The 1972 Act that enshrined the EU law into UK law is to be repealed. The existing EU laws will remain and get repealed as necessary in future.
That will of course very much depend I assume on the negotiated settlement with the EU.
No other EU law will now enter UK law.
Yes, Welshwife. Rudd said that they were going to work very quickly. However, as Stella Creasey said in response to Rudd's statement, they have had the information since 2nd September for all 387 who have the right to come.
Amber Rudd says we will be doing very well to take 300.
Which 87 is she going to leave behind?
Today's exchange in Parliament during the Calais Jungle Debate.
Stella Creasey
"The Home Secretary will be aware that there is a great deal of concern in the House today about the numbers. The voluntary sector has identified for her Department 387 children as being eligible to come here under Dublin III and the Dubs amendment, for example, but there is a wait of more than three months before many can even lodge an asylum claim in France; I do not think the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is aware of that fact. This country is spending three times as much on building a wall to block those children from coming here as on trying to prevent them from being trafficked. Given the Secretary of State’s welcome commitment to getting things moving, will she reverse that ratio and put more money into the administration needed to process the papers, so that we can get those children out of that hellhole today?"
Amber Rudd
"I understand and share the hon. Lady’s genuine passion and commitment to this subject. However, it is not a lack of finances for dealing with the paperwork that has been slowing things up; this is a question of ensuring that the French engage with us, so that we can commit to getting the numbers through that we want. For instance, we have already referred to the 200 agreed under the Dublin agreement, and to the additional number under the Dubs amendment,' but the French have begun to work with us on this only in the past three weeks'. They are now focused on wanting us to take children from the camps, because they now want to clear the camps. I can confidently tell the hon. Lady that there will be a remarkable increase in our ability to take those children over and to process their claims, not because of money, but because of the political will to get it done."
Worth watching the Debate .
She was a fibber, though, POGS.
www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/child-refugees-calais-camp-stranded-britain-ignored-pleas-home-office
France, as a 1st world country and member of the EU, should hang its head in shame at the lack of help these children have had whilst they linger in this camp
Some of the comments on here disgust me. No humanity.
Well, I am not sure which comments disgust you, djen
I am disgusted that the vulnerable children were not moved to a place of safety in France and their and their families claims investigated. For them to be sent to the UK before proper investigations were made about the 'families' they are going to could be sending them into danger.
As Welshwife said, they will also need careful monitoring for a long while to ensure they are not being exploited by these families.
Let's hope things are now moving, but they are going to have to be very careful. There is always someone ready to exploit vulnerable children.
'The Home Office has refused to respond to official requests from the French authorities to accept unaccompanied child refugees stranded in Calais who are eligible to come to Britain, the British Red Cross has said.
With the planned demolition of Calais’s refugee camp only weeks away, the Red Cross says the Home Office is turning down “take charge” requests by the French on often pedantic grounds. Once such a request has been accepted by the UK government it is in effect responsible for a child who is seeking asylum.
In some cases British officials claim to have “misplaced” requests from the French to help children, raising questions over Britain’s approach to what humanitarian experts call an urgent child protection issue. The camp is scheduled to be demolished this month, with no provision agreed by the British and French for most of the 1,000 unaccompanied minors there, of whom at least 400 are eligible to enter the UK.
A new report damningly articulates the Home Office’s intransigence, with research by the Red Cross revealing it takes up to 11 months on average to bring a child to the UK under an EU scheme to reunite families. Lawyers say there is no reason why the process should take more than several weeks.
The report also identifies “problems ranging from basic administrative errors causing severe delays to a shortage of human resources on the French side”. It accuses the Home Office of unnecessarily forcing vulnerable children to stay in the camp for months after their case is rejected because of a basic administrative error or lack of documents.'
Will that do, Jalima?
Can't let a single child through, can we, just in case.
Their claims have been verified by the French, by the British and by the Red Cross. What else do you need?
France should get rid of the border in Calais and let the British children through so we will have to deal with them on British soil. Believe it or not, we no longer own Calais.
A 'fibber' - haven't heard that since primary school...
Ana... just read that post from you and laughed, unfortunately I had just taken a sip of hot coffee and sprayed it all over my silk top! Not sure who to send the dry cleaning bill to....you or djen 
It's quite a sweet little word 'fibber' and doesn't sound nearly as bad as 'liar'.
Extract from your link to the Independent Durhamjen
"The charity found that it takes between 10-11 months on average to bring a child to the UK due to problems ranging from basic administrative errors to a shortage of staff to facilitate transfers ' on the French side of the border '.
Problems include a drop-in service set up by the French government becoming so oversubscribed that child refugees are now forced to wait three months for an appointment to record their name, parents and details of their journey to France.
