Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by ram View Post
    The wonderful things the E.U. have done for us .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVriot01C9U
    TL/DR version:
    The video is an example of Farage misleading the wilfully ignorant by telling only half the story.
    UK governments failed to enforce controls that EU law allows to be in place for immigration and benefits. EU immigrants are a net benefit to the UK as they pay more in tax than they are given in benefits, and it benefits us even more if they don't bring their children with them.


    Full version:
    Biased propaganda is only convincing to people who don't understand the facts. The comments that Farage makes in the video are intentionally dishonest, and are intended to mislead people who are wilfully ignorant and won't bother fact checking to see what the whole story is.

    The genuine facts are that EU law does not allow completely unrestricted movement of people within Europe, and does not allow people to move solely so that they can live off benefits.
    EU law allows governments to keep track of the citizens from elsewhere in the EU that come to a country, and only require them to be given benefits if they are in employment (and therefore eligible for benefits paid for by part of the taxes they are paying), or can pass a strict residence test.
    If immigrants from other EU countries are not in employment, studying, or able to support themselves financially, EU law does not require them to be paid any benefits. Other EU countries use these laws, and keep track of immigrants from other EU countries - successive UK governments chose not to.
    EU law allows the UK government to have control, but the UK governments didn't use this control.

    EU citizens working in the UK pay far more in tax on their earnings alone than they take in benefits (without taking into account tax from their spending)

    So, although it is a fact that (1) the UK government underestimated the number of immigrants that would come; (2) child support is paid for children who are not in the UK, and (3) other benefits may be being paid to other EU immigrants in the UK, it is the UK governments who are responsible, not the EU.

    The child credit paid is a benefit that is paid by the country where people are working - it doesn't cost us money, it just reduces what the country gets from PAYE tax slightly. If you think about it critically, it benefits the UK if the children of immigrants who are working here are living in other countries - because then the UK doesn't have to fund their schooling or healthcare.

    Comment


      Not quite.

      House of commons briefing paper 2015 remember that benefits come with a right to reside...(a fact which the EU has challenged and is an attempt by the Uk to conrol benefit payments"

      "EEA nationals may also have a right to reside as a jobseeker, if they can show that they are looking for work and have a “genuine chance of being engaged”, and are habitually resident."

      "An economically inactive “self-sufficient person” may however be able to access means-tested benefits with being considered an “unreasonable burden” on the UK’s social assistance system, in certain circumstances.9 A person may also have a right to reside based on another person’s right to reside. This is known as a “derivative right to reside.” For example, a person who formerly a “worker” may have a right to reside as a primary carer of a child in education. 10 EEA nationals who have “resided legally” in the UK for a continuous period of five years (or less in certain circumstances) acquire a permanent right of residence and have access to benefits and tax credits on the same terms as UK nationals."

      "A “worker” has the right of residence – and with it access to benefits and tax credits – for as long as they are in “genuine and effective work”.7 A worker can however retain worker status when they stop working in certain circumstances,"

      "EEA nationals may also have a right to reside as a jobseeker, if they can show that they are looking for work and have a “genuine chance of being engaged”, and are habitually resident"

      "The European Commission has begun infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom on the grounds that the right to reside requirement discriminates against non-UK EEA nationals, contrary to EU law. On 30 May 2013 the Commission confirmed that it would refer the UK to the Court of Justice.12 The Government has pledged to fight this action.13 The Commission has also begun separate infringement proceedings against the UK in relation to the right to reside test for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit."

      I cannot find the results of that challenge by the EU but clearly they are unhappy with any restriction by the UK government...You may also wish to peruse: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/284 which shows: " In short, it is far easier to gain access to unemployment benefits in the UK than anywhere else in the EU15."
      Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

      Comment


        Notice that there preconditions attached to pretty much everything that you list, islandgirl, as shown by the frequent use of "if...", "may...", etc., followed by reference to, or at least inference of, the conditions that apply.

        The EU's objection to UK government proposals was that the UK was proposing to place limits on benefits given to EU citizens from outside of the UK that would not apply to UK citizens. This would have be illegal under EU law, but that does not mean that restrictions that prevent migrants coming to the UK solely for benefits would be illegal.

        The UK, like all other EU countries, could have required immigrants from other parts of the EU who came seeking work to report their presence, and if they were still out of work after a set period of time, without having applied for work and/or with no realistic change of obtaining work, they could be required to leave.
        There are numerous exceptions, but these relate to people who have been working in the UK, or dependent family members of people working in the UK.

