Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Pm Targets Benefit Tourists: He Will Demand Eu Allows Britain To Ban Payouts To Migrants For First Four Years

Recommended Posts

Either he or the Daily Mail is peddling nonsense. He doesn't need to ask anyone's permission, he just needs benefit rules that define eligibility based not on nationality but on contributions. Or even residence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either he or the Daily Mail is peddling nonsense. He doesn't need to ask anyone's permission, he just needs benefit rules that define eligibility based not on nationality but on contributions. Or even residence.

Exactly!

It would kill two birds with one stone: benefits tourists and the benefits class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly!

It would kill two birds with one stone: benefits tourists and the benefits class

Cameron isn't interested in killing any birds.

All these "birds" represent convenient scapegoats.

If he did that, there would be no one left at the bottom of society to blame for all its ills and folk would inevitably start looking up instead of down.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the mail link


The move, which would mean the UK taking an estimated 60,000 migrants a year, was proposed this week. But, following warnings that the UK would veto the plan, the Commission said Britain would not be forced to take part.

The figure above seems a bit misleading. It would be an extra 60,000 on top of the current 300,000 non eu migrants a year - even so it appears to have been vetoed.

The other thing is there's no mention in the article whether the benefit proposals will be retrospective for the 4 years of eu migration (and non eu) before the measure is introduced (possibly affecting about 800,000 eu migrants and 1.2 million non eu).

The link below goes to a pdf dated 26 February 2015 which gives UK/eu/non-eu breakdown for immigration/emigration/net migration etc migration statistics etc for the UK upto and including 2013 - based on ONS figures.


www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FSN06077.pdf&ei=XWxRVcefJIOd7gaT-YOgBA&usg=AFQjCNF4IZQb803o6BlbsrYZCxuxmeO0jw&bvm=bv.92885102,d.ZGU
Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron isn't interested in killing any birds.

All these "birds" represent convenient scapegoats.

If he did that, there would be no one left at the bottom of society to blame for all its ills and folk would inevitably start looking up instead of down.

If there were no people on benefits people might start looking at other people dependent on state hand outs like landlords and land owners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the mail link


The Prime Minister has abandoned hope of trying to opt Britain out of the EU principle of free movement of labour, following signs German Chancellor Angela Merkel (pictured) would block the move

6 days after the election and it's abandoned. That must be one of the quickest "negotiations" ever.

David Cameron is set to demand sweeping changes to EU benefit rules

That's misleading as well - the UK sets its own benefit rules not the eu.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Tory front bench posing for a photo shoot the other day. Filled with talent. What could possibly go wrong? Let the good times roll.........

Edited by Agentimmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the UK sets its benefit rules but the rules and entitlement must apply to all, not just UK nationals. The problem is that we have a 'needs' based system rather than a 'contribution' based system such as those in France and Germany. So I don't see how he can ban migrants so maybe he will just ban all benefits claims for 4 years so UK nationals will get swept up in the ban as it is applied to the migrants.

That's what is currently happening with PIP payments for the disabled (used to be DLA). There is a requirement that applicants to have been in the UK for the last 2 out of 3 years (approx).

That means that UK citizens returning from a couple of years or so abroad cannot get DLA until they have been in the country again for 2 years. This is regardless of how many years of NI payments they had previously or even if they had paid UK tax when aboard.

Our disabled support group for people with Neurological diseases has several cases like this at the moment. Usually the disabled partner of someone who was posted abroad and now returned home. In one case something who took up a job abroad and returned home as their condition deteriorated and now cannot get DLA/PIP.

These are born in the UK citizens with a history of NI payments and who previously had DLA. We are waiting to see the outcome of our first Tribunal but that would take another year or more.

(there are exceptions to this such as armed forces and maybe European countries but my brain is too fried today to be able to be more specific)

Edited by Flopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits class have votes though.

But if a politician actually wants to do something they will, take a look at Blair and Iraq - massively unpopular war but he wanted to go to war so he did.

Sorting out the benefits system would probably be a vote winner, even amongst Labour voters - the ones doing low paid jobs and who wouldn't dream of sitting on the dole and hate the scroungers with a passion. I think the real concern is that the benefits class voter could start voting for a far more right or left wing party, one that would be very quick to point the finger of blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were no people on benefits people might start looking at other people dependent on state hand outs like landlords and land owners

And those bailed out rentiers of our medium of exchange, the commercial banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits class have votes though.

1) They generally don't vote or vote less than Tory voters.

2) Benefit cuts are extremely popular, even with Labour/Lib Dem voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) They generally don't vote or vote less than Tory voters.

2) Benefit cuts are extremely popular, even with Labour/Lib Dem voters.

GFworks with a load of women really taking the piss of their 16h tax credits.

None could be arsed to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the UK sets its benefit rules but the rules and entitlement must apply to all, not just UK nationals. The problem is that we have a 'needs' based system rather than a 'contribution' based system such as those in France and Germany. So I don't see how he can ban migrants so maybe he will just ban all benefits claims for 4 years so UK nationals will get swept up in the ban as it is applied to the migrants.

If he's just trying to negotiate the eu bit where the rules and entitlement must apply to all, not just UK citizens then one can see that negotiation being abandoned pretty quickly as well - just like the opt out of free movement of labour negotiation is reported to have been abandoned. So what is he going to offer UK voters when it comes to the referendum.

It's quite possible to see him saying he was unable to negotiate anything so no referendum - as some others pointed out before the general election. Or alternatively claim something like circumstances will be different/better at some date in the future so there'll be a referendum not in this Parliament but in the next one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he's just trying to negotiate the eu bit where the rules and entitlement must apply to all, not just UK citizens then one can see that negotiation being abandoned pretty quickly as well - just like the opt out of free movement of labour negotiation is reported to have been abandoned. So what is he going to offer UK voters when it comes to the referendum.

