I feel sorry for them on the one hand and it seems unfair, but the pension they get allows them a very high standard of life in their own country. Can understand a lot of them want to stay over here though, and should get some semblance of parity.
one of our security guards at work is an ex ghurka. I didn't realise at first when I mercilessly took the piss out of him - albeit he likes a laugh - since being told he was a ghurka i've been a bit more wary LOL.
And they should get exactly the same pension as any soldier they bloody well fight for it and do a damned good job as well
Its a disgrace the way they have been treated. They are some of the finest soldiers in the army and have put their lives on the line for this country - compared to some of the other shite we let in (e.g criminals from all four corners of the globe rubbing their hands together at the prospect of soft touch Britain - and no I don't mean genuine asylum seekers here folks) it should not even be an issue whether they can stay in the UK or not.
They deserve our respect and gratitude and this government makes me ashamed sometimes.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]How many of you feel that the way this country is treating the Ghurkas is awful and what should we do about it ?
This is one of the most shameful things I've heard in a long time. These men have fought for our country and there is no justification for denying them the rights of citizenship, none whatsoever in my view
It's not just Labour who have let them down but frankly you wonder who is advising Gordon Brown? If I were him I'd just do it, I cannot see who is likely to object.
Len, I realise where you are coming on this but this can't be right. So our country cannot chose who can be granted British Citzenship because of an EU law? I'm sorry, this is rubbish. The EU may well tighten up the rules on who can automatically become a citzen of a member state if they have lived here a certain time but this will not govern special cases.
I'll give you an example - Duncan Fletcher, he was specially granted British Citizenship recently. The pre 1997 Gurka's could all be granted citizenship as special cases if our government so choses.
I am afraid this article is typical of the anti EU movements attempt at half truths. You can't tell me that France for example has given up the right she has as a sovereign nation, specially to grant citizenship to whom so ever she chooses. It doesn't add up. There will always be special cases that will merit special treatment and the Gurkas are certainly one for our county.
The EU requirement did not come into operation until 23 January 2006. (See Page 10 Article 26 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC which can be accessed from my link above).
Duncan Fletcher was granted British Citizenship in September 2005 therefore no EU directives were breached.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4240294.stm
Richard North is a respected researcher and very rarely gets things wrong.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]The EU requirement did not come into operation until 23 January 2006. (See Page 10 Article 26 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC which can be accessed from my link above).
Duncan Fletcher was granted British Citizenship in September 2005 therefore no EU directives were breached.
Richard North is a respected researcher and very rarely gets things wrong.
But Len, as I understand it, that directive is about people who have been resident in an EU country and whether they qualify for citizenship? You are not seriously telling me that our government cannot choose to offer citizenship to deserving cases? If that is what Mr North is claiming that this EU directive stops, then perhaps he's missed the point regarding the Gurkha's.
Anybody who reads anything that claims that the EU either allows or stops something, in my view should sense check what they are reading. What is being blamed on the EU doesn't make sense to me.
From my reading of the preamble to this directive, it's deals with long term residential status and rights that follow regarding citizenship. That is completely different to the case of Gurkha soldiers who were associated with a base in Hong Kong who may have a moral case for citizenship. Those based in the UK would get some automatic rights under the EU directive, those who were based in Hong Kong wouldn't. So you have to go back to first principles which is that our country can and should offer them citizenship. That would have been the case before the EU directive came into force (like the Duncan Fletcher situation) and still pertains now for those who fall outside the EU directive.
Mr North is taking one set of circumstances namely residential rights to citizenship and making it sound like the EU have blocked the UK Governments right to grant citizenship. In my view that is just mischief making for political ends.
The Government may be bound by the EU directive as regards the British based Gurkhas and that may be as a result of an EU directive but this is a better position than Gurkhas have ever been in before and actually is to the credit of the EU. What should now happen is that the UK government should unilaterally offer the same rights to Hong Kong based Gurkhas that is the moral, correct position and nothing whatsoever due to the EU.
That EU directive linked to in that article is about giving long-term residents who are non-EU citizens the same rights as EU-born citizens - to travel freely in the EU and to not be kicked out of the country without proper legal redress. It also says those people must prove they have adequate means and must not be a threat to the public. It basically says that each Member State assesses for itself whether non-EU citizens resident there qualify for this status - and that all such assessments should be made on the basis of the Member State's national law.
In any case:
"In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed
to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and without
prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, these Member States are not participating in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by or subject to its application."
That article is just the usual anti-EU scaremongering.
