Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Mass changes to UK immigration requirements


Recommended Posts

Massive Brexit victory: https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/30/eu-migrants-who-come-to-uk-wont-be-able-to-claim-benefits-for-5-years-13823436/

 

Any migrants from the EU arriving in the UK from January 1 will be barred from claiming benefits for a period of five years. Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey is expected to confirm today that those coming to the UK from the continent will be subject to the same rules as those coming from the rest of the world. There will also be changes to child benefits rules, meaning workers will no longer receive money for children living outside the UK,

 

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/30/eu-migrants-who-come-to-uk-wont-be-able-to-claim-benefits-for-5-years-13823436/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

 

Edited by maffo in oxford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Massive Brexit victory: https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/30/eu-migrants-who-come-to-uk-wont-be-able-to-claim-benefits-for-5-years-13823436/

 

Any migrants from the EU arriving in the UK from January 1 will be barred from claiming benefits for a period of five years. Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey is expected to confirm today that those coming to the UK from the continent will be subject to the same rules as those coming from the rest of the world. There will also be changes to child benefits rules, meaning workers will no longer receive money for children living outside the UK,

 

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/30/eu-migrants-who-come-to-uk-wont-be-able-to-claim-benefits-for-5-years-13823436/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

 

You do wonder why remainer politicians could not have changed these to make the EU more popular.

I don't believe it was impossible  - sadly they just shouted racists at anyone who criticized giving people from other countries free housing.  Not a very sensible attitude.

In an alternative universe Tony Blair changed the benefit system and housing system got the CFP and CAP reformed and Brexit is not even a concept that anyone has even thought.  Nigel Farage in this universe is UKIP's sole MEP.  This website does not exist - and everyone is a lot lot happier!

Edited by iamnumerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do wonder why remainer politicians could not have changed these to make the EU more popular.

Regarding UK Child Benefit being paid for the children of EE workers: no Westminister politician could have stopped that on European discrimination grounds. The best Cameron hoped for was to reduce the amount paid if the child was in a country with a lower cost of living. Even this seemingly reasonable ask was stretching what was possible. 

On preventing in-work benefits for EE: There was never any chance of stopping them forever, only for a limited time under 'exceptional circumstances'. Cameron got 7 years after some pushing. That's 1.5 parliament terms in normal times. Can-kicking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Massive Brexit victory: https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/30/eu-migrants-who-come-to-uk-wont-be-able-to-claim-benefits-for-5-years-13823436/

 

Any migrants from the EU arriving in the UK from January 1 will be barred from claiming benefits for a period of five years. Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey is expected to confirm today that those coming to the UK from the continent will be subject to the same rules as those coming from the rest of the world. There will also be changes to child benefits rules, meaning workers will no longer receive money for children living outside the UK,

 

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/30/eu-migrants-who-come-to-uk-wont-be-able-to-claim-benefits-for-5-years-13823436/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

 

 

 

You do wonder why remainer politicians could not have changed these to make the EU more popular.

I don't believe it was impossible  - sadly they just shouted racists at anyone who criticized giving people from other countries free housing.  Not a very sensible attitude.

In an alternative universe Tony Blair changed the benefit system and housing system got the CFP and CAP reformed and Brexit is not even a concept that anyone has even thought.  Nigel Farage in this universe is UKIP's sole MEP.  This website does not exist - and everyone is a lot lot happier!

Dec 2015.

And bear in mind 'Brexit' just was not used much then.

 

Not only did I call the Brexit vote right, at a time when the idea of the UK leaving the EU was seen as so unlikely that it was not credible.

I also gave the reason - floods of EU migration into, mainly EE, but all pretty much low paid in-work wage top up/kids in school, massive public subs.

Later  on, I also get the the number of EU migrants in the correct ball-park - well above 4m (I think its around 7m-8m) whilst the media and Pols were still saying 'almost 3m'

 

The UK leaves Europe with the entire EE states bat Estonia, totally corrupt and  corrupted by EU money, devoid of skilled people under 55.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Dec 2015.

And bear in mind 'Brexit' just was not used much then.

 

Not only did I call the Brexit vote right, at a time when the idea of the UK leaving the EU was seen as so unlikely that it was not credible.

I also gave the reason - floods of EU migration into, mainly EE, but all pretty much low paid in-work wage top up/kids in school, massive public subs.

