The EU: IN or OUT?

Glen_Clark

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

surely they should not be able to claim benefits for children NOT in the UK, as they currently do.

Benefits are funded from taxes so they are paid by the Government you pay your taxes to.
How would you feel if a British man went abroad to earn more money than he could here, paid all his taxes to a foreign government, and left his dependant children in Britain to be provided for by the English taxpayers?

savings_my_hobby

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Benefits are funded from taxes so they are paid by the Government you pay your taxes to.
How would you feel if a British man went abroad to earn more money than he could here, paid all his taxes to a foreign government, and left his dependant children in Britain to be provided for by the English taxpayers?

I would feel better if the British man took his children with him, like any rational person would.

bigadaj

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Benefits are funded from taxes so they are paid by the Government you pay your taxes to.
How would you feel if a British man went abroad to earn more money than he could here, paid all his taxes to a foreign government, and left his dependant children in Britain to be provided for by the English taxpayers?

Isn't that what happens currently?

Which foreign government pays benefits to british expats specifically to pay for children resident in the uk?

eskbanker

Glen_Clark wrote: »

How would you feel if a British man went abroad to earn more money than he could here, paid all his taxes to a foreign government, and left his dependant children in Britain to be provided for by the English taxpayers?

Did he go to Scotland perhaps, or maybe he was Joel Barnett?

Ballard

As expected, all of the noise from the EU is that we will have to accept migration in exchange for a trade agreement. It's still very early days and they may soften their stance in time but the strength of the language at this stage means that they're making it awkward to back down.

bigadaj

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Benefits are funded from taxes so they are paid by the Government you pay your taxes to.
How would you feel if a British man went abroad to earn more money than he could here, paid all his taxes to a foreign government, and left his dependant children in Britain to be provided for by the English taxpayers?

I honestly don't undestand this comment.

There have been certain odd situations where governments have paid or offered incentives normally for specialist skills, but nothing which is a general offer for non resident families.

I remember the Australian government and a deal from the late 90s whereby certain specialist skills could move to Oz and the government would lay their mortgage back in the uk and presumably elsewhere. This was designed to make people more flexible and responsive, and would certainly have helped with family costs, though many people took this and rented out the property, double bubble.

BananaRepublic

Ballard wrote: »

As expected, all of the noise from the EU is that we will have to accept migration in exchange for a trade agreement. It's still very early days and they may soften their stance in time but the strength of the language at this stage means that they're making it awkward to back down.

You always start negotiations by demanding exactly what you want, and then make concessions if need be. What else would you expect the EU to demand? Hopefully our negotiators are clued up.

mrginge

Ballard wrote: »

As expected, all of the noise from the EU is that we will have to accept migration in exchange for a trade agreement. It's still very early days and they may soften their stance in time but the strength of the language at this stage means that they're making it awkward to back down.

oh well we best just give in and do whatever they want then....

:wall:

Ballard

mrginge wrote: »

oh well we best just give in and do whatever they want then....

:wall:

I understand how negotiations work but you are both missing my point. What I was saying is that they are being very public and very loud about saying that movement is an absolute must. They aren't going to be able to go back to their public without getting either full movement or another large concession from us.

buglawton

Ballard wrote: »

As expected, all of the noise from the EU is that we will have to accept migration in exchange for a trade agreement. It's still very early days and they may soften their stance in time but the strength of the language at this stage means that they're making it awkward to back down.

Who knows, before the decade is out the entire rules on intra-EU migration might have changed.

UK's stance pre Brexit
Schengen - No
Euro - No
Turkey as member - No
Free migration - Reluctant
Single EU army - Probably No

Wonder how many of those choices begin to look wiser as time passes?

Even HS2 whose expensive design is to conform with EU directive 96/48 may have been part of the EU masterplan - "Jacques Delors' plan for Trans-European Networks (TENs)"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9015342/The-continent-is-the-final-destination-for-HS2.html

...I rather wish Brexit would have signalled ditching HS2.
The Dutch version runs 85% empty.