This is exacerbated by a lack of translators avaliable at the camps and the administrators required by French law not being avaliable to take photographs and fingerprints and photograph documents. If a refugee misses their appointment due to one of these factors it is a six week wait for another avaliable slot.
One case reported by the charity found a teenager was rejected because administrators filed his request under the wrong article of the Dublin agreement."
I am not saying more could be done but I am not making it a UK government problem only.
Not allowed to call MPs liars - unparliamentary language.
I can't believe you haven't heard it since you were in primary school, though.
Have your own grandchildren not used the word?
No. They use the word 'lies'. But they're children.
I doubt very much whether it's against the law to call MPs or politicians 'liars' - go on, give it a try!
A new report damningly articulates the Home Office’s intransigence, with research by the Red Cross revealing it takes up to 11 months on average to bring a child to the UK under an EU scheme to reunite families. Lawyers say there is no reason why the process should take more than several weeks.
11 months? When it could take a few weeks?
The government knew there were 170+ children who could come here in July.
The French government has thousands to deal with. Our government can't even hurry over a few hundred.
Stop making excuses for a government that's dragging its heels. Why is a charity taking the government to court over it?
Didn't say against the law. Said unparliamentary language. Not the same.
I am not making excuses but you are laying the blame at only one party involved, the UK Government.
I have used your own link to give balance to your insistence it is the UK always at fault and shed light on the 'many' complicated issues that surround the whole debacle.
I was watching a very lively debate from the EU Parliament 4th October/Calais Jungle Debate and I heard Violeta Bulc the EU Commissioner for Transport speak. She said France do understand the need to look after minors but often they refuse to move from the camp or if re-housed go back to the Jungle as their aim is to get to the UK.
What I am saying is the government could have done more, lots of governments could have done more but blaming only the UK government is not factually true and that is a persistent line of accusation by some posters.
Their aim is to get to the UK.
There are 178 who have the right to come, it has been known about since July, and the government has only had 30 come here up to the beginning of September.
I don't think the UK government can solve the problem of Calais on its own, but only 30 in a year? Come on, they are not doing enough.
Why do you think a charity thinks it okay to take the UK government to court over not doing its job properly?
I can't do anything about any other government, but I can try and do something about this government.
Don't you feel bothered that your government is not doing enough for these children?
'Fibbers' is parliamentary language then, is it? Oh, dear...
Yes, Ana it's common parlance in the House Of Commons Bar I expect.
Having watched the discussion today, I am sure that this or 'our' government IS going to do enough to help the children.The real question is what will happen when the camps are closed but more economic migrants / refugees/ asylum seekers arrive in Calais and more children/teenagers along with them, because I can't see it stopping overnight.The French have got to get their act together.They can't continue to leave children in tents there.
I haven't read the link, but why shouldn't they be? I fact, I thought they already were.
Only 18,000+ signatures on when I put the link up. Now it's double that.
Fortunately some people read it, and see it's the poorest pensioners who will be hit by it now. If they can't find a single bedroom place to move into, they will lose £14 a week pension.
Nearly 50,000 now. Good to know that some people care about poorer pensioners in rented accommodation.
It doesn't seem so long ago that there was a lot of stuff being promoted about providing services so pensioners could stay in their own homes! Only the rich ones naturally, the poor ones can move or live in poverty.
I was going to sign the petition, but thought I'd find out the details and, I'm sorry to say, I'm not going to sign.
The government needs to get a grip of the housing situation, but keeping pensioners in under-occupied social housing is not the way.
I looked up the details for my own district.
47.8% of social housing is under-occupied. About half of the under-occupiers have one spare bedroom. The other half have two or more spare bedrooms.
Of the under-occupiers, 35% are pensioners (singles or couples) and 39% are 'empty nesters' (working age people with no children at home).
Not all of the above are in receipt of housing benefit, but some are. In some cases, pensioners will be receiving housing benefit to live in three or bedroom houses. They are also exempt from paying Council Tax.
Meanwhile, there are over 1,000 people (mainly families) on the council housing list. Nearly a half of families are living in inadequate housing, ie they don't have enough bedrooms.
Tenants in private accommodation are restricted in the amount of housing benefit they receive and, in this area, the LHA rate is way below the actual rents, so they are already paying towards rents out of benefits, if they claim them.
My area isn't the worst, although some areas, especially big towns and cities, which have different problems, have less under-occupation.
The need for new social and affordable housing could be reduced considerably, if under-occupiers could be persuaded to move. Of course, this means investing in suitable one bedroom, ground floor housing (bungalows). Private developers won't do it, because they can't make a profit, so the government (via councils) has to take the initiative. I would happily sign anything to support the building of more housing suitable for pensioners.
But in the absence of any such housing you are quite happy that pensioners should be punished for this. It isn't their fault that they are inhabiting properties that are too big for them, no doubt a substantial number would like a smaller more accessible property, but as you have said there aren't any.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
