The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Obelix]

Maybe so but there can't be a blank cheque for anyone and everyone to research anything and everything.

 

As I never mentioned funding, and as the post immediatly before mine dealt with funding I think you have your answer.

[MobileB]

Immigration and freedom of movement was never a reason for me to vote Leave, so it's neither here nor there for me, but for a lot of Leave voters it's a big deal. I am wondering if one of the possible scenarios would be for access to the single market, which in return means freedom of movement, but restrictions on in and out of work benefits for EU migrants in a more punitive fashion than those Cameron was aiming for back in February.

 

It won't stop migration but it will stop migrants who can't afford to support themselves without a decent job; those seen to be 'stealing our jobs' etc.

 

What jobs are these?

What benefits can they currently get if not in work?

What in work benefits can they get now?

[El Cid]

What jobs are these?

What benefits can they currently get if not in work?

What in work benefits can they get now?

 

What will stop immigration is the nasty country that we seem to be turning into.

[Eater Sundae]

I saw something on the BBC a few days ago, an interview with a Polish shop worker who'd been in the country for six months. She is on 16 hours a week and NMW compared to the full time, £1.50ph she was on in Poland.

 

So with little money, and with little earnings, she's now relocated to the UK to work in a shop. She's brought her children with her too; so presumably she is in receipt of housing benefit, family tax credit and all the other available in work benefits.

 

If all those benefits didn't exist for migrants, then she wouldn't have come as you can't live on 16 hours NMW when you have no savings and you have rent to pay and food to go on the table.

 

The crappy job pays more than back home, but it's not enough to live on in the UK if you have to stand on your own two feet and don't have access to benefits.

 

Considering Cameron was going for the 4 years no benefits idea, that's the route I think we'll end up going down if that middle ground of common market/freedom of movement is decided upon.

 

And would need to treat UK citizens the same? So no in work benefits for anyone?

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 06:18 ----------

 

I think you are right.. to a point. Every other country in Europe requires a certain amount of contributions before getting out of work benefits for example, and we stand alone as not needing any at all. As you say, the rules have to apply across all workers, so it's instantly easier to get benefits here than anywhere else. Different countries have stricter rules on the level of contributions that others.

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/284

 

10. There is a significant difference between the UK and the rest of the EU15 in the accessibility of unemployment benefit. In other countries unemployment benefit is conditional on social insurance contributions and the amount paid out is linked to previous earnings. Moreover, the length of time that unemployment benefit can be claimed is linked to the length of time previously in work.

 

11. For example in every other EU15 country an individual can only claim unemployment benefit when they have worked for a specific amount of time and thus contributed to the system or made a certain number of social security payments. This ranges from 4 months in France to one year in many countries, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain. In Portugal an individual has to have worked for at least 450 days in the previous 24 months. All other countries require a certain number of payments or that a certain number of days/weeks/months be worked before an individual qualifies for unemployment benefit. The level of benefit paid is generally linked to previous earnings and often capped at an upper limit – only in Ireland and Finland is unemployment benefit paid at a flat rate. Moreover, in all countries except Belgium, unemployment benefit is paid for a period of time related to the amount of time previously spent in employment or it is capped for a period ranging from a few months to a maximum of 38 months in the Netherlands; it is capped at two years in Denmark, France, Portugal and Spain. In Belgium it can be claimed for an indeterminate period of time.

 

12. This contrasts sharply with the UK where there are two types of unemployment benefit available to job seekers. Contribution-based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) is conditional, at least in theory, on actively seeking work, and Jobcentre staff regularly monitor claimants to see what they are doing to find work, with sanctions being applied if they do not. Contribution-based JSA is based on NI contributions and capped at six months. However, if you do not qualify for contribution-based JSA as you have not previously worked then you are able to claim income-based JSA – also conditional on actively seeking work – but not conditional on previous NI contributions, therefore payable to someone even if they have never worked. There is no time limit on income-based JSA and it is paid at a rate unrelated to previous earnings.[5] (See Annex D). These two benefits (Income and Contributions-based JSA) are paid at the same rate therefore a worker is not penalised for never having contributed anything in tax or NI.

 

13. EU rules permit social security contributions made in one country to be ‘transferred’ when claiming unemployment benefit in another country. However, since the UK has no minimum contribution requirement for income-based JSA, and the payment is related neither to previous earnings nor to the length of time that has been worked, an unemployed worker would be able to claim unemployment benefit on much more favourable terms than in the rest of the EU15 where the benefit is more strictly governed.

 

14. In short, it is far easier to gain access to unemployment benefits in the UK than anywhere else in the EU15.

 

Conclusion

 

15. The UK is far more generous than most other EU15 countries in topping-up low wages by just over 80% through in-work and housing benefits. This makes employment in the UK a very attractive for migrants from less wealthy EU member states, especially after adjusting for differences in the cost of living.

 

16. Access to unemployment benefit is also much easier than in other EU countries.

 

With that in mind, the criteria for claiming benefits for anyone in the UK would have to change to a contribution based system. Which isn't beyond the realms of possibility for a Conservative government.

 

Unfortunately it seems it is beyond the realms of possibility for this conservative government.

[MobileB]

What will stop immigration is the nasty country that we seem to be turning into.

 

It does seem to be going that way.