Later  on, I also get the the number of EU migrants in the correct ball-park - well above 4m (I think its around 7m-8m) whilst the media and Pols were still saying 'almost 3m'

 

The UK leaves Europe with the entire EE states bat Estonia, totally corrupt and  corrupted by EU money, devoid of skilled people under 55.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that was my experience, in the run up to the vote  (a couple of years before) it dawned on me that the opinion had turned and that when the vote came along, crazy though it seemed, the UK would vote leave. In fact i was thinking the margin would be clearer, i thought 5-10%.

I also agree about the catastrophe that is southern and eastern Europe. All the idealistic young people have left and the older and/or corrupt remain. The nature of corruption is that it stays with those that have benefited from it their whole lives, difficult to shift, takes a long time and needs a better younger generation. But they have left.

Edited by debtlessmanc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Regarding UK Child Benefit being paid for the children of EE workers: no Westminister politician could have stopped that on European discrimination grounds. The best Cameron hoped for was to reduce the amount paid if the child was in a country with a lower cost of living. Even this seemingly reasonable ask was stretching what was possible. 

On preventing in-work benefits for EE: There was never any chance of stopping them forever, only for a limited time under 'exceptional circumstances'. Cameron got 7 years after some pushing. That's 1.5 parliament terms in normal times. Can-kicking. 

You are just repeating Leaver nonsense.

I was working in the Home Office when the goverment was advised by officials to but decided not to implement a qualifying period for benefits and a minimum wage for migrants. 

Both were possible within FOM rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are just repeating Leaver nonsense.

I was working in the Home Office when the goverment was advised by officials to but decided not to implement a qualifying period for benefits and a minimum wage for migrants. 

Both were possible within FOM rules. 

There was never a box on the voting slip which would elect a party that would apply such rules. On the EU yes/no slip there was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Dec 2015.

And bear in mind 'Brexit' just was not used much then.

 

Not only did I call the Brexit vote right, at a time when the idea of the UK leaving the EU was seen as so unlikely that it was not credible.

I also gave the reason - floods of EU migration into, mainly EE, but all pretty much low paid in-work wage top up/kids in school, massive public subs.

Later  on, I also get the the number of EU migrants in the correct ball-park - well above 4m (I think its around 7m-8m) whilst the media and Pols were still saying 'almost 3m'

 

The UK leaves Europe with the entire EE states bat Estonia, totally corrupt and  corrupted by EU money, devoid of skilled people under 55.

 

 

 

 

In my opinion the immigrant issue was just an excuse. 

After years of Austerity kicking people in the balls they got a chance to kick back and they took it. 

I know a few who voted leave as a protest who never really believed it would carry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion the immigrant issue was just an excuse. 

After years of Austerity kicking people in the balls they got a chance to kick back and they took it. 

I know a few who voted leave as a protest who never really believed it would carry. 

There has been no austerity.

Seriously.

The level of increase of ukgov spending levelled off. Then covid happened.

UK us probably going yo have proper austerity now. And a massive rethink of public services and spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are just repeating Leaver nonsense.

I was working in the Home Office when the goverment was advised by officials to but decided not to implement a qualifying period for benefits and a minimum wage for migrants. 

Both were possible within FOM rules. 

Which year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion the immigrant issue was just an excuse. 

After years of Austerity kicking people in the balls they got a chance to kick back and they took it. 

I know a few who voted leave as a protest who never really believed it would carry. 

Bit of mystery why Cameron did not see it coming. Even Osborne was warning him it would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There has been no austerity.

Seriously.

The level of increase of ukgov spending levelled off. Then covid happened.

UK us probably going yo have proper austerity now. And a massive rethink of public services and spending.

It's difficult to judge really. It's so distorted by the media, and trying to extrapolate biased personal anecdotes spread over a 10 year period to see effects across the country is impossible.

My view - there has been no austerity if you are:

  • Already wealthy. Government policy seems to openly be to intervene when asset prices show signs of falling, but not to interfere when asset prices rise. Not even trying to hide it anymore.
  • Public sector mid level/elite. Despite so called pay freezes, they tend to find a way around it, with secure jobs.
  • The already retired. defined benefit pensions and triple lock. More money coming in than going out.
  • The benefits class. Despite the high profile wailing, and isolated stories of people falling between the cracks, living on benefits (with low paid work to get the top-ups) can still provide a good income. Basically untouchable now. It isn't a sustainable life, but no government wants to have people on the streets.

