** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[pete75]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
It is a tightening of benefit rules by the UK government.

As well as this they sanction anybody they can for any reason they can find.

yes it does as the benefit rules are designed to stop eg EU unemployed coming over here and getting benefits immediatley? Of course there is Osbornes legacy that you are referring to also

The UK government decided to impose the rule. There was no pressure from the EU to impose it. If your acquaintance had been living and working in another country for a couple of years why didn't he claim benefits there?

[blackbike]

Interesting comment in the Washington Post about Mexican immigrants being sent back to Mexico from the US.

More returnees means lower wages for everybody in blue-collar industries such as construction and automobile manufacturing, where competition for jobs is likely to increase, economists say.

We are told that immigrants increase the wealth of places like the UK and the US, so why don't they increase the wealth of their home countries when they go back home?

Using the logic of pro-immigration and pro-free movement people, countries should welcome returnees with open arms and encourage their expulsion from other countries so that they can come home to produce wealth for their homeland rather than a foreign land.

But they don't want them back, casting doubt on the theory of their usefulness from an economic perspective.

We shouldn't guarantee EU nationals' right to stay here because many of them are not a benefit to our economy, and their presence lowers or stagnates wages for many others and helps keep unemployment, underemployment and casualised employment at unacceptable levels.

Just as many other countries pick and choose who to let in to their countries and who they won't on the basis of their skills, we should do the same and choose which of the EU nationals currently here can stay and who can't.

Sending some unskilled and low-skilled people home will mean they can lower wages and increase competition for jobs in their own countries, not ours.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/th ... 241f01fdef

[meic]

More returnees means lower wages for everybody in blue-collar industries such as construction and automobile manufacturing, where competition for jobs is likely to increase, economists say.

We are told that immigrants increase the wealth of places like the UK and the US, so why don't they increase the wealth of their home countries when they go back home?

The article did go on to say that the influx would lead to an increase in the wealth of the country.

So it is not inconsistent to state that immigrants increase the national wealth and at the same time depress the wages of the existing workers.

[bovlomov]

Using the logic of pro-immigration and pro-free movement people, countries should welcome returnees with open arms and encourage their expulsion from other countries so that they can come home to produce wealth for their homeland rather than a foreign land.

No, that's your logic. Perhaps the economies of the UK and US benefit from immigration, while those of other countries do not. They are different countries with different types of economies.

[Boyd]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
It is a tightening of benefit rules by the UK government.

As well as this they sanction anybody they can for any reason they can find.

yes it does as the benefit rules are designed to stop eg EU unemployed coming over here and getting benefits immediatley? Of course there is Osbornes legacy that you are referring to also

The UK government decided to impose the rule. There was no pressure from the EU to impose it. If your acquaintance had been living and working in another country for a couple of years why didn't he claim benefits there?

Of course there was no pressure from the EU to impose it. The only pressure they applied was to treat all EU citizens the same, even if they turned up from another country and applied for benefits without ever putting a penny into the system.
How do you know he didn't claim benefits in the other country? You assume they would give a foreigner benefits. Not everyone applies the same rules to foreigners as the UK does, as you are well aware off.

[Boyd]

"More returnees means lower wages for everybody in blue-collar industries such as construction and automobile manufacturing, where competition for jobs is likely to increase, economists say."
Who are the returnees? People from the UK who retired to France and Spain?
IF none UK citizens left the UK there can be only be one effect on wages, UP. Suggestions to the contrary beggar belief.