        If it is considered to be too easy for EU immigrants to get benefits in the UK, and believed that the amount of benefits makes it attractive for EU nationals to come here solely for benefits, the UK government can change the benefit rules to prevent this.
        What they cannot do is change the way that the rules apply to EU citizens from outside of the UK, but they can change the way that the rules apply to everyone, including UK citizens.
        Personally I would support this, as it might help to get some of the people who live off benefits and have no intention of tying to find work (despite being physically capable) back to work. This would (I.M.O.) have very little effect on the benefits paid to EU nationals from other countries who are in the UK.

        Comment


          Right to reside is the key mr M...right to reside. I know it is complex but there it is!
          Having done more research it appears the UK did win the right to enforce the Right to Reside rules in the face of opposition from the EU: https://www.ein.org.uk/news/european...t-right-reside
          But again the key is Right to Reside and how you can deny it (which seems almost impossible). This ties up with your quesion re the Ifs and Maybes in the quoted passages:
          "EEA nationals may also have a right to reside as a jobseeker, if they can show that they are looking for work and have a “genuine chance of being engaged”, and are habitually resident"
          So basically anyone cn come here show they are looking for work and be entitled...
          How many unemployed EU citizens do we deny right to reside or "require them to leave"? I hardly think a strongly worded letter is going to force someone to buy a coach ticket back to whence they came.
          In reality there are no controls you can set once you are in the club.
          Once again: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/284 : " In short, it is far easier to gain access to unemployment benefits in the UK than anywhere else in the EU15."
          Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

          Comment


            Right to reside/right to work are basically the same thing - when EU citizens have one, they also have the other.

            Your last post changes nothing. It remains the case that the UK government had the right to require EU citizens who came here seeking work to report their presence, and it remains the case that EU citizens who have not found work within 6 months can be asked to leave.
            The UK won't have asked many (if any) unemployed EU citizens to leave, but that's down to the failure of EU governments, not because of the EU.
            If EU citizens were asked to leave because they were considered not to have a reasonable chance of finding employment, they would no longer have the right to reside and would therefore no longer be eligible for benefits.

            As for benefits being easier to get in the UK, again that is entirely under the control of the UK government.

            You are blaming the EU for something that the UK government has control over.

            Comment


              So that is why the EU took us to court about Right to Reside? With all due respect you do have blue tinted yellow star encrusted specs sir. The glorious EU does no wrong. It is easier to get benefits here than anywhere else in the EU (not my conclusion). There are lots of unemployed EU migrants (I see them in my day job). That strongly worded letter would have to be very very strongly worded!
              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

              Comment


                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                So that is why the EU took us to court about Right to Reside?
                You only have to read the article that you linked to find out what the reason was.
                It was because the way that the UK assessed benefit claims was considered to be discriminatory against those who weren't UK citizens. The verdict was that it was discriminatory, but that this was justifiable.


                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                With all due respect you do have blue tinted yellow star encrusted specs sir. The glorious EU does no wrong.
                I have never suggested that the EU does no wrong. Not once.
                There are problems with the EU in the same way as there are with all governments and organisations.


                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                It is easier to get benefits here than anywhere else in the EU (not my conclusion).
                Once again: How easy it is to get benefits in the UK is entirely under the control of the UK government. If you think that it should be more difficult to get benefits, it is the UK government that is to blame, not the EU.


                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                There are lots of unemployed EU migrants (I see them in my day job).
                So? There are also lots of unemployed UK citizens. What's your point?


                Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                That strongly worded letter would have to be very very strongly worded!
                You seem to be missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter whether or not EU citizens who are asked to leave the UK because they are deemed to have no reasonable likelihood of getting employment actually leave. The fact that they have been asked to leave would mean that their right to reside had effectively been revoked, so they would have no right to claim benefits. Therefore, if the UK government actually kept track of EU migrants, and used the rules that allowed them to ask them to leave, it would mean that EU migrants were unable to come to the UK to live off benefits. If there really is a problem with people coming from elsewhere in the EU so that they can live long term off benefits in the UK, it is the UK government that is to blame.