Austerity has affected:

  • The young. I graduated from university in London in 2009 with approximately £22k in debt, with approximately £12k of parental support over the four years course. The debt now would now be closer to £70k, with much higher interest. Nowadays we talk about £70k as a starter home deposit - 15 years ago it could have been a starter home!
  • The public sector masses. Standard teachers, nurses, carers. An easy target for savings and pay freezes, and generally the people who have to deal with the public (as opposed to the public sector elite). Far fewer options to achieve pay rises through moves.
  • The private sector middle. The squeezed middle, the "just about managing". Earning too much to receive government help, earning too little to be wealthy. Various things combining to screw them over. A decade of low wage growth and house price inflation, combined with trying to help offspring at university, with the looming care home fees for elderly parents on the horizon. When you add it all up, it makes a bad situation. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do wonder why remainer politicians could not have changed these to make the EU more popular.

I don't believe it was impossible  - sadly they just shouted racists at anyone who criticized giving people from other countries free housing.  Not a very sensible attitude.

In an alternative universe Tony Blair changed the benefit system and housing system got the CFP and CAP reformed and Brexit is not even a concept that anyone has even thought.  Nigel Farage in this universe is UKIP's sole MEP.  This website does not exist - and everyone is a lot lot happier!

Problem has always been we have a non contributory benefits system. Working and saving - except when it involves buying houses - is punished not rewarded.

You can be UK born or a long term resident and worked and paid in for 30 years - but if you lose your job and have over £6,000 in savings (your house deposit) all you may get potentially is £70 JSA per week for only six months and then zilch or until your savings are depleted.  Yet EU arrivals on low wages doing a few hours work a week (or other legal arrivals) could get housing benefit, tax credits, free schooling for their kids and free NHS care immediately despite never having paid a penny in.

Almost all EU countries have a contributory system - so that can't happen. Housing benefit does not even exist in most eastern and central European accession states. They have social health insurance - no free healthcare unless you make contributions. Those on low or no incomes wouldn't survive for long and would have no incentive to come - so they don't.

That was always the problem - and it won't be changed. Remember the outrage when Osborne tried to cut tax credits - one woman nearly cried on Question Time as she said if the changes were made she wouldn't be able to afford her rent. No one ever thought - maybe the problem is her rent is too high due to the housing crisis? Too many vested interests - buy to let landlords do very well out of our system!

And that ultimately is why we left the EU in my view - if we had a contributory welfare system and an economy not reliant on cheap often imported labour to serve the whims of the pro remain middle classes (reliant on state handouts so people can afford to live) I expect remain might well have won. 

Edited by MARTINX9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Problem has always been we have a non contributory benefits system. Working and saving - except when it involves buying houses - is punished not rewarded.

You can be UK born or a long term resident and worked and paid in for 30 years - but if you lose your job and have over £6,000 in savings (your house deposit) all you may get potentially is £70 JSA per week for only six months and then zilch or until your savings are depleted.  Yet EU arrivals on low wages doing a few hours work a week (or other legal arrivals) could get housing benefit, tax credits, free schooling for their kids and free NHS care immediately despite never having paid a penny in.

Almost all EU countries have a contributory system - so that can't happen. Housing benefit does not even exist in most eastern and central European accession states. They have social health insurance - no free healthcare unless you make contributions. Those on low or no incomes wouldn't survive for long and would have no incentive to come - so they don't.

That was always the problem - and it won't be changed. Remember the outrage when Osborne tried to cut tax credits - one woman nearly cried on Question Time as she said if the changes were made she wouldn't be able to afford her rent. No one ever thought - maybe the problem is her rent is too high due to the housing crisis? Too many vested interests - buy to let landlords do very well out of our system!

And that ultimately is why we left the EU in my view - if we had a contributory welfare system and an economy not reliant on cheap often imported labour to serve the whims of the pro remain middle classes (reliant on state handouts so people can afford to live) I expect remain might well have won. 

Yes I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are just repeating Leaver nonsense.

I was working in the Home Office when the goverment was advised by officials to but decided not to implement a qualifying period for benefits and a minimum wage for migrants. 

Both were possible within FOM rules. 

It is a mystery why Remainer politicans didn't do this.  I often wonder if some of them were secretly trying to destroy the EU.

Or maybe they should thought that everyone who didn't agree with them was racist and so should be ignored (good move that was).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Problem has always been we have a non contributory benefits system. Working and saving - except when it involves buying houses - is punished not rewarded.