[Boyd]

One of my relations works in a Manchester food bank. From what she tells me they arent quite what you might imagine reading the Guardian. This programme seems to analyse the situation pretty much in line with what she says is going on. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07krdvv
Al

I don't know what you imagined from reading the Guardian, Laurie Taylor's usual thought provoking program (Rightly called Thinking Aloud) put some detail on what I already knew the situation to be,though I'm not much of a Guardian reader. It's all about people in crisis and there seemed plenty of evidence throughout the article that more people were in crisis and many of them there as a result of recent Government policy.
The quote that stood out for me was from the second expert (These are the sort of people Gove dismissed) that "We're moving back to a pre 1930 situation, where the Government has abdicated some of that responsibility - the safety net is much weaker"
We're told the first lot of evidence comes from a larger study on Health Inequality, carried out in Stockton, I'll look out for that. This expert made the point several times that what people in crisis need is more support rather than judgment, something some of the people here might take on board.

A little away from the subject of food banks was the statistic that male life expectancy on Stockton was 17.3 years different between most and least affluent areas. Laurie was taken aback enough to get her to confirm it, 17.3 years for men 11.4 for women. At the risk of being called a Britain Hater there is something seriously wrong with a society that considers that acceptable.

Large life expectancy variations is to be expected in most if not all countries. It is the norm. All the middle class liberals I know believe the working class voted for brexit AND Trump because of a lack of education. Why you then say it is unacceptable in life expectancy is odd. Surely you will benefit pension wise by the reduction in people claiming state pensions, particularly the uneducated ones.

[jan19]

Well when I went down to visit my 84. year old Mum last week ( as I do every other week) she had a couple of bits to donate to her local Food Bank. Some gifts she'd been given but won't use like a carton of orange juice she can't drink because it affects her arthritis The same with a big box of chocolates which she'd love to eat but can't because they cause constipation..... They almost bit my hand off when I walked into her local Food Bank contribution point with her "gifts"

This is Chichester, West Sussex. Somewhere many on here would regard as a rich and pampered part of our country. Our country is really off kilter if in a comfortable, middle class, Tory area like Chichester is in desparate need of people contributing to Food Banks.

[Boyd]

Well when I went down to visit my 84 year old Mum last week ( as I do every other week) she had a couple of bits to donate to her local Food Bank. Some gifts she'd been given but won't use like a carton of orange juice she can't drink because it affects her arthritis The same with a big box of chocolates which she'd love to eat but can't because they cause constipation..... They almost bit my hand off when I walked into her local Food Bank constribution point with her "gifts"

This is Chichester, West Sussex. Somewhere many on here would regard as a rich and pampered part of our country. Our country is really off kilter if in a comfortable, middle class, Tory area like Chichester is in desparate need of people contributing to Food Banks.

Don't assume people who go to food banks go on the basis of need. We live in different world to the 1930s and the altitude to to to charity. Yes it was mainly charity. Now people believe they have a right to be supported by the state and also expect charity. I speak as someone who has a very low income (but minimal outgoings) who has no problem "foraging" in the bins behind supermarkets. Do I need to? No....but it's FREE!

[Boyd]

Well when I went down to visit my 84. year old Mum last week ( as I do every other week) she had a couple of bits to donate to her local Food Bank. Some gifts she'd been given but won't use like a carton of orange juice she can't drink because it affects her arthritis The same with a big box of chocolates which she'd love to eat but can't because they cause constipation..... They almost bit my hand off when I walked into her local Food Bank contribution point with her "gifts"

This is Chichester, West Sussex. Somewhere many on here would regard as a rich and pampered part of our country. Our country is really off kilter if in a comfortable, middle class, Tory area like Chichester is in desparate need of people contributing to Food Banks.

PS were they Thortons? I like the Prosecco & Continental Wicker Hamper was that the one she would give to me? I am poor so so so so poor

[Psamathe]

yes it does as the benefit rules are designed to stop eg EU unemployed coming over here and getting benefits immediatley? Of course there is Osbornes legacy that you are referring to also

The UK government decided to impose the rule. There was no pressure from the EU to impose it. If your acquaintance had been living and working in another country for a couple of years why didn't he claim benefits there?

Of course there was no pressure from the EU to impose it. The only pressure they applied was to treat all EU citizens the same, even if they turned up from another country and applied for benefits without ever putting a penny into the system....

