BritInParis

Absolutely ridiculous. On what basis could that possibly be justified?

Novocastrian

On the basis of an attempt to satirize a certain poster's attitude?

BritInParis

If only that was the case but I think not.

not2old

to my post #45... why would you even say that its 'Absolutely ridiculous' - I would like to know your POV on what you think it should be?

The basis for my comments

1. What started out with this thread discussing the IHS £200/year as well as the increased cost of 'family of a settled person' visa application at settlement, then again fees at FLR the ILR, all while the lower or non existent visa costs for EEA/EU citizens as well as non EU/EEA spouses of Brits visa costs going the SS route & related to the fact the NHS would be available too them also - that is a huge discrepancy between the two settlement visa options.

British citizenship by naturalization or registration or permanent residency has value. You want it, then you must be serious & pay for what it has value to you the person IMO.

2. The country is overcrowded, an ageing population, immigration is still too high for the size of the country

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migrat...tion-to-the-UK

page 3 in the following link

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN....pdf?dtrk=true

3. From my post #22 http://britishexpats.com/forum/citiz.../#post11640598

2015/16 expenditures & revenue

3.1 Expenditures: welfare bill £111.7 billion, health £135.1 billion, pensions £154.7 billion

3.2 Revenue: income and capital tax £224.3 billion, NIC's £112.7 billion, Business & other revenue £46 billion

4. The new government promised to cut £12 billion from welfare, £8 billion of other cuts, reduce the deficit, cuts in civil service, etc

https://www.conservatives.com/plan

Where will the money come from for these cuts?

5. What about increasing the levy/charges to anyone wanting to settle in the UK, or wanting British citizenship - a small cost in the whole scheme of things, this would be an overall long term cost savings

5.1 An out of the EU membership costing ~£20 billion/year, to stay in the EEA saving some of that while still having the Europe trade partners similar to those in the EEA only as well as Switzerland.

That'll be it for now ....

Rather than comments of 'that's ridiculous' or a 'way off the mark', to a total stupidity' comments - what about some contra or debate to my suggestion or what I believe the route to settlement & citizenship 'should be'?

formula

It's denial if you think it's only one when you look at the UK's election results. The £ and shares rose on that result and the UK is now on target to pass the German economy.

Do you realise the French won't be able to keep taking more out of the EU than they pay in anymore if the UK money stops? German taxpayers aren't going to happy about making up the lost UK money. Why did you think Berlin gave France a warning about their continue failure to meet their targets and told France to make cuts?

Novocastrian

Ah, it turns out that you're right. I just thought that it was so over the top it must have been meant as parody (a parody, I assumed, of the above formulaic poster).

Giantaxe

France is a net contributor to the EU and "France is the biggest contributor to the UK rebate":

EU budget: what you need to know - Telegraph

formula

France take out more than they contibute to the EU. About 40% of the EU budget is spent on agriculture handouts (CAP) and France continually asks for the biggest slice of that. That UK rebate is because the UK doesn't and never has, asked for a big slice of CAP. When it was proposed in 2012 to cut the CAP budget by 50 billion, France refused to accept that cut as that would reduce the amount France would be given.

Some of that UK rebate was reduced to help the EU money worries and the UK (as the second biggest economy in the EU) paid extra to the EU last year when Germany (the biggest economy in the EU) didn't pay in all they normally do.

Did you look up about France continually missing their EU targets with France again and Italy missing their EU targets last year too. Which is why Berlin warned France that it would no longer be tolerated and that they must make cuts to meet their EU targets.

not2old

how this thread can go off track so quickly.

- should the 'new' IHS health surcharge increase, decrease or be eliminated?

- should the visa fees for the 'spouse of a settled person' increase further, decrease, or be eliminated to a level similar to those going the SS route?

- Should ILR & citizenship by naturalization for immigrants, increase from 5-years to 10- years? - If not, would you leave it at 5-years or decrease it to a lower requirement?

- Would you remove the FLR from the ILR 'to permanent residency' & simply give new immigrants 'ordinary residence', which after 5-years they could apply for 'permanent residence'?

- Should the cost of citizenship increase or decrease - if its an increase, to what cost?

Giantaxe

Incorrect. The figures I gave are net contributions and include expenditures on the CAP. France is a net contributor.

This graphic is a older but illustrates pretty clearly that, even taking into consideration the CAP, France is a net contributor:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...EU27_Money.pdf

Euro-zone budget deficit targets, not EU targets. France's budget deficit is currently 4.2% of GDP and should be under 3%. (Britain's, btw, is currently 4.4% of GDP). Anyway France now has agreement that it has until 2017 to bring its deficit under 3%:

http://www.france24.com/en/20150310-...t-extra-years/

Berlin has also made it pretty clear to Cameron that they will not accept changes to the free movement of workers within the EU:

"The German chancellor told Cameron in a private conversation at an EU summit in Brussels last month that the premier would reach a point of no return if he continued with his efforts to introduce quotas on migration to the U.K. by fellow EU citizens."

Merkel Fears U.K. EU Exit on Free Movement, Spiegel Says - Bloomberg Business

not2old

thats the way I read it also

formula, where do you get your numbers or information from that differs from the Telegraph report?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...d-to-know.html

Novocastrian

Preferably be eliminated. It's just anti-foreigner spin doctoring.

Eliminated.

I'm sure that a person of your experience knows that all these acronyms are just formulaic jargon. I'd say about 5 years residency is about right.

Aside from some reasonable fee for processing / administration matters, why should it cost anything?

<so you were being satirical all along>

robin1234

All I can say is I wish to God my wife had got her citizenship in 1990 or 1991 before we left for die goldene medina .....

not2old

the acronym knowledge is from being a member on BE

I posted this question on another thread "should the paper British passport go, replaced by a identity bio-metric type card similar to a drivers license"?

Novocastrian

I see. Here's another one for you; WTF cares?