UKC

EU Free Movement

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Bloody Eastern Europeans coming over here and blagging off our welfare state, we need to get out now!

Oh wait a minute . . . . . . .

Who knew this was part of the EU Free movement of persons law? And why wasn't it enacted by successive Home Secretaries including . . . . . . . . Theresa May?

2.Directive 2004/38/EC
. . . . . .

For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_2....

So we could have kept the "spongers" out, legally, but we chose not to.
Post edited at 08:19
4
 Stig 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
It was enacted, as far as I know. And people can be removed.

This is part of the great lie at the heart of the immigration/referendum debate: a) Eastern Europeans have it easy and b) free movement in practice is purely the result of the right to move.

Part of the reason UK was an attractive destination was ther was so little friction to moving here. Don't have to register with the police (as Belgium i believe) or have residency permits (most member states?). For instance an Italian friend told me it's almost impossible for outsiders to move into her area (Trentino) without some sort of restrictive residency document based on long term residency.

Remember we don't have ID cards because of the ridiculous stink kicked up by the right wing press (and people like David Davies!?)

And besides all that UK was attractive to A8 migrants precisely because of the type of labour market 'we' allowed to be created: rapid growth, flexible, minimal labour rights, widespread use of agencies, zero hours contracts, etc.

Maybe one day we'll wake up to our own hypocrisy - doubt it though.
Post edited at 08:51
1
 Pete Pozman 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

If we put that wording in the white paper we'll be able to cite it as a condition of staying in the single market. And the" reasonable Leavers "will be satisfied. May will be able to assert she is striking a tough deal.
One wonders why the Remain campaign didn't cite the conditions of residence over and over. What a bloody shambles!
 Doug 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Stig:
We don't have ID cards largely because the system proposed was with a database linked to many other gouverment databases which was widely thought to be a bit 'Big Brother'. As I understand it, ID cards eleswhere in the EU are not linked in such a way.
 Dave Garnett 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

Yes, refusing to distinguish between the right to work and an absolute right of residence was part of the Big Lie of the Leave campaign but the failure of Remain to counter the anti-immigration rhetoric by pointing out that more could be done to limit economic migration by linking it to evidence of employment even within the EU was, I suspect, largely down to the ignorance on both sides of the campaign by people who really should have known better.

It was further complicated by the timing of the refugee crisis and the deliberate confusion with immigration from outside the EU.
2
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

The exiters I know knew of this provision. Its hardly new.
 thomasadixon 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

This is news to you? Doesn't affect in work benefits, things like Big Issue sellers, numbers, etc, of course. Surprisingly ill informed for one so certain of what the right way to vote was...

3
 Dave Garnett 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

> The exiters I know knew of this provision. Its hardly new.

That's right. To be fair, the main blame must lie with the hopelessly inept Remain campaign.
 pavelk 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Doug:

> We don't have ID cards largely because the system proposed was with a database linked to many other gouverment databases which was widely thought to be a bit 'Big Brother'. As I understand it, ID cards eleswhere in the EU are not linked in such a way.

They are. Many countries, at least here in Central Europe are slowly changing to police states - soft yet. And many countries, especially France, Germany and Belgium impedes the free movement with bureaucratic bullying.

The British problem is you are too fair.

BTW. We all know here about people who moved to Britain because it´ s very easy to misuse your social security
1
 Doug 02 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

I've lived in France for the past 18 years & have never had any "bureaucratic bullying", what are you refering to ?
 Stig 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Doug:

Fair point.

But, it has always struck me as utterly ludicrous that we don't have a single ID document - and of course that has to be linked to a database in order to perform to its potential for streamlining and providing fair access to services, particularly NHS (as well as smoothing border crossing and improving internal security).

Yet we consent to having a NI number/card; driving license and passport. All of this could be combined into a single 'card'.

Leavers and associated people with right wing views froth at the mouth about foreigners abusing the NHS (even though 'health tourism' is a very small issue in budgetary terms) yet it is usually the same group of people who are most paranoid about the idea of an ID card or linking publicly-held data. And this is despite the fact we have some of the strongest data protection and FoI legislation in the world!
1
 summo 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Doug:

> We don't have ID cards largely because the system proposed was with a database linked to many other gouverment databases which was widely thought to be a bit 'Big Brother'. As I understand it, ID cards eleswhere in the EU are not linked in such a way.

In Sweden your ID card is linked to your personal number. Data is shared across all state agencies, banks etc.. I use the same secure log for my tax return as I do banking. Scan my ID card in a shop and they'll have my address or even my annual earnings/ tax paid (publically available). Type in my personal number online when ordering something everything else autofills.

Big brother.. perhaps but the more open society is, the less places you leave for crooks to hide.

And yes in Sweden they do enforce the 90days. No funds or job then no healthcare, or more importantly personal number etc. Without which you can not really exist .
 Stig 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Yes, refusing to distinguish between the right to work and an absolute right of residence was part of the Big Lie of the Leave campaign but the failure of Remain to counter the anti-immigration rhetoric by pointing out that more could be done to limit economic migration by linking it to evidence of employment even within the EU was, I suspect, largely down to the ignorance on both sides of the campaign by people who really should have known better.

I suspect that the biggest problem in the debate is that the benefits of free trade and (relatively) free movement are counter intuitive. (And I stress 'relative' because there is no such thing as free movement, anywhere in the world.) And this is why populism is thriving in the UK and US.

It is almost impossible to convince people that jobs going abroad through off-shoring and free trade is still a net benefit to GDP when they are seeing with their own eyes factories closing (US). Similarly, immigration in the UK is a clear net benefit for all the reasons that were pretty well-rehearsed in the referendum debate yet people won't have it if they see lots of migrants in their area 'stealing their jobs'. In both cases the negative impacts are localised whereas the benefits are thinly spread. It's even more toxic with migration because there is a strong element of xenophobia and nativism (migrants can't simultaneously be both stealing jobs and sponging); there is something much deeper about threats to identity and belonging.

From what I've heard though, there have clearly been some really dodgy stuff going on in certain labour markets (haulage, construction) - but we've brought some of that on ourselves through destroying regulation.

For their own purposes the Tories have made it all about immigration - and reduced that down to ending EU free movement, which I find deeply disturbing as there will have to be a reckoning at some point.
1
 Cú Chullain 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Stig:

> Remember we don't have ID cards because of the ridiculous stink kicked up by the right wing press

I seem to recall that ID cards were rejected by most sections of the electorate for a variety of reasons but mostly due to the fact that very few people trusted what was becoming an increasingly authoritarian government who had already introduced over 3,000 new criminal offences to the statute book. Labour and their crazed obsession with intrusive information gathering and the completely accessible (to the criminal fraternity) nature of the storage system made the scheme unacceptable to most people.
 Martin W 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Stig:

> For their own purposes the Tories have made it all about immigration - and reduced that down to ending EU free movement, which I find deeply disturbing as there will have to be a reckoning at some point.

Let me rephrase that for you:

For her own purposes Theresa May has made it all about immigration. Largely because ending EU free movement might go some way to improving the immigration figures which she signally failed to have any impact on during the six years that she was Home Secretary.

Johnson tried to use the referendum to further his career, but that plan came a bit of a cropper when leave won. May is now using the leave vote as an excuse to try to resurrect her own dismal reputation (although eagerly hob-nobbing with Trump may not have been the wisest choice of action to sustain that