 

---------- Post added 29-06-2016 at 07:05 ----------

 

I think you are right.. to a point. Every other country in Europe requires a certain amount of contributions before getting out of work benefits for example, and we stand alone as not needing any at all. As you say, the rules have to apply across all workers, so it's instantly easier to get benefits here than anywhere else. Different countries have stricter rules on the level of contributions that others.

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/284

 

10. There is a significant difference between the UK and the rest of the EU15 in the accessibility of unemployment benefit. In other countries unemployment benefit is conditional on social insurance contributions and the amount paid out is linked to previous earnings. Moreover, the length of time that unemployment benefit can be claimed is linked to the length of time previously in work.

 

11. For example in every other EU15 country an individual can only claim unemployment benefit when they have worked for a specific amount of time and thus contributed to the system or made a certain number of social security payments. This ranges from 4 months in France to one year in many countries, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain. In Portugal an individual has to have worked for at least 450 days in the previous 24 months. All other countries require a certain number of payments or that a certain number of days/weeks/months be worked before an individual qualifies for unemployment benefit. The level of benefit paid is generally linked to previous earnings and often capped at an upper limit – only in Ireland and Finland is unemployment benefit paid at a flat rate. Moreover, in all countries except Belgium, unemployment benefit is paid for a period of time related to the amount of time previously spent in employment or it is capped for a period ranging from a few months to a maximum of 38 months in the Netherlands; it is capped at two years in Denmark, France, Portugal and Spain. In Belgium it can be claimed for an indeterminate period of time.

 

12. This contrasts sharply with the UK where there are two types of unemployment benefit available to job seekers. Contribution-based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) is conditional, at least in theory, on actively seeking work, and Jobcentre staff regularly monitor claimants to see what they are doing to find work, with sanctions being applied if they do not. Contribution-based JSA is based on NI contributions and capped at six months. However, if you do not qualify for contribution-based JSA as you have not previously worked then you are able to claim income-based JSA – also conditional on actively seeking work – but not conditional on previous NI contributions, therefore payable to someone even if they have never worked. There is no time limit on income-based JSA and it is paid at a rate unrelated to previous earnings.[5] (See Annex D). These two benefits (Income and Contributions-based JSA) are paid at the same rate therefore a worker is not penalised for never having contributed anything in tax or NI.

 

13. EU rules permit social security contributions made in one country to be ‘transferred’ when claiming unemployment benefit in another country. However, since the UK has no minimum contribution requirement for income-based JSA, and the payment is related neither to previous earnings nor to the length of time that has been worked, an unemployed worker would be able to claim unemployment benefit on much more favourable terms than in the rest of the EU15 where the benefit is more strictly governed.

 

14. In short, it is far easier to gain access to unemployment benefits in the UK than anywhere else in the EU15.

 

Conclusion

 

15. The UK is far more generous than most other EU15 countries in topping-up low wages by just over 80% through in-work and housing benefits. This makes employment in the UK a very attractive for migrants from less wealthy EU member states, especially after adjusting for differences in the cost of living.

 

16. Access to unemployment benefit is also much easier than in other EU countries.

 

With that in mind, the criteria for claiming benefits for anyone in the UK would have to change to a contribution based system. Which isn't beyond the realms of possibility for a Conservative government.

 

Without going into detail, what you are quoting is from 2012. The rules changed in 2014. For instance, from that date "they" can no longer claim housing benefit. The rules on income based JSA changed and other changes.

Edited June 29, 2016 by MobileB

[tzijlstra]

As I have pointed out the_bloke, what the UK will get is an enforcement of the rules they already could have enforced.

 

Deciding on the basis of contribution isn't difficult, they can do it via the existing PAYE/SS# system. They already know who pays tax and who doesn't. It will be relatively straightforward to draw up legislation to protect those without the ability to work (although this is where having Tories in charge is scary).

 

@Phil/Alan - yes, let's have the common man decide what should be researched or not, than also let's have the common man review it rather than experts who studied the subject for years. It will be really good for science that way.

 

Also - there is no blank cheque for everything to be researched, there is murderous competition (at a far higher level than most will witness in business) and a very thorough and rigorous system to constantly evaluate work.

[petcharlie]

Just seen Nigel Farage on the news winding up the dictators in Brussels today .

 

He said " when i said i wanted Britain to leave the EU you all laughed at me . Well , you arnt laughing now "

 

 

Brilliant :hihi:

 

Only fault is there are not many laughing here either.

[Chez2]

Only fault is there are not many laughing here either.

 

I don't know why:confused:.......the vote brexiters have got exactly the scenario "scaremongers" said would happen.

[the_bloke]

Without going into detail, what you are quoting is from 2012. The rules changed in 2014. For instance, from that date "they" can no longer claim housing benefit. The rules on income based JSA changed and other changes.

 

Not a great deal changed; it made it so EU workers couldn't claim Job Seekers for the first three months of being in the country, hence they wouldn't get HB. It does nothing for in work benefits, which was my earlier discussion point.

 

The general feeling is that even on poor wages and conditions (for the UK) EU migrants will be on a far better deal than if they had stayed at home, so they'll take any job going. Perhaps someone should perform some analysis on the increase of zero hours and part time contracts against the increase of Eastern European workers in the UK?

[petcharlie]

The strong economy IN the EU. Looks to me like that is now going to change. Seems the FT, the Economist, the Telegraph and a whole host of other rather reputable newspapers with a strong finance focus think you might be on to a loser here.

 

No doubt foxy what ever her name is will wright to the Economist ,the FT and the Telegraph and correct them :hihi: