Gurkha's

[Simon Pieman]

Without reading the whole thing, what are we specifically looking for? I started to read it but couldn't see anything.

[Simon Pieman]

In fact I read it all because the technicalities of where the pre-97 base was seems daft and if this was the case why weren't they told they couldn't reside here before now?

Anyway it says that the UK and Ireland are not participating in that directive so that busts your EU ruling myth.

[ghanimah]

Anyway it says that the UK and Ireland are not participating in that directive so that busts your EU ruling myth.

Not quite, indeed you're right there was an opt-out negotiated at the Amsterdam Treaty, However under Directive 2004/38/EC all immigrants that become naturalised British citizens, also enjoy all the treaty rights granted to the individual as 'European citizens', including freedom of movement and freedom of establishment. As a result there is huge EU political pressure on the British (and British eagerness to be 'at the centre of Europe') to implement the original Directive, otherwise the UK becomes a “back door” for entry to the rest of the EU.

So the British Government have eagerly implemented the original directive - so, effectively, we have an 'opt out' de jure, but not de facto.

Think about it why would Labour - the master of spin and obsession with 'next-day' headlines - make such an issue out of a very emotive issue? Because they have no choice.

[michael]

The Gurkha's are my favourite military regiment, bar none.

They are, to a man, hard as fuck.

[nevillew]

Ime into Olives at the moment...not literally.

Don't let Popeye find out !

[Simon Pieman]

But there is no place in the EU directive where it sets out the five criteria. The point is, the criteria are impossible to achieve. Did they have a choice in what criteria to use?

[oxford_fan]

Good news!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023882.stm

[Phil_S]

Good news!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023882.stm

"It says the vote is not binding"

I'd like to know why not. Parliament should decide as this is the democratically elected body unlike Gordon Brown who was nevber elected as PM

[Nemo]

Because the Lib Dems proposed it and not the Government, unfortuneately.

[chrome dome]

it seems everyone has an opinion but are there any Gurkhas in the Swindon area? There are loads where I live and they are not all angels when they leave the army

[oxford_fan]

Always causing trouble round here playing knock down ginger.

[donkey]

"It says the vote is not binding"

I'd like to know why not. Parliament should decide as this is the democratically elected body unlike Gordon Brown who was nevber elected as PM

Sorry to be a pedantic old bastard, but nor was any other PM, either (apart from by their constituents...who bothered to vote...for them).

[axs]

it seems everyone has an opinion but are there any Gurkhas in the Swindon area? There are loads where I live and they are not all angels when they leave the army

There are a few yes, I've known several, all quality chaps and the friendliest people I've met.

[Lumps]

Are Gurkha's the only group of mercenaries that it's OK to like?

I've been trying to think of other examples but I'm stumped. Is it because they're mercenaries fighting for our side that they're OK?

Although thinking about it Britain's hardly alone, the Germans shat on the Turks that served in their forces, the French shat on the Algerians (and they fought for the French IN ALGERIA in a war of independence so it was quite difficult for them back home). European colonial powers have a long and unpleasant history in exploiting native troops and then abandoning them to fend for themselves I'm afraid.

The others don't seem as sympathetic as the gurkhas though. Is it the funny lopsided hats and the bent knives?

[axs]

Are Gurkha's the only group of mercenaries that it's OK to like?

I've been trying to think of other examples but I'm stumped. Is it because they're mercenaries fighting for our side that they're OK?

Although thinking about it Britain's hardly alone, the Germans shat on the Turks that served in their forces, the French shat on the Algerians (and they fought for the French IN ALGERIA in a war of independence so it was quite difficult for them back home). European colonial powers have a long and unpleasant history in exploiting native troops and then abandoning them to fend for themselves I'm afraid.

The others don't seem as sympathetic as the gurkhas though. Is it the funny lopsided hats and the bent knives?

I don't see how this makes them unworthy of a pension? Fighting for our country, by whatever commanded means makes them eligible in my eyes. Are they guilty of atrocities that have had little media coverage? I fully admit I have not researched the subject in depth.