The £18,600.00 minimum income immigration rule might be illegal

UK's trade with Europe would not be too adversely affected were we to withdraw from the EU. There are a number of other pan-European treaties which do the job just as effectively but don't undermine our ability to police our borders.And if it had the political will (read "balls"), Britain could close the "Lille Loophole" which would have an effect on non-EEA immigration.

Interestingly, Norway enjoys a good life outside of the EU. And so too the Isle of Man. Maybe Scotland too, in the future?

Yes. Norway can well afford to stay out of the EU as they are loaded with oil wealth to share between just a few million people and a heap of mousse. In time we may not have any oil wealth in England and Wales as it will be Scottish only (maybe).

Actually, yes, I tend to think of our forefathers as being both Norwegian and Danish, in the distant past. They even got as far afield as the Isle of Man. Not easy to get to in a "long boat".

If these treaties you take of are the answer it begs the question why hasn't the 3 major parties in the UK, Labour, Lib Dem, Tories ever had such a master plan embedded in their manifesto for the previous elections or for future elections? Without knowing too much about these other treaties I can only asume it draws no parallel to the current economic benefit free movement of goods, services and capital does to the UK.

The A8 countries all joined the EU in 2004 with limited restrictions to the labour market initially, they aware fully incorporated into the EU in 2011. Now the same concept is happening to the A2 countries, Romania and Bulgaria. At present there is limited restrictions to the labour market but they will be incorporated into the full EU in late 2013. Theresa May tried her best to address this to pre-empt the influx of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals, as per the influx of the A8 nationals post 2011. Quite simply she cannot do anything to address and the two A2 countries will enjoy full rights as other EEA countries.

Begs the question again, surely if the answer was that simple something could have been done by now, we simply cannot drop the free movement of people and keep the other directives which benefit the UK economy so vastly. I read some interesting statistics of how much exactly the labour force actually comprises of genuine workers compared to those who are on benefits, and the stats do not reflect what many think is the status quo for EEA migrants. If I can find it I will post a link.

As for the Lille Loophole, not sure how much of a loophole it remains, the UKBA are well aware of it, as are the Governments from what I read they have put in measures to combat this, unsure of the details

Nobody from another EU country should be entitled to claim benefits from the UK system until they have contributed into it.

However if a professional becomes legally established in the UK, and has made sufficient contributions into the system, then they should be entitled to "support" until they are unable to support themselves again, same as for British people.

Anybody who arrives in the UK with the intention of "milking the system" should be entitled to nothing.

Common sense, why can the politicians not understand it...

Might be of interest...

Spotted this in the Daily Mail, confirms how difficult it is becoming with the new immigration system.

The UK really needs to get its act in order. Surely the rights of a foreign spouse should take priority over those of an economic migrant with nothing to contribute to the country.

Good luck to this couple.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253557/Newlywed-23-faces-told-quit-UK-falling-foul-visa-rules.html

EU federalists: UK could be 'associate member'

"The UK could be offered second-class status in the EU, under a proposal from some senior politicians in Brussels.

"Associate member" status would mean the UK giving up much of its influence in the EU, the group's leader Andrew Duff told the BBC.

Mr Duff, a Lib Dem MEP, heads the Union of European Federalists, which has long pushed for more pooling of sovereignty.

"We're now at a point where there ought also to be the option of various formal tiers of membership," he said.

In early 2013, UK Prime Minister David Cameron is due to give a major speech on Britain's relationship with Europe. He is expected to call for some powers to be returned from Brussels to London."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20875755

Why should the "UK" ever "accept" any second class status for its citizens?

The UK already has minimal influence anyway due to the way the EU is structured.

The British government should look after its own citizens first, rather that accepting an underdog position in a totally undemocratic, socialist EU.

Stimulate the UK economy rather than pumping billions into the EU, please..

Our relationship with Europe should be based around trade, as was the original intention!

So did anyone watch Question Time yesterday? Interesting debate on the EU, Nigel Farrage was on there, I must say he has a very persuasive eloquence in his speech, but it seems like he is merely pandering to what UK citizens want to hear rather than the reality of the EU, arguments how Switzerland and Norway and the numerous treaties they have drafted got blitz down by all other panel members. A lady in the audience quite rightly stated that if we were to have a referendum on the EU, first of all we all need to educate ourselves in the pros and cons of being part of the EU, instead of the scare mongering talk that is coming from Nigel Farrage

Hear hear, that woman.

In my experience, people who say we should do this or we should do that, very often mean you should so this. The problem is that whenever it is suggested that there be a public debate on Europe, vested interests rest their cigars in ashtrays and put down their glasses of port long enough to say "the issues are far too complex to be understood by the population".

