European Commission & UKIP Join Forces

wotsthat

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22712569

The UK is to be taken to the European Court of Justice over its alleged failure to correctly assess whether EU migrants are entitled to benefits.

Britain is accused of discriminating against those from EU member states who have been living and working in the UK.

It is alleged an extra residency test applied by the UK to see if migrants are eligible to claim breaches EU law.

Apparently based on a complaint made by a charity (the Aire Centre) a representative of which was on Radio 4 this morning. He made quite a poor job of explaining what the law was let alone how it had been broken.

RJP33

Oh dear, and all we signed up for was a single trade market eh

On a side note benefits really should be contribution based anyway.

Graham_Devon

I'm on two sides of the fence on this one.

Yes, I think it's right that anyone new to this country should contribute first.

However, how is that actually fair? We don't ask it of our own born and bred. We have signed up to the EU. We want fairness the other way, so we have to provide fairness even if it costs us.

What this really shows is the problems with our benefits system itself. It's simply too generous. We are being caught out, and I don't think we can fix it by saying one group of people are more entitled than another.

If we are in the EU, we need to abide by all the reasons for being in the EU. Giving benefits out to people who have just recently entered the country is one of those things we need to do.

If we don't like this, then we either have to look at whether we do actually want to be in the EU, and take the good with the bad. OR, we have to change our own benefits system and upset many in our own country.

It's morally and ethically wrong to discriminate against certain people just because we don't like one rule of being in the club. Afterall, we are quick to complain when hospitals in other countries aren't doing their bit for Brits.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If we don't like this, then we either have to look at whether we do actually want to be in the EU, and take the good with the bad. OR, we have to change our own benefits system and upset many in our own country.

Of course there is another alternative - we argue the case in court. Just because the EC don't like something doesn't mean they're right.

It's early days yet - so far it's only a BBC 'scoop' and the EC haven't said they'll take the UK to court. Additionally there will be support for the UK from plenty of other EU countries that will worry that this encourages benefit tourism. I would have thought that other countries may also be worried that the EC is using discrimination legislation to influence benefits policy within member states.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm on two sides of the fence on this one.

Yes, I think it's right that anyone new to this country should contribute first.

However, how is that actually fair? We don't ask it of our own born and bred. We have signed up to the EU. We want fairness the other way, so we have to provide fairness even if it costs us.

What this really shows is the problems with our benefits system itself. It's simply too generous. We are being caught out, and I don't think we can fix it by saying one group of people are more entitled than another.

If we are in the EU, we need to abide by all the reasons for being in the EU. Giving benefits out to people who have just recently entered the country is one of those things we need to do.

If we don't like this, then we either have to look at whether we do actually want to be in the EU, and take the good with the bad. OR, we have to change our own benefits system and upset many in our own country.

It's morally and ethically wrong to discriminate against certain people just because we don't like one rule of being in the club. Afterall, we are quick to complain when hospitals in other countries aren't doing their bit for Brits.

Very good post, Graham.

Itismehonest

wotsthat wrote: »

Of course there is another alternative - we argue the case in court. Just because the EC don't like something doesn't mean they're right.

It's early days yet - so far it's only a BBC 'scoop' and the EC haven't said they'll take the UK to court. Additionally there will be support for the UK from plenty of other EU countries that will worry that this encourages benefit tourism. I would have thought that other countries may also be worried that the EC is using discrimination legislation to influence benefits policy within member states.

No, it's on the European Commission site

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-470_en.htm

Under EU law, social security benefits in question have to be granted to people from other EU Member States on condition that their place of habitual residence is in the United Kingdom. This condition, and the criteria for the determination of habitual residence, were unanimously reaffirmed by Member States at EU level in 2009 as part of an update of EU rules on social security coordination (Regulation EC/987/2009 laying down the implementing rules for Regulation EC/883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems). According to these criteria, in order to be considered genuinely habitually resident in a Member State, a person has to show that his or her habitual centre of interest is located there.

The Commission considers that these criteria laid down by EU law are strict enough and thus ensure that only those people who have actually moved their centre of interest to a Member State are considered habitually resident there and no longer resident in the Member State where they previously lived. A thorough and strict application of these criteria for determining habitual residence constitutes a powerful tool for Member States to make sure that these social security benefits are only granted to those genuinely residing habitually within their territory.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Of course there is another alternative - we argue the case in court. Just because the EC don't like something doesn't mean they're right.

No, it doesn't.

But it does mean we are discriminating against someone simply because they were not born here.

You can't have one rule for one born and bred and another rule for immigrants without being discriminatory.

I'm all for stopping people who have come here simply to take benefits, but this isn't the case in this scenario. This is about people who have worked here, but, for whatever reason have lost their jobs or income.

I'm not pro-immigration, as you are well aware. But that doesn't mean I'm up for discrimination.

I would prefer one system, treating everyone equally, just with a much smaller number of people entering than I would to allow anyone to come into the country and then discriminate against them straight away when they cost the taxpayer some money.

Changing the benefits system to a pure contributory system for all is the obvious solution. It's easy to state the solution. Not quite so easy for a government to implement it as many born and bred will also lose out.

It would be a shame to "compete for the immigrants" to sort our pensions out but to suggest they are not equal when it comes to welfare. Entering dodgy grounds there.

Itismehonest

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

But it does mean we are discriminating against someone simply because they were not born here.

You can't have one rule for one born and bred and another rule for immigratns without being discriminatory.

I'm all for stopping people who have come here simply to take benefits, but this isn't the case in this scenario. This is about people who have worked here, but, for whatever reason have lost their jobs or income.

I'm not pro-immigration, as you are well aware. But that doesn't mean I'm up for discrimination.

I would prefer one system, treating everyone equally, just with a much smaller number of people than I would to allow anyone to come into the country and then discriminate against them straight away when they cost the taxpayer some money.

Not exactly, Graham.

The "place of habitual residence" of a child whose parents have lived or settled some time ago in the UK fit the necessary criteria. Someone recent to the UK has to prove "habitual centre of interest is located there".

How long a period of work would you think appropriate? It's tough. People could come, take as short a period of paid employment as possible & then claim for themselves & their family for years.
Something similar was happening with Polish (& other) workers who claimed for family that were in Poland.
The whole system is a mess, IMO.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But it does mean we are discriminating against someone simply because they were not born here.

That's only your opinion and the accusation being made by the EC.

The UK government strongly disagree.

To me it looks like an argument which is very technical and will take years to resolve.

I was more surprised at the political ineptitude of the EC choosing now to raise this when the UK rules concerned are nearly a decade old.

Sampong

It's all a bit messy this EU thing innit.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

That's only your opinion and the accusation being made by the EC.

It's the absolute definition of discrimination.

Unless you go down the path of "we are all equal...just some are less equal than others".

Surprised to see you suggesting we are in the right here though. You are in favour of high immigration. You are in favour of competing for immigrants. You often shout racist at people who don't agree with your immigration views....but now it appears you are not in favour of those immigrants having the same access to the same systems in this country as you.

I'll certainly have a chuckle next time you claim I'm a racist for not wanting open door immigration policies, yet here you are, the other day saying we need immigrants to provide for our pensions, and here you are now claiming they shouldn't have the same protection as you enjoy.