                Comment


                  heads and brick walls.
                  Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                  Comment


                    On another note, given that a new Conservative party leader may mean a General Election anyone any thoughts on this - seen in the internet today so cannot say if it is true or not but seems like the sort of thing Corbyn would advocate:
                    Read page 39 of labours Policy on Housing: LAND FOR THE MANY (Separating the ownership of land and housing)
                    The Common Ground Trust (Trust hereafter) is proposed as a publicly-backed but independent non-profit institution which would buy the land beneath houses and lease it to members.
                    The Trust would take the form of a commons, where the land is controlled by a community of members, working within a constitutional framework.
                    People (including housing co-ops) could approach the Trust when they had found a house they wanted to buy and ask the Trust to purchase the land.
                    They would then purchase only the bricks and mortar. Since bricks and mortar account for 30% of the price of a property on average, this would allow people to put down much lower deposits and take on much lower mortgage debt than is currently the case, particularly in high land value areas.
                    The new buyers would sign a lease that would make them members of the Trust, and entitle them to exclusive use of the land in return for paying a land rent.
                    When moving house, members would sell their bricks and mortar, while the Common Ground Trust would retain the title to the land.
                    Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                    Comment


                      Is that any different from freehold?
                      The goverment taking over freeholds?
                      Non profit - apart from making it a collective thing, and no doubt making money for lawyers/accountants/agents in the process.

                      You already pay GROUND Rent to the freeholder.

                      Comment


                        But I own my freehold - why should someone else get it off me? Clearly this is the "property is theft" lot...Corbyn = Communist
                        Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          On another note, given that a new Conservative party leader may mean a General Election anyone any thoughts on this - seen in the internet today so cannot say if it is true or not but seems like the sort of thing Corbyn would advocate:
                          Read page 39 of labours Policy on Housing: LAND FOR THE MANY (Separating the ownership of land and housing)
                          The Common Ground Trust (Trust hereafter) is proposed as a publicly-backed but independent non-profit institution which would buy the land beneath houses and lease it to members.
                          This policy proposal has nothing to do with Brexit, but may be of interest to forum members so probably should have been raised in a separate thread.



                          Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                          Is that any different from freehold?
                          The goverment taking over freeholds?
                          Non profit - apart from making it a collective thing, and no doubt making money for lawyers/accountants/agents in the process.

                          You already pay GROUND Rent to the freeholder.
                          The proposals have similarities to freehold, but the 'Common Ground Trust' would have no responsibility for the upkeep of any part of the property, unlike the case in most freeholds.

                          Would it mean more money for lawyers and perhaps accountants? Yes, probably.



                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          But I own my freehold - why should someone else get it off me? Clearly this is the "property is theft" lot...Corbyn = Communist
                          No one would "get it off" you, unless you choose to sell (which is an option that is always available in capitalism). Your own post introducing the proposals clearly explains this.
                          The proposals are aimed at making it easier for people to own their own homes by giving them the option to buy the home without having to find the money to buy the land as well.
                          This is not a communist proposal and is seeking to increase property ownership.

                          I see nothing in particular that would make the proposals a bad thing, but I think that they need to cover how the land can be purchased back from the Trust - when/if the property owners wish to do so.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Macromia View Post

                            This is not a communist proposal
                            Depends who sets the value of the land, doesn't it?

                            Comment


                              It does not say that there will not be compulsory purchase of the land underneath existing houses..indeed that is the logical next step. Also as JKO points out, what if they want to buy my land and I do not want to sell. Once again complusory purchase at a non- market price. I have also seen other proposals from Labour giving them the right to buy land at agricultural value (compulsory purchase) to then sell on to developers at a huge profit...and Mr M as I pointed out this does relate to Brexit in that there could be another election in order for the House of Commons to "allow" Brexit therefore it does relate though I am happy for it to be more widely seen so that others know the danger Corbyn poses.
                              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by JK0 View Post

                                Depends who sets the value of the land, doesn't it?
                                The combined price for the land & property will be set by the seller - the same way it is now (and similarly subject to any bargaining that might take place).
                                The amount that the land is considered to be worth will be set by the Trust, as will the amount that will be payable each month for rent (with the remainder of the total the seller wants being the price the buyer will have to pay). The buyer then gets to decide whether to accept (1) That the total price is reasonable; (2) that they are happy with the proposed value for the land, and (3) that they find the rent they will be expected to pay for the land to be acceptable. If they don't accept any of this they are free to walk away and look elsewhere (as with any purchase of a property/lease in a capitalist society).

                                Similarly, if the seller doesn't like the amount they are being offered, they don't have to sell (as long as they can afford to hold out for a better offer). Again, exactly the same as for any sale now.


                                he only people who will potentially be losing out are the people who need to buy property this way because they can't get on the property ladder any other way (because, in the long run, it is an expensive way to buy a property) - and for them it is likely a better option than continuing to rent properties where they have no ownership at all.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X