You can be UK born or a long term resident and worked and paid in for 30 years - but if you lose your job and have over £6,000 in savings (your house deposit) all you may get potentially is £70 JSA per week for only six months and then zilch or until your savings are depleted.  Yet EU arrivals on low wages doing a few hours work a week (or other legal arrivals) could get housing benefit, tax credits, free schooling for their kids and free NHS care immediately despite never having paid a penny in.

Almost all EU countries have a contributory system - so that can't happen. Housing benefit does not even exist in most eastern and central European accession states. They have social health insurance - no free healthcare unless you make contributions. Those on low or no incomes wouldn't survive for long and would have no incentive to come - so they don't.

That was always the problem - and it won't be changed. Remember the outrage when Osborne tried to cut tax credits - one woman nearly cried on Question Time as she said if the changes were made she wouldn't be able to afford her rent. No one ever thought - maybe the problem is her rent is too high due to the housing crisis? Too many vested interests - buy to let landlords do very well out of our system!

And that ultimately is why we left the EU in my view - if we had a contributory welfare system and an economy not reliant on cheap often imported labour to serve the whims of the pro remain middle classes (reliant on state handouts so people can afford to live) I expect remain might well have won. 

Very true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is a mystery why Remainer politicans didn't do this.  I often wonder if some of them were secretly trying to destroy the EU.

Or maybe they should thought that everyone who didn't agree with them was racist and so should be ignored (good move that was).

Gidiot had a two part strategy for un-ffingup tax credits.

One was massively increasing the tax free earning limit to 12k, which happened.

The other was tax credit reforms.

Ironically, the tax credit reforms, put in place by a democractically elected government, was blocked by a LibDem peer. Ex civil service office secretary.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34631156

Found this classic when googling 

2013

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clegg-blocks-more-curbs-on-migrants-dcft2hkgpfw

NICK CLEGG has issued a stark warning that he will not tolerate any further curbs on immigration from within the EU while he is in office.

The deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader insists that proposed restrictions on benefits for migrants are enough to protect Britain from an influx from eastern Europe. He has signalled that there will be no further negotiations on the issue with Conservative colleagues before 2015

 

Even last year, LibDem were still banging on about '3m working EUers'.

Theres no point saying FarageUKIP or even Aaron Banks caused Brexit.

The UK exit of Europe was solely down to Blair, Brown and the LibDems.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Gidiot had a two part strategy for un-ffingup tax credits.

One was massively increasing the tax free earning limit to 12k, which happened.

The other was tax credit reforms.

Ironically, the tax credit reforms, put in place by a democractically elected government, was blocked by a LibDem peer. Ex civil service office secretary.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34631156

Found this classic when googling 

2013

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clegg-blocks-more-curbs-on-migrants-dcft2hkgpfw

NICK CLEGG has issued a stark warning that he will not tolerate any further curbs on immigration from within the EU while he is in office.

The deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader insists that proposed restrictions on benefits for migrants are enough to protect Britain from an influx from eastern Europe. He has signalled that there will be no further negotiations on the issue with Conservative colleagues before 2015

 

Even last year, LibDem were still banging on about '3m working EUers'.

Theres no point saying FarageUKIP or even Aaron Banks caused Brexit.

The UK exit of Europe was solely down to Blair, Brown and the LibDems.

 

 

Very true.  I often wonder if Nick Clegg really secretly wanted to destroy the EU.  He is an intelligent man he must have realized that he was harming it in many ways.

 

 

 

There was never a box on the voting slip which would elect a party that would apply such rules. On the EU yes/no slip there was one.

A friend of mine is pro the EU and has often said we that didn't have to leave to the EU - everything that people don't like could have been changed whilst in the EU.  He is of course correct - but that was not an option which was open to us.

There was no party that wanted to stay in the EU and would change these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Very true.  I often wonder if Nick Clegg really secretly wanted to destroy the EU.  He is an intelligent man he must have realized that he was harming it in many ways.

 

 

A friend of mine is pro the EU and has often said we that didn't have to leave to the EU - everything that people don't like could have been changed whilst in the EU.  He is of course correct - but that was not an option which was open to us.

There was no party that wanted to stay in the EU and would change these things.

Yep.

You do wonder what sort of employment is available to  a bloke who can go on telly and come out with such bare faced lies an untruths......

 

Oh, Facebook PR / lobby head honcho...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are just repeating Leaver nonsense.

