The end of the world is nigh.

[L00b]

Unfortunately I am not permitted to post links which prove my point, doing so will likely result in another ban.

How about a link or two to relevant Lichtenstein legislation, or to their immigration service/department's FAQ?

 

You know, nothing second hand and potentially controversial from a third party, only straightforward info from the horse's mouth? (like I did a few posts ago with the UK's official immigration PBS website)

 

Nothing remotely controversial about these, surely?

[Cyclone]

You may not expect an answer discussing the point on the merits, I'm afraid.

 

I've raised substantially the same point about substantially the same issues befalling sun-loving Brit retirees in Spain, France and similar EU locales a few times already in similar threads.

 

So far, still without much of a constructive reply from the 'out' camp.

 

(...I mean, other than the usual wavy hand argument that "they've got loadsamoney, they won't get chucked"...conveniently but disingenuously ignoring the withdrawal of local free social care and healthcare consequential to a Brexit and so the added cost of same, to say nothing of local visa rules applying to non-EU immigrants becoming relevant as well).

 

Nicky Morgan uses a needlessly alarming rethoric, for sure. Fundamentally though, she's not far wrong. Considering the current state of funding for higher level education in the UK, no more EU funding & ERASMUS opportunities for Brit students would be a big deal with farther ranging effects than most realise.

 

And that's not mentioning the potential socio-economic fallout, short- to medium-term, of a Brexit which, if it materialises, would definitely impact the UK's education budget for a few years at best. That should all be quantifiable risk (within min-max ranges), so I'm hoping Whitehall and No.11 have already crunched the numbers ready-just-in-case.

 

I'd pretty much agree with all that.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2016 at 15:19 ----------

 

Yes I am fully aware of that thanks.

In that case, how do you reach the conclusion you've reached?

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2016 at 15:20 ----------

 

SPEND?!?!? Since when do pensioner spend anything? Aren't they just going there to avoid putting the heating on at home? I will be honest and from a purely financial perspective, I highly doubt many pensioners really add anything to our economy. Before everyone jumps down my throat, I did say PURELY financial...possibly they free up a parent from either giving up work by acting as a childminder, but then you've removed a source of income for a childminder so a bit of a catch-22.

 

I'd guess that the ones who retire to spain have a reasonable disposable income.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2016 at 15:22 ----------

 

"Ability to be employed" is the key phrase here. I'm not sure how an immigrant can support himself/herself (and family) if they have no means to do so and unable to get or sustain regular employment, the terms of which should be part of a work visa.

 

What visa?

 

You can move to Spain now, and claim unemployment benefit if you are unemployed. A Spaniard can move here and do the same (although isn't there now a 4 year period before they can claim?)

[sutty27]

How about a link or two to relevant Lichtenstein legislation, or to their immigration service/department's FAQ?

 

You know, nothing second hand and potentially controversial from a third party, only straightforward info from the horse's mouth? (like I did a few posts ago with the UK's official immigration PBS website)

 

Nothing remotely controversial about these, surely?

 

It would be nice wouldn't it but I already explained why I can't provide it, but its easy to find.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2016 at 15:25 ----------

 

In that case, how do you reach the conclusion you've reached?

 

What conclusion are you questioning?

[nikki-red]

Every forum member is encouraged to provide current, relevant links to back up any claims they make.

[L00b]

It would be nice wouldn't it but I already explained why I can't provide it,

You'd get banned if you provided a link to Lichtenstein's current immigration legislation, or to official immigration policy/information on their government's website, evidencing your claim that Lichtenstein is able to restrict the free movement of people from within the EU?

but its easy to find.

Go on then, and you've got nikki-red's green light Edited March 29, 2016 by L00b
correct spelling of nikki-red's SF handle

[ANGELFIRE1]

I saw Nicky Morgan's performance on Question Time, if ever there was a person out of their depth then this woman was it. It was almost embarrassing to watch, I actually felt for her to be honest.

 

It's easy to see that the Government and Opposition MP's who back Brexit are having to make more and more outlandish statements in an attempt to scare the sheeples into voting stay in.

 

We ARE Great Britain, vote out to keep it that way, we are not a subsidiary of a German Europe.

 

Angel1.

[sgtkate]

While I'm leaning towards staying in quite a bit, I have to agree that the 'remain' campaign are doing a great hatchet job of their own campaign at the moment. They could just sit in silence and say to the out campaign, tell us with evidence why we should leave and when they can't (which they really can't...) it's a bit of case of point proven...that's the thing no one can predict the future so the out campaign have to spout as much rubbish as the remain team.

[sutty27]

You'd get banned if you provided a link to Lichtenstein's current immigration legislation, or to official immigration policy/information on their government's website, evidencing your claim that Lichtenstein is able to restrict the free movement of people from within the EU?

Go on then, and you've got nikki-red's green light

 

I posted a combination of current, relevant links to back up a claim that I made after another member asked me to back up my claim and yes it got me a ban.

 

But I will take nikki-red's post as permission to post the relevant links.

 

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/work-abroad/work-permits/index_en.htm

 

http://www.liechtenstein-business.li/en/for-employees/work-and-residence/

 

 

http://www.liechtenstein-business.li/en/living-in-liechtenstein/life-in-the-principality/residence-permits/

[L00b]

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/work-abroad/work-permits/index_en.htm

 

http://www.liechtenstein-business.li/en/for-employees/work-and-residence/

 

 

http://www.liechtenstein-business.li/en/living-in-liechtenstein/life-in-the-principality/residence-permits/

See, that wasn't difficult

 

So, you've proved that Lichtenstein indeed only grants very few residency permits every year, 87 in all. Fair cop. The info I had on the term of the Protocol 15 (Article 5–7) of the EEA agreement and its prorogation was manifestly wrong (..though not the immigration stats).

 

And a neighbouring page of your links proves my counter-point, in that there is no restriction at all placed on Swiss EEA commuter workers (completely free movement) and only a marginal admin step for other EEA commuter workers (registration by employer: no different to all other EU member states, e.g. in the UK registering with HMRC for an NI number).

 

No restrictions at all on normal travel (leisure, tourism, passing-through) for any EEA person (Lichtenstein is in Schengen, btw).

 

Conclusion: Lichtenstein is no more able to "restrict the free movement of people from within the EU despite being a European Free Trade Association" than Switzerland or Norway (who both also require residency permits), but it is unsurprisingly more restrictive about gaining a right of residency in volume terms. Completely as expected: it's less than half the size of Sheffield.

[sutty27]

See, that wasn't difficult

 

So, you've proved that Lichtenstein indeed only grants very few residency permits every year, 87 in all. Fair cop. The info I had on the term of the Protocol 15 (Article 5–7) of the EEA agreement and its prorogation was manifestly wrong (..though not the immigration stats).

 

And a neighbouring page of your links proves my counter-point, in that there is no restriction at all placed on Swiss EEA commuter workers (completely free movement) and only a marginal admin step for other EEA commuter workers (registration by employer: no different to all other EU member states, e.g. in the UK registering with HMRC for an NI number).

 

No restrictions at all on normal travel (leisure, tourism, passing-through) for any EEA person (Lichtenstein is in Schengen, btw).

 

Conclusion: Lichtenstein is no more able to "restrict the free movement of people from within the EU despite being a European Free Trade Association" than Switzerland or Norway (who both also require residency permits), but it is unsurprisingly more restrictive about gaining a right of residency in volume terms. Completely as expected: it's less than half the size of Sheffield.

I don't think many Bexit supporters want to stop people coming on holiday to the UK, residency is the issue and Lichtenstein is able to restrict residency.

With a population density half that of England.

Edited March 29, 2016 by sutty27