It's quite possible to see him saying he was unable to negotiate anything so no referendum - as some others pointed out before the general election. Or alternatively claim something like circumstances will be different/better at some date in the future so there'll be a referendum not in this Parliament but in the next one.

Unfortunately for Cameron he now has no Lib Dem allies that he can burn in such an eventuality to excuse his duplicity. His conundrum is that while the Conservative big money backers in the City and the corporate world want Britain to remain in the EU a lot of Tory voters and enough Conservative MPs want out to threaten his premiership. His only consolation is that Europe is equally a big problem for Labour whose leaderships enthusiasm for the EU is not shared by a lot of their potential voters many of whom still regard it as a rich man's club. Anyone who doubts this reality needs to check out who was backing the Yes vote about staying in Europe last time Britain had a referendum on this issue in 1975 (nb it was not the TUC or the left of the Labour party). Basically Cameron is in the same position as Harold Wilson in 1974 or to a lesser extent John Major in 1991 pre Maastricht. He has to hold a vote on Europe and then hope his corporate allies and the City can spend enough money to spook the population to vote to stay in. Somehow I think it is going to be a lot trickier this time particularly with UKIP waiting to punish both of the big parties if they get it wrong.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/back-future-britain-s-1975-referendum-europe

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the Tories will hold the referendum as it will spike UKIP's guns (whatever the outcome) in 2020.

In the event of an "Out" vote no party is going to go into the 2020 election with a promise to take the UK back into Europe (except the SNP and Plaid who will be offering re-entry to Europe post independence). As a result the Tories will still be able to rely on their corporate backers who have nowhere else to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the Tories will hold the referendum as it will spike UKIP's guns (whatever the outcome) in 2020.

In the event of an "Out" vote no party is going to go into the 2020 election with a promise to take the UK back into Europe (except the SNP and Plaid who will be offering re-entry to Europe post independence). As a result the Tories will still be able to rely on their corporate backers who have nowhere else to go.

No doubt Cameron has little choice but to hold the referendum and then try to swing the result his way by framing the question and the campaign to get the answer he wants. The Conservatives corporate backers are probably not quite as big European enthusiasts as they were in 1975 but will doubtless be onside whatever the result. Cameron's problems will be getting something he can sell to the punters. Wilson and Major were helped by sympathetic German chancellors particularly Helmut Schmidt in the 1970s. The Germans will not want to lose the one other EU country that is a net contributor to the EU budget but past the fall of Communism their long term goals have changed. This means Cameron is likely to come up empty handed from any negotiations.As a consequence he might find spiking UKIPs guns is not quite as easy as Wilson found defeating the curious left right alliance of Tony Benn, Peter Shore and Enoch Powell in 1975. Indeed holding the Tory MPs together until the referendum will be a challenge in itself. As Lord Armstrong points out in this article he may not have the ability to obtain the result he desires.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/16/davidcameron-eu-referendum

The big plus for Cameron is that if he can pull it off is that the result will probably have serious consequences electorally for the the Labour party as well as UKIP

Ironically it is successive British governments enthusiasm for expanding the EU that has rendered it so toxic now in many UK citizens eyes particularly as it is that process has made the EU synonymous for many with uncontrolled immigration, something that was not on the referendum agenda in 1975 when potential net emigration surprisingly was the focus of the No campaign.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the fact that Labour would not even consider a Referendum put a lot of people off voting for them because it is saying "we know best" and it confirms the belief in a lot of peoples minds that politicians don't listen to the electorate and are arrogant. If Tories do the same, they will get the same response. Also, the Tory win shows that a lot of topics considered sacred cows by the left (EU, political correctness, endless welfare) no longer work with many voters and they will do the opposite of what they are told by the trendy BBC/Guardian/metropolitan elite etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the fact that Labour would not even consider a Referendum put a lot of people off voting for them because it is saying "we know best" and it confirms the belief in a lot of peoples minds that politicians don't listen to the electorate and are arrogant. If Tories do the same, they will get the same response. Also, the Tory win shows that a lot of topics considered sacred cows by the left (EU, political correctness, endless welfare) no longer work with many voters and they will do the opposite of what they are told by the trendy BBC/Guardian/metropolitan elite etc.

Ironically it is the one thing that nearly swayed me to Labour. Unfortunately they couldn't accept they overspent by running a deficit during a boom and they still came across as tribal by favouring welfare and public sector.

Say sorry for tripling house prices and admit you overspent, then you will be electable again.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around 10years ago i had been made redundant and had to come home because my fatehr was not very well. I got £65 dole money even though i had worked for around 7years before.

Yet if i was serial dole scrounger you would have got that plus housing beneif plus council tax paid and anything else free going . Maybe a better system would be half the minimum wage and the other half would be based on the time you paid in to system.

I would also go as far as if you spent long time sponging of state then the next step should be vouchers which you cant buy beer, smoke or have pay tv. That may be harsh but it will effect the serial dole scrounger on doing stuff they want to do and the more resable people properly dont mind to much.

Yep tax credits really need to be dumped. Apart being open to fraud it also means you get to your 16hrs and go why bother to work more. When i was a kid my dad worked in day and my mum had to get job cleaning in and then working in evevning in shop to earn extra money. My family had no choice back then. It jsut the way it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically it is the one thing that nearly swayed me to Labour.

Metoo (and +1 to the rest of your post). That, along with HTB/RTB and Cameron's headless chicken act actually persuaded me Miliband was the lesser of evils, though not enough to vote for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   26 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.