Benefits of the EU?

[Neil_F]

Here's something to cheer you up on a Friday.

Our benefit system largely uses a principle known as "right to reside" to determine eligibility to certain benefits. UK citizens have an automatic right to reside, but for foreign nationals it is harder to meet the eligibility criteria.

The European Commission have determined that this discriminates against citizens of other EU Member States and has given the British government two months to stop applying the "right to reside" test. If it doesn't then the case will go to the EU Court of Justice.

By stopping the "right to reside" test, the EU regulations governing cross border social security (Regulation 883/2004) will take predence. This regulation uses the concept of "habitual residence" to determine eligibility. Habitual residence is the State of the individual's centre of vital interests and almost always determined by the location of an individual's family and dependents.

What this means is that any EU citizen will be able to turn up in the UK with their family and be entitled to claim benefits. They will have the same entitlement as a UK citizen who has lived and worked in the UK for 40 years.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Department of Work and Pensions estimate this will cost the taxpayer £2bn per year in cash alone.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I think the biggest problem with the EU is it's a halfway house. It's trying to integrate Europe in certain areas, whilst retaining sovereignty in others.

The idea of moving freely from country to country and claiming benefits at each country is fine, as long as those benefits are paid for from a general fund throughout the continent, and not just from the single country. To do this would basically mean adding the European parliament as the top tier of government, and relegating our current government to a larger sized "county council"

Europe can work, but not as a collection of countries, rather as a single one. Britain's done it several times (with England, Scotland, and Wales, and before that when Alfred the Great pretty much united England), but it would take a while for it to be accepted by the populace (and not just of the UK). Is it worth Europe uniting as such? I'd say in the long term it's probably necessary for our long term financial survival, but for the moment? That's a whole new debate!

 

[osymandus]

I think the biggest problem with the EU is it's a halfway house. It's trying to integrate Europe in certain areas, whilst retaining sovereignty in others.

The idea of moving freely from country to country and claiming benefits at each country is fine, as long as those benefits are paid for from a general fund throughout the continent, and not just from the single country. To do this would basically mean adding the European parliament as the top tier of government, and relegating our current government to a larger sized "county council"

Europe can work, but not as a collection of countries, rather as a single one. Britain's done it several times (with England, Scotland, and Wales, and before that when Alfred the Great pretty much united England), but it would take a while for it to be accepted by the populace (and not just of the UK). Is it worth Europe uniting as such? I'd say in the long term it's probably necessary for our long term financial survival, but for the moment? That's a whole new debate!

Very true , and of course the reverese is we can all go live in Spain , Germany and France ;).

 

[canveyshrimper]

Very true , and of course the reverese is we can all go live in Spain , Germany and France ;).

We can but I think you'll find that our fellow EU Nations won't be a soft touch as we would appear to be. A few years ago a former colleague of mine was offered a job in Milan, which he accepted. He moved bag and baggage, but a few weeks after he arrived the company went tits up. He applied to the Italian equivalent of the DSS and was told in no uncertain terms to **** right off back to the UK. Which unfortunately he had to do. The more sensible countriesin the EU ignore legislation which is plainly bonkers.

When we joined the EEC/EC/EU (whatever)it was as a trading area, and political union or a United States of Europe was never on the agenda shown to the electorate.

Where the EU has succeeded is in trade, free movement of freight within EU countries without having to be delayed clearing throughcustoms, and subsequent payment of duties & vat has been an unqualified success. If only they'd stuck with trade, we wouldn't have been saddled with amongst other things the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

[osymandus]

We can but I think you'll find that our fellow EU Nations won't be a soft touch as we would appear to be. A few years ago a former colleague of mine was offered a job in Milan, which he accepted. He moved bag and baggage, but a few weeks after he arrived the company went tits up. He applied to the Italian equivalent of the DSS and was told in no uncertain terms to **** right off back to the UK. Which unfortunately he had to do. The more sensible countriesin the EU ignore legislation which is plainly bonkers.

When we joined the EEC/EC/EU (whatever)it was as a trading area, and political union or a United States of Europe was never on the agenda shown to the electorate.

Where the EU has succeeded is in trade, free movement of freight within EU countries without having to be delayed clearing throughcustoms, and subsequent payment of duties & vat has been an unqualified success. If only they'd stuck with trade, we wouldn't have been saddled with amongst other things the European Convention of Human Rights.