Richard Poole the Peruvian Addick used to be in the army and led a squadron of Gurhkas, talks very highly of them. My Uncle was a major in the Indian army in the Gurhka regiment. Richard is in the green shirt and is with his Japanese wife. The young girl is Jamie the daughter of The Black cab Addick.
Despite today's evidence to the contrary he DOES normally get it right!
I also think he may be onto something in this later article as an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable decision not to treat the Gurkhas properly and decently.
[cite]Posted By: Kap10[/cite]Richard Poole the Peruvian Addick used to be in the army and led a squadron of Gurhkas, talks very highly of them. My Uncle was a major in the Indian army in the Gurhka regiment. Richard is in the green shirt and is with his Japanese wife. The young girl is Jamie the daughter of The Black cab Addick.[div class=Attachments id=Attachments_227941 noWrap=false][ul compact=false][div noWrap=false]cafcarse13w.jpg[/div][/ul][/div]
Comments
i would rather they were stood alongside me than on the other sidae facing me
And they should get exactly the same pension as any soldier they bloody well fight for it and do a damned good job as well
They deserve our respect and gratitude and this government makes me ashamed sometimes.
This is one of the most shameful things I've heard in a long time. These men have fought for our country and there is no justification for denying them the rights of citizenship, none whatsoever in my view
It's not just Labour who have let them down but frankly you wonder who is advising Gordon Brown? If I were him I'd just do it, I cannot see who is likely to object.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/03/infantile-refusal-to-accept-reality.html
Says it all, really.
And nothing anyone can do about it.
Len, I realise where you are coming on this but this can't be right. So our country cannot chose who can be granted British Citzenship because of an EU law? I'm sorry, this is rubbish. The EU may well tighten up the rules on who can automatically become a citzen of a member state if they have lived here a certain time but this will not govern special cases.
I'll give you an example - Duncan Fletcher, he was specially granted British Citizenship recently. The pre 1997 Gurka's could all be granted citizenship as special cases if our government so choses.
I am afraid this article is typical of the anti EU movements attempt at half truths. You can't tell me that France for example has given up the right she has as a sovereign nation, specially to grant citizenship to whom so ever she chooses. It doesn't add up. There will always be special cases that will merit special treatment and the Gurkas are certainly one for our county.
Duncan Fletcher was granted British Citizenship in September 2005 therefore no EU directives were breached.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4240294.stm
Richard North is a respected researcher and very rarely gets things wrong.
But Len, as I understand it, that directive is about people who have been resident in an EU country and whether they qualify for citizenship? You are not seriously telling me that our government cannot choose to offer citizenship to deserving cases? If that is what Mr North is claiming that this EU directive stops, then perhaps he's missed the point regarding the Gurkha's.
Anybody who reads anything that claims that the EU either allows or stops something, in my view should sense check what they are reading. What is being blamed on the EU doesn't make sense to me.
From my reading of the preamble to this directive, it's deals with long term residential status and rights that follow regarding citizenship. That is completely different to the case of Gurkha soldiers who were associated with a base in Hong Kong who may have a moral case for citizenship. Those based in the UK would get some automatic rights under the EU directive, those who were based in Hong Kong wouldn't. So you have to go back to first principles which is that our country can and should offer them citizenship. That would have been the case before the EU directive came into force (like the Duncan Fletcher situation) and still pertains now for those who fall outside the EU directive.
Mr North is taking one set of circumstances namely residential rights to citizenship and making it sound like the EU have blocked the UK Governments right to grant citizenship. In my view that is just mischief making for political ends.
The Government may be bound by the EU directive as regards the British based Gurkhas and that may be as a result of an EU directive but this is a better position than Gurkhas have ever been in before and actually is to the credit of the EU. What should now happen is that the UK government should unilaterally offer the same rights to Hong Kong based Gurkhas that is the moral, correct position and nothing whatsoever due to the EU.
In any case:
"In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed
to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and without
prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, these Member States are not participating in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by or subject to its application."
That article is just the usual anti-EU scaremongering.
..........
Yep. The UK has not surrendered the right to determine who should and shouldn't be a UK citizen despite what the paranoics would have us think.
Nice name though.
Richard North is a respected researcher and very rarely gets things wrong.[/quote]
I knew I'd tempted fate posting that!!
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/03/faustian-deal.html
Despite today's evidence to the contrary he DOES normally get it right!
I also think he may be onto something in this later article as an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable decision not to treat the Gurkhas properly and decently.
Who's the fat ugly guy with them : -)