The right of EU citizens to claim benefits when resident outside their home country if far more complex that you suggest and is far from "treat all EU citizens the same".

What rights an EU citizen has depends on how long they have been in the host (not home) country and what they are or are not doing. So an economically inactive immigrant has no right to any benefit from the moment they take-up residence (under EU Freedom of Movement legislation). In fact, if economically inactive immigrants do not have adequate resources and would be a burden on the host state then they have no "Freedom of Movement" rights.

For others it can get complex under EU regulations. Under EU Freedom of Movement legislation a worker and their family have the same rights to benefits as a UK worker and their family. For somebody not working it gets very complex (and harder to define who is a "worker" and who s not). The EU treat somebody who has previously worked in the host state for over a year and was involuntarily made unemployed and has registered for work with the employment office as a "worker". Somebody losing their job between 6 months and a year will retain their "worker" status for a further 6 months (more if the host country wishes to grant them more). For somebody not covered by the previous work conditions, changes in 2004 established an exemption from equal treatment with nationals regarding social assistance for the first three months of residence, extending longer for jobseekers (after 6 months evidence of actively seeking employment with a realistic prospect of obtaining work can be required by the host state).

But a lot depends on exactly what benefits are being considered. Jobseekers (even having never worked in the host state before) have rights to some benefits from day one.

The EU categorises different benefits as "Social Benefits" (generally means tested benefits), "Social Security" (covering certain types of social risks e.g. relating to sickness, state pensions, unemployment, and maternity) and "Special Non-Contributory Benefits" (e.g. income support).

The Free Movement Directive does not provide for equal treatment from day one for EU citizens who move to another EU State for up to 3 months. EU rules use a proportional relationship between residence and equal treatment of EU citizens and nationals. The longer an immigrant resides in a EU State, the greater the number of benefits they can receive on equal terms with nationals.

This is EU Freedom of Movement legislation applying to all EU member states and not some interpretation of the UK implementation.

And the above is a summary overlooking many of the complexities ....!

So

... The only pressure they applied was to treat all EU citizens the same, even if they turned up from another country and applied for benefits without ever putting a penny into the system....

is certainly not the case. Far more complex.

Ian

[pete75]

Large life expectancy variations is to be expected in most if not all countries. It is the norm. All the middle class liberals I know believe the working class voted for brexit AND Trump because of a lack of education. Why you then say it is unacceptable in life expectancy is odd. Surely you will benefit pension wise by the reduction in people claiming state pensions, particularly the uneducated ones.

You think it a good thing that poorer people have a lower life expectancy because it saves on pensions.

[Vorpal]

Boyd is right that life expectancy can vary, I would expect it to be lower, for example, between a farming area, and a town. Differences include air quality and people spending more time in traffic, daily work (farming is still a hazardous occupation), and social interaction among other things.

I don't think, though, that life expectancy should be so hugely different between the affluent and poor areas.

[jan19]

You don't appear to know very much about food banks Boyd. Simply "being poor" doesn't qualify you to use them. I got talking to the volunteers in my Mum's one because I was interested and there's quite a complicated system of referrals in place that someone has to go through before they can use one.

I don't see this as scrounging off the state - I see it as helping people in genuine need. I do think we should be ashamed that there are people in a rich country like ours who should need food banks.

[Boyd]

You don't appear to know very much about food banks Boyd. Simply "being poor" doesn't qualify you to use them. I got talking to the volunteers in my Mum's one because I was interested and there's quite a complicated system of referrals in place that someone has to go through before they can use one.

I don't see this as scrounging off the state - I see it as helping people in genuine need. I do think we should be ashamed that there are people in a rich country like ours who should need food banks.

My point was are they genuine need? There was a programme by the BBC that lots aren't or they had put themselves that situation. I am in fact quoting sources which has done the research. Also it may be possible that criteria may be different at different food banks. People do have lower moral values nowadays and that to me is non negotiable statement.