I am appalled and disgusted by just how xenophobic this government has become towards non Europeans and I don't believe it's a party political issue because the next lot will simply carry on with the same. And there was me thinking racial discrimination was against the law - it is but apparently not if practised by government. In essence, of course, the true xenophobes are the little Englanders.

All the reading I've done, here and elsewhere, teaches me that the Border Agency is clearly unfit for purpose and needs root and branch reorganisation. The UK appears to be (one of) the only country/ies whose immigration service is not part of that country's Justice Ministry.

Thanks for the tip. Just watched it on iPlayer

Yes. An interesting episode of Question Time with views on the various recent demises of some of our high street shops, on Europe and Immigration etc and on horse meat in our diet. A good program to watch and makes a refreshing change to some of the views of a certain sector of nobs on a certain other filipino uk site.

I do think Farage has many vaild points but disagree that the answers lay in pulling out of Europe and prefer to agree with some on the program that say that we should remain in the EU but under different terms.

Interesting point that Farage made though was that he predicted the next big uproar will be the amount of donkey meet in salami.

To watch the whole program:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01q0hqx/Question_Time_17_01_2013/

The reality is, though, that European leaders would much rather Britain leave the EU than constantly bitching about it from within. They wouldn't offer special terms to us: it's either in (and shut-up) or it's out. Which is a bit much when you remember that the UK is the largest nett contributor to EU funding after Germany. Greenland, you may remember, did leave the EU and it's economy hasn't exactly suffered as a result: indeed there is a newly-published article on the BBC news site on that very topic (Greenland's PM talks of 'positive' results from EU exit). Talk of an economic collapse of apocalyptic proportions, were Britain to exit the EU, is simply scare-mongering.

I met and spent an evening with Nigel Farage around 12 years ago and one thing struck me: he really does seem to know what he's talking about because, unlike the majority of protagonists on both sides of the debate, he actually does read all the various treaties and has a good understanding of the inner workings of the Institution. He likened the EU to a multi-national corporation with France as its Chief Executive, Germany the Chief Financial Officer and Italy as the Company Secretary: that triumvirate dictates the overall policy and direction of the EU. It is most unfortunate that he has embraced some rather extremist views, on immigration especially, and in all likelihood has done so to provide a more appealing "home" for disaffected right-wing Tories who might otherwise go to the BNP.

I also read that Obama is pressuring David Cameron on the Europe question. It is, of course, in America's interest to have an English-speaking ally as a springboard into Europe but her interests and ours don't always coincide. Perhaps David Cameron's speech-writer might wish to borrow the lines that Richard Curtis wrote for his Prime Minister character in "Love Actually":

"I love that word 'relationship'. Covers all manner of sins, doesn't it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship. A relationship based on ... the President taking what he wants ... and casually ignoring all those things that matter to, erm, Britain.

We may be a small country but we're a great one too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter, David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot come to that.

And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward, I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that."

My impression is that what we gain and lose by staying in Europe and what we would gain or lose by moving out of Europe is quite complex and mixed. Additionally some would benefit by pulling out, as is and some would lose. So much so that Joe Average who would vote in a referendum doesn't know enough to cast an informed vote. I would like to see a comprehensive and accurate listing of all the main pros and cons and then to proceed on referendum that has more than just an in or out option. If we are contributing as much as it is said then surely we would be missed if we (the UK) left, if for no other reason than that alone?

Just like in any other market, if we don't ask we wont get, so I hope David Cameron has a go at negotiating better terms, at least.

To be honest, I am not sure that a lot needs renegotiating. Just a few tweaks.

Interestingly the Scots are in a similar position and are at least looking for something more than just a straight in/out vote on their presence in the UK.

Having said that, here in the IoM we couldnt vote on a UK referendum on Europe and also, we are not as such a member of the European Union.

[video=youtube;cbAE6P9la-s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cbAE6P9la-s[/video]

Thanks for the YouTube link John.
I was unable to get your earlier BBC iplayer link working, even though I switched my VPN to route via London.

I have the greatest respect for Nigel.
The one thing I am not so happy about are the calls for an in/out vote.
We should be able to trust our elected politicians to look after the British people.
Sadly that does not appear to be the case.
Bad decisions (such as the uncontrolled flood of EU migration to the UK) should never have happened in the first place.

Even though not a member, the IoM has given in to EU legislation such as the reporting requirements of the EU savings tax directive...

Anyway, enough, politics is not really my kettle of fish, especially when I am stone cold sober.

It is 22:30 here in Bangkok, and I need a beer!