So, they take child benefit from decent UK based taxpayers

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The government could just say that they won't pay benefits to any children that reside outside the UK - end of.

The treasury minister blaming EC Regulation is talking out of his hat.

He's not, as this is an abstract from the ruling:

A person is entitled to family benefits in a competent Member State, including for members of his/her family residing in another Member State, as if they were residing in the former Member State.

Link here:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/living_and_working_in_the_internal_market/c10521_en.htm

We could of course stick two fingers up to it I guess, but I'm not sure what that would open us up to. Presumably trials would start taking place.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

He's not, as this is an abstract from the ruling:

A person is entitled to family benefits in a competent Member State, including for members of his/her family residing in another Member State, as if they were residing in the former Member State.

We could of course stick two fingers up to it I guess, but I'm not sure what that would open us up to. Presumably trials would start taking place.

It's down to interpretation. I've not looked at the legislation in detail but it will be full of areas the government could consider - just in the quote you provided you could argue that at worst the non-resident claimants would only be entitled to the level of family benefits that are available in the country of origin. Is the legislation intended to allow potential double claiming?

I've had the misfortune to be on the end of EU legislation from draft to implementation. I met someone who had drafted the legislation and queried the wording - the brusselite basically said that he could see what he'd written into law but that wasn't what he meant. There was little point arguing - I'd be bankrupt before winning the argument.

The government on the other had could drag this out for years and discourage low skilled immigrants in the meantime. The easiest approach however is just to reduce benefits or make all benefits subject to minimum residency rules.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's down to interpretation. I've not looked at the legislation in detail but it will be full of areas the government could consider - just in the quote you provided you could argue that at worst the non-resident claimants would only be entitled to the level of family benefits that are available in the country of origin. Is the legislation intended to allow potential double claiming?

I've had the misfortune to be on the end of EU legislation from draft to implementation. I met someone who had drafted the legislation and queried the wording - the brusselite basically said that he could see what he'd written into law but that wasn't what he meant. There was little point arguing - I'd be bankrupt before winning the argument.

The government on the other had could drag this out for years and discourage low skilled immigrants in the meantime. The easiest approach however is just to reduce benefits or make all benefits subject to minimum residency rules.

Read it. As the only person talking out of their hat here, is you.

"it could say"...yer it could. But it doesn't.

Thrugelmir

No doubt on Camerons list of demands.

A vote winner one suspects.

RJP33

wymondham wrote: »

I don't agree the Government can do nothing about any issue with the word 'europe' in it. The Government has the final say and can easily do as it wishes when it comes to the UK's interests. Other govenments in europe flaut european law quite regularly..

Yeah exactly, like other European governments don't just give work to their own companies against open EU competition for example.

Things like this are the reason we need the debate on the EU.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Read it. As the only person talking out of their hat here, is you.

"it could say"...yer it could. But it doesn't.

Your interpretation of the legislation (and mine) is unimportant.

Like a lot of things it's just politics. Do you think Merkel or Hollande would be losing sleep about stopping benefits to Polish kids in Poland if faced with the same situation?

Implement new rules and stop paying out benefits to non-residents - then let the courts decide if the interpretation is correct (in about 2025). We don't need to leave the EU to resolve this.

I can't believe just how many people have bought into the "we can't do anything - it's Europe innit" message.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Your interpretation of the legislation (and mine) is unimportant.

It's not when you claim people are talking out of their hat....probably from a political point of view.

He's clearly not and you were wrong to say that. You can't say "the legislation could say" when it clearly doesn't, and then go on to say "our interpretation isn't important". You are simply flipping around like a fish on line.

It's clear what it says and interpretation is clear.

The reason we have such a problem in the UK is simple. We have generous welfare benefits. More generous that most (if not all) other member states.

You are another pro EU who seems to want to ignore the rulings of the EU (or simply doesn't like it when the rulings are bought to the table and show in bad light?). Who said anything about leaving the EU? Again, all I said was that I want an open and frank discussion, with all of these sorts of things bought to the table.

nicko33

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/uk_spending_millions_child_benefit_EU_nationals-28553

kbrumann

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i don't care if they are Poles or anyone else. they are not English and should not be getting benefits that have been CUT to English people.

Child benefit has been cut to all families where at least one member earns over about £50k p/a, independent of their nationality or passport. This was decided by a democratically elected UK government.

In the 1990s the democratically elected governments of the EU decided (with British support if I remember rightly) to change the regime how child benefit shall be allocated. It changed from where the child resides to where the payroll of the parent who receives the benefits is administrated (or if not waged, where they receive their unemployment benefits). This system means that a French banker being paid over £50k in London will not get any benefits for his children living in France (where the rate of benefit per child would be about three time more than in the UK).


The alternatives are:
- extend child benefit to everyone irrespective of income (as before).
- abolish child benefit.
- move back to the old system of child benefit being paid where the child resides (French bankers rejoice...).
- send all foreigners to where they came from and get the long term unemployed to serve the coffees, deliver the pizzas, pick the harvest, fix the plumbing, staff the hospitals...

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not when you claim people are talking out of their hat....probably from a political point of view.

He's clearly not and you were wrong to say that. You can't say "the legislation could say" when it clearly doesn't, and then go on to say "our interpretation isn't important". You are simply flipping around like a fish on line.

It's clear what it says and interpretation is clear.

The reason we have such a problem in the UK is simple. We have generous welfare benefits. More generous that most (if not all) other member states.

You are another pro EU who seems to want to ignore the rulings of the EU (or simply doesn't like it when the rulings are bought to the table and show in bad light?). Who said anything about leaving the EU? Again, all I said was that I want an open and frank discussion, with all of these sorts of things bought to the table.

I think you're missing the point. Just because you think the legislation is clear (and I think it's fairly clear TBH) doesn't mean there isn't scope to test it or approach things differently. By thinking only in black and white these alternatives are lost and we'll be waiting until 2016 before your desired frank discussion takes place.

The sums of money are fairly small (of course they add up) but the conservatives are gambling that a promise of a referendum, rather than action now, will be sufficient to stop this developing into what could be an election issue.

We're on the same page but the difference is you're happy to wait another 4 years for potential action whilst I think action could be taken today.