Ah but you see the enforcement of this mandate slash law , specially in Italy (so you don;t want a bail out says the centralised IMF to Italy), they can say what they like can't stop you :D . As KOB syas its more resistance from cultures that don;t like the changes in the long run could benefit us all and make sure that what ever the likes of china/brazil/india do there is a more local and Europe centric market to sell too.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

We can but I think you'll find that our fellow EU Nations won't be a soft touch as we would appear to be. A few years ago a former colleague of mine was offered a job in Milan, which he accepted. He moved bag and baggage, but a few weeks after he arrived the company went tits up. He applied to the Italian equivalent of the DSS and was told in no uncertain terms to **** right off back to the UK. Which unfortunately he had to do. The more sensible countriesin the EU ignore legislation which is plainly bonkers.

When we joined the EEC/EC/EU (whatever)it was as a trading area, and political union or a United States of Europe was never on the agenda shown to the electorate.

Where the EU has succeeded is in trade, free movement of freight within EU countries without having to be delayed clearing throughcustoms, and subsequent payment of duties & vat has been an unqualified success. If only they'd stuck with trade, we wouldn't have been saddled with amongst other things the European Convention of Human Rights.

Your friend probably hadn't even applied for or certainly not received a residents permit.Once in possesion of that you're entitled to the same benefits as other nationals.You don't mention whether or not he had signed an employment contract.If he had, that would also have guaranteed his rights.

 

[Moridin]

How that will work in practice gives me a headache.

An article in the Telegraph seems to suggest that every EU citizen can claim Benefits on arrival in the UK going forward, however...

The current guidance on eligibility for Benefits quotes an EU directive that essentially states that Benefits don't have to be paid in the first three months of arriving, or for a longer period if the claimant is economically inactive.

So, to claim Benefits after the three month period, if the right to reside test is removed, claimants will need to demonstrate an intention to stay, have demonstrable ties, and an address.

However, the directive above essentially forms the 'Right to reside test', no economic activity, no Benefits or Social Housing, so I cannot see what will change.....
Although I've probably missed something obvious :dim:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

How that will work in practice gives me a headache.

An article in the Telegraph seems to suggest that every EU citizen can claim Benefits on arrival in the UK going forward, however...

The current guidance on eligibility for Benefits quotes an EU directive that essentially states that Benefits don't have to be paid in the first three months of arriving, or for a longer period if the claimant is economically inactive.

So, to claim Benefits after the three month period, if the right to reside test is removed, claimants will need to demonstrate an intention to stay, have demonstrable ties, and an address.

However, the directive above essentially forms the 'Right to reside test', no economic activity, no Benefits or Social Housing, so I cannot see what will change.....
Although I've probably missed something obvious :dim:

Link?:link:

 

[Moridin]

I'd rather not link to the Telegraph, would make me feel like I need a shower.

But there you go.

The quote "Britain will have to pay means-tested, residence-based benefits – employment support allowance, pension credit, income support – to people when they arrive" should stir up a nice bit a bile on their comment boards....

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Here's something to cheer you up on a Friday.

Our benefit system largely uses a principle known as "right to reside" to determine eligibility to certain benefits. UK citizens have an automatic right to reside, but for foreign nationals it is harder to meet the eligibility criteria.

The European Commission have determined that this discriminates against citizens of other EU Member States and has given the British government two months to stop applying the "right to reside" test. If it doesn't then the case will go to the EU Court of Justice.

By stopping the "right to reside" test, the EU regulations governing cross border social security (Regulation 883/2004) will take predence. This regulation uses the concept of "habitual residence" to determine eligibility. Habitual residence is the State of the individual's centre of vital interests and almost always determined by the location of an individual's family and dependents.

What this means is that any EU citizen will be able to turn up in the UK with their family and be entitled to claim benefits. They will have the same entitlement as a UK citizen who has lived and worked in the UK for 40 years.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Department of Work and Pensions estimate this will cost the taxpayer £2bn per year in cash alone.

Assuming the government ignored this directive, and the EU Court of Justice decision which would follow, what would be the consequences?

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I'd rather not link to the Telegraph, would make me feel like I need a shower.

But there you go.

The quote "Britain will have to pay means-tested, residence-based benefits – employment support allowance, pension credit, income support – to people when they arrive" should stir up a nice bit a bile on their comment boards....

