get tired in their "prison like" campuses and return willingly to their countries Others get normalized and carry on as normal citizens. Did the UK have to abandon the EU to apply such simple measures??? Will it be able to close the door to refugees, let them drown in the sea, shoot them at her shores, or let the starve to death without any reaction from the UN?

I agree with you when this is applied to refugees but, Merkel opened the door to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants and the same rules cannot apply. The UK was overgenerous to economic migrants, the ‘take-it-or-you’re-out’ principal did not apply because they had the right to travel from poor Eastern European countries, without restraint. That made the UK too attractive. Yes, the UK had to abide by EU directives, the EU Commission refused to compromise, so the UK left (or is leaving) their club. IMO: I think in the long run that will turn out to be the right decision.

There are great rumblings of discontent in many European countries, not just regarding immigrants. I read that there are currently 34 referendums on the go on a host of items that Europeans are less than happy with.

you really are just too stupid. merkel opened the door to the refugees from syria. for you to call them migrants as the russian and western warplanes are bombing them is contemtable.

Four out of five migrants are NOT from Syria: EU figures expose the 'lie' that the majority of refugees are fleeing war zone
Some 44,000 of the 213,000 refugees who arrived in Europe were from Syria
A further 27,000 new arrivals on the continent came from Afghanistan
Britain received one in 30 of all the asylum claims made by new applicants
David Cameron has offered to take in 20,000 refugees but none from the EU

[Robin Hood]

Pyrpolizer:

NOBODY can close the door to refugees.These people have rights according to the UN charter, not according to some EU law.Once a person fulfills the criteria to be a refugee, EVERY Nation who's door s/he is knocking is obliged to accept him. Same with those seeking political asylum.
The case of the Syrian refugees was a very special one in that their numbers were huge and most of them wanted to settle in Germany. Imo the EU has done a fairly good job in arranging for their spreading them all over Europe.
So let's separate the two issues.
The first issue is whether the UK or any other country can refuse to accept refugees. It cannot, either it's in the EU or out of it.
The 2nd issue is providing them support. There is no super costly EU directive for that.Other than food and shelter some medical care and education for the children no one is obliged to offer them anything else. The UK was simply too generous without been obliged to be so.
In Cyprus they provide them food and shelter and some minimum cash. By the minute they are offered a job and they refuse to take it the cash is cut off. Many of them get tired in their "prison like" campuses and return willingly to their countries Others get normalized and carry on as normal citizens. Did the UK have to abandon the EU to apply such simple measures??? Will it be able to close the door to refugees, let them drown in the sea, shoot them at her shores, or let the starve to death without any reaction from the UN?

I agree with you when this is applied to refugees but, Merkel opened the door to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants and the same rules cannot apply. The UK was overgenerous to economic migrants, the ‘take-it-or-you’re-out’ principal did not apply because they had the right to travel from poor Eastern European countries, without restraint. That made the UK too attractive. Yes, the UK had to abide by EU directives, the EU Commission refused to compromise, so the UK left (or is leaving) their club. IMO: I think in the long run that will turn out to be the right decision.

There are great rumblings of discontent in many European countries, not just regarding immigrants. I read that there are currently 34 referendums on the go on a host of items that Europeans are less than happy with.

you really are just too stupid. merkel opened the door to the refugees from syria. for you to call them migrants as the russian and western warplanes are bombing them is contemtable.

The Germans didn't know how to tell one from the other! Merkel opened the door to immigrants from all over the place. Why are they nearly all fit young men, many with I-Phones and often very well dressed? Where are their wives and children? Isn't regarding them all as refugees a bit like handing benefits to someone who arrives by taxi at the benefits office.

Sorry, I disagree with you! There were far more economic migrants than genuine refugees. We should give aid to genuine refugees ..... after all it is OUR LOT US/EU/NATO that were the cause of their plight. WE started it when someone decided 'Assad must go!'

[Pyrpolizer]

The big question is what's going to happen? The UK wants an agreement before she invokes article 50, the EU wants the opposite.
Nobody is willing to yield. Do you think the EU has the means legal or other to force the UK to invoke article 50?
Is there a possibility the situation would remain as it is for eternity until is forgotten?

[Lordo]

Pyrpolizer:

NOBODY can close the door to refugees.These people have rights according to the UN charter, not according to some EU law.Once a person fulfills the criteria to be a refugee, EVERY Nation who's door s/he is knocking is obliged to accept him. Same with those seeking political asylum.
The case of the Syrian refugees was a very special one in that their numbers were huge and most of them wanted to settle in Germany. Imo the EU has done a fairly good job in arranging for their spreading them all over Europe.
So let's separate the two issues.
The first issue is whether the UK or any other country can refuse to accept refugees. It cannot, either it's in the EU or out of it.
The 2nd issue is providing them support. There is no super costly EU directive for that.Other than food and shelter some medical care and education for the children no one is obliged to offer them anything else. The UK was simply too generous without been obliged to be so.
In Cyprus they provide them food and shelter and some minimum cash. By the minute they are offered a job and they refuse to take it the cash is cut off. Many of them get tired in their "prison like" campuses and return willingly to their countries Others get normalized and carry on as normal citizens. Did the UK have to abandon the EU to apply such simple measures??? Will it be able to close the door to refugees, let them drown in the sea, shoot them at her shores, or let the starve to death without any reaction from the UN?

I agree with you when this is applied to refugees but, Merkel opened the door to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants and the same rules cannot apply. The UK was overgenerous to economic migrants, the ‘take-it-or-you’re-out’ principal did not apply because they had the right to travel from poor Eastern European countries, without restraint. That made the UK too attractive. Yes, the UK had to abide by EU directives, the EU Commission refused to compromise, so the UK left (or is leaving) their club. IMO: I think in the long run that will turn out to be the right decision.

There are great rumblings of discontent in many European countries, not just regarding immigrants. I read that there are currently 34 referendums on the go on a host of items that Europeans are less than happy with.

you really are just too stupid. merkel opened the door to the refugees from syria. for you to call them migrants as the russian and western warplanes are bombing them is contemtable.

Four out of five migrants are NOT from Syria: EU figures expose the 'lie' that the majority of refugees are fleeing war zone
Some 44,000 of the 213,000 refugees who arrived in Europe were from Syria
A further 27,000 new arrivals on the continent came from Afghanistan
Britain received one in 30 of all the asylum claims made by new applicants
David Cameron has offered to take in 20,000 refugees but none from the EU

more bullshit. thousands of refugees from iraq and syria arrived into greace daily, where the hell did you get the 44 000 from. hudreds of thousands have come across germany alone has accpeted nearly a million refugees. sweeden also has accepted 160,000 and is planning to take 190,000. cameron can shove his 4000 refugees per year up his arse.

majority of refugees are from syria iraq and afghanistan. countires the west have destroyed and are still bombing to this day. north africa is no better. no sooner an elected government takes power it is overthrown by a dictatorship serving the interests of the west or russia or china. people do not leave there homes unless they feel unsafe in their country. tell me a country that is safe that these people have come from.