ivanava Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 What would you think if counties could make the same argument. Could you think of a single reason why someone from Lancashire should have the same benefit rights as a local when they've moved to Yorkshire? If each county ran their own tax rules for people working in that county and had their own benefits system which was different in each country, then I can't think of a good reason why a county with a good benefits system would want people from other counties moving there and claiming benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 If each county ran their own tax rules for people working in that county and had their own benefits system which was different in each country, then I can't think of a good reason why a county with a good benefits system would want people from other counties moving there and claiming benefits.This, from the people rabidly opposed to EU federalism. Priceless! (for the avoidance of doubt: no, I do not support EU federalism) I'm going to start calling UKIPers "feudalists", with the rate at which their bellybuttonism pushes insularism the UK will be back to the days of Richard I the Lionheart in no time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 If each county ran their own tax rules for people working in that county and had their own benefits system which was different in each country, then I can't think of a good reason why a county with a good benefits system would want people from other counties moving there and claiming benefits. Perhaps we should be distinguishing between in work benefits and unemployment benefit... So, to counter your point, we should harmonise the benefits available across the EU, then there is no incentive for benefit tourism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 That's easy to fix then. Change the system. Isn't that what is being discussed? The fact that it is like this now is not an argument why it should be like this. I think you've missed my point. In what form? It's not like it's an EU rule that we must follow, so simply change it. ---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 11:15 ---------- And if they've permanently immigrated here, and lose their job in 20 years time then they should have exactly the same right to benefits as a native. The right to free movement within the EU effectively makes us all 'citizens' of the EU with regards to this though. You can move to another EU country right now, in an unemployed state, and claim benefits there. In much the same way as if you moved from Yorkshire to Cornwall. Yorkshire to Cornwall have the same benefits system whilst each country in the EU have different systems, some likes ours is far more generous than others, so it isn't an equal playing field. British people are better of here unemployed than in Romania unemployed, whilst Romanian unemployed are better off here and not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 Why would the UK take their money what they pay into the pot and get nothing out of it?...........why should immigrants subsidse the UK unemployed for instance? The weathly EU countries contribute more and subsidise the poorer EU countries. If you were Rumania or Bulgaria wouldn't you want to join the rich club if you had your @rse hanging out your pants with everything to gain? Rich countries gain by having a plethora of cheap labour throughout Europe, allowing the fat cats to get richer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Yorkshire to Cornwall have the same benefits system whilst each country in the EU have different systems, some likes ours is far more generous than others, so it isn't an equal playing field. British people are better of here unemployed than in Romania unemployed, whilst Romanian unemployed are better off here and not there. How do you work that one out then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Still at it with your "double-standard" strawman, I see. In the context of a UK exit from the EU (or renegotiated membership terms, for that matter), there is still a bit of a gulf between "controlling borders" and "denying economic migrants rights made available to them under UK legislation", wouldn't you say? In that gulf lies the difference between rational debate (requirements and resources need to be balanced, no argument there) and xenophobia (immigrants are not British so unworthy of our jobs, our money, our <etc.>). It's a gulf which neither you nor ivanava nor a few others ever acknowledge. Other than to play the "he called me a spigot/wacist/xenomorph" card under false pretences. Such as in the above posts. Plenty of words in that post put what do they mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Indeed. Well, that would depend on whether you consider the proposed solution to formally turn all immigrants (incl. EU) as 2nd rate citizens as "discussing" No, I just sought to comment on what I perceived to be a flaw in the logic underpinning it. I understand the point and agree with it. As regards 'what form' for the collateral damage, the UK would be transitioning from the current "work here-entitled anywhere" model to the "live here-entitled here" model (in view of current models of EU Member States). So, all Brits working here (or for a UK company but based overseas) having family overseas and in receipt of any benefits for that family under the current system, would cease to get them. That's just one example. I mentioned several times (with regards to CB), either lives in that country or is a citizen of that country. So if that were the rule change, overseas British children would still be eligible for CB on the basis that they are British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 This, from the people rabidly opposed to EU federalism. Priceless! (for the avoidance of doubt: no, I do not support EU federalism) I'm going to start calling UKIPers "feudalists", with the rate at which their bellybuttonism pushes insularism the UK will be back to the days of Richard I the Lionheart in no time Again plenty of words, but I have no idea what they mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Plenty of words in that post put what do they mean. Again plenty of words, but I have no idea what they mean. Ah yes, I'd forgotten feigned ignorance, in addition to feigned outrage...Silly me! I mentioned several times (with regards to CB), either lives in that country or is a citizen of that country.If you have, I missed that, so apologies. So if that were the rule change, overseas British children would still be eligible for CB on the basis that they are British.'If' being the operative word, but in that case, logically, yes they would indeed. I'm not aware of a comparable system in existence, though (i.e. one that does both, implemented as an either/or as you suggest) - possibly because it may turn out to be too expensive to the taxpayer, in practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.