To be fair, my politics are slightly right of centre, but I've given up on the online Telegraph. It's become a tabloid style rag, with low editing standards, and no proof reading. The hard copy's still ok, but I avoid the online version now.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Your friend probably hadn't even applied for or certainly not received a residents permit.Once in possesion of that you're entitled to the same benefits as other nationals.You don't mention whether or not he had signed an employment contract.If he had, that would also have guaranteed his rights.

He had on all points, he was still refused.

 

[Neil_F]

Assuming the government ignored this directive, and the EU Court of Justice decision which would follow, what would be the consequences?

Good question, Billy. This is something I thought about during the votes for murderers issue, which started in a similar way. I think the Court could impose a fine but then what do they do if the UK just doesn't pay?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

He had on all points, he was still refused.

Doesn't make sense to me.I was entitled to 45 days compensation for each year I'd worked at a Business school when I lost my job with them in the mid-90's and also two years earnings related unemployment pay(at the maximum rate).I could(and wish I had)have bought a flat on the Costa Brava with the money.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Doesn't make sense to me.I was entitled to 45 days compensation for each year I'd worked at a Business school when I lost my job with them in the mid-90's and also two years earnings related unemployment pay(at the maximum rate).I could(and wish I had)have bought a flat on the Costa Brava with the money.

That may be the crux of it, I'm guessing you'd been in the job for a year or two rather than a month.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That may be the crux of it, I'm guessing you'd been in the job for a year or two rather than a month.

Eleven years.IIRC, you have to be in a job for 6 months before you're fully covered.

 

[Manchester Shrimper]

Here's something to cheer you up on a Friday.

Our benefit system largely uses a principle known as "right to reside" to determine eligibility to certain benefits. UK citizens have an automatic right to reside, but for foreign nationals it is harder to meet the eligibility criteria.

The European Commission have determined that this discriminates against citizens of other EU Member States and has given the British government two months to stop applying the "right to reside" test. If it doesn't then the case will go to the EU Court of Justice.

By stopping the "right to reside" test, the EU regulations governing cross border social security (Regulation 883/2004) will take predence. This regulation uses the concept of "habitual residence" to determine eligibility. Habitual residence is the State of the individual's centre of vital interests and almost always determined by the location of an individual's family and dependents.

What this means is that any EU citizen will be able to turn up in the UK with their family and be entitled to claim benefits. They will have the same entitlement as a UK citizen who has lived and worked in the UK for 40 years.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Department of Work and Pensions estimate this will cost the taxpayer £2bn per year in cash alone.

Whatever your views on the EU, this is a story that has been blown out of all proportion.

Although the European Commission are challenging the "right to reside" principle, we'd still be able to apply the 'habitual residence test' which simply put, means you have to claim benefits from the country you'd call home. This rule will still prevent people from moving to another country just to claim benefits.

Also for the £2bn prediction to come true, we'd have to have an influx of about 1.5m immigrants. Now of those 1.5m benefit tourists that are supposedly going to come over, how many do you think would be stupid enough to come here and claim £65 a week rather than go to Ireland and claim 188 Euros a week?

Methinks this is cynical headline-grabbing from Ian Duncan Smith on the eve of the Conservative Party Conference.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Whatever your views on the EU, this is a story that has been blown out of all proportion.

Although the European Commission are challenging the "right to reside" principle, we'd still be able to apply the 'habitual residence test' which simply put, means you have to claim benefits from the country you'd call home. This rule will still prevent people from moving to another country just to claim benefits.

Also for the £2bn prediction to come true, we'd have to have an influx of about 1.5m immigrants. Now of those 1.5m benefit tourists that are supposedly going to come over, how many do you think would be stupid enough to come here and claim £65 a week rather than go to Ireland and claim 188 Euros a week?
Methinks this is cynical headline-grabbing from Ian Duncan Smith on the eve of the Conservative Party Conference.

Perhaps you should pose that to the inert travellers at Dale Farm.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Perhaps you should pose that to the inert travellers at Dale Farm.

In English, to be inert is to be in a state of doing little or nothing.I would have thought the Travellers have been pretty active recently, defending their right to stay at Dale Farm, in the Courts.

 

[canveyshrimper]

In English, to be inert is to be in a state of doing little or nothing.I would have thought the Travellers have been pretty active recently, defending their right to stay at Dale Farm, in the Courts.

In English inert is to be in a state of doing little or nothing, as they are labelled as travellers they appear to be doing little of that hence according them as inert is quite correct.