I was working in the Home Office when the goverment was advised by officials to but decided not to implement a qualifying period for benefits and a minimum wage for migrants. 

Both were possible within FOM rules. 

So blocking benefits to EUers and preventing CB being sent to Eastern Europe was possible without impacting eligibility for UK citizens or exposing the government to a legal challenge? 

If that's true, though i suspect it's not as simple as you believe, then why didn't a single remainer politician (of which there were many) highlight this ingenious Home Office plan as a means to address leaver concerns and propose a 2nd ref on that basis? As far as I could see there was no benefit reform argument, just simply accusing leavers of being thick/racist/lied to/ etc and demanding a referendum rerun with no remain reform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So blocking benefits to EUers and preventing CB being sent to Eastern Europe was possible without impacting eligibility for UK citizens or exposing the government to a legal challenge? 

If that's true, though i suspect it's not as simple as you believe, then why didn't a single remainer politician (of which there were many) highlight this ingenious Home Office plan as a means to address leaver concerns and propose a 2nd ref on that basis? As far as I could see there was no benefit reform argument, just simply accusing leavers of being thick/racist/lied to/ etc and demanding a referendum rerun with no remain reform. 

So we come back to how out of touch the politicos were, remember Brown and his dismissal of the woman who asked why there where so many EE migrants- "Bigoted woman".

Democracy is what it is, the least worst form of govt. Hitler got elected because many sensible germans held their nose and voted for him rather than soviet style communism, turned out both were equally bad. Many British people were revolted by Farage and his brand of xenophobia and little englander. However the alternative to that kind of things is not open boarders and assimilation into some globalist's wet dream. The UK managed to avoid the idealogical nightmares of the 20th century. It may yet avoid those of the 21st.

 

Edited by debtlessmanc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So we come back to how out of touch the politicos were, remember Brown and his dismissal of the woman who asked why there where so many EE migrants- "Bigoted woman".

Democracy is what it is, the least worst form of govt. Hitler got elected because many sensible germans held their nose and voted for him rather than soviet style communism, turned out both were equally bad. Many British people were revolted by Farage and his brand of xenophobia and little englander. However the alternative to that kind of things is not open boarders and assimilation into some globalist's wet dream. The UK managed to avoid the idealogical nightmares of the 20th century. It may yet avoid those of the 21st.

 

A vote to remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. The UK would have always been a step or two behind the keen countries in further integration, but would still have been pulled along as time went on. All the talk of opt-outs and vetoes were believable when it was Cameron trying to placate his back benches, but eventually another europhile PM would have been elected who would have agreed to anything and everything. It is also important to remember that if remain had won, the threat of leaving would have been removed. "After all, you had your chance to leave, what is different this time?". I believe that the threat of leaving acted as a brake on further integration. A remain vote would also have been twisted as an endorsement for complete satisfaction with the EU, and a go ahead for further integration.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A vote to remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. The UK would have always been a step or two behind the keen countries in further integration, but would still have been pulled along as time went on. All the talk of opt-outs and vetoes were believable when it was Cameron trying to placate his back benches, but eventually another europhile PM would have been elected who would have agreed to anything and everything. It is also important to remember that if remain had won, the threat of leaving would have been removed. "After all, you had your chance to leave, what is different this time?". I believe that the threat of leaving acted as a brake on further integration. A remain vote would also have been twisted as an endorsement for complete satisfaction with the EU, and a go ahead for further integration.

 

 

Michael Heseltine said before the referendum that we would join the Euro in his lifetime (which as he is quite old I assume meant within 10 years, not that I wish him harm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So blocking benefits to EUers and preventing CB being sent to Eastern Europe was possible without impacting eligibility for UK citizens or exposing the government to a legal challenge? 

If that's true, though i suspect it's not as simple as you believe, then why didn't a single remainer politician (of which there were many) highlight this ingenious Home Office plan as a means to address leaver concerns and propose a 2nd ref on that basis? As far as I could see there was no benefit reform argument, just simply accusing leavers of being thick/racist/lied to/ etc and demanding a referendum rerun with no remain reform. 

Before the referendum: too difficult, not worth expanding your political capital on, get criticized in the Guardian. Why bother, when you are certain Remain is going to win?

After the referendum: no senior leadership of any party of any national significance wanted to touch that. The Conservatives and Labour leadership wanted to respect the result, with the smaller parties (and individuals within Labour) wanted a second referendum/no Brexit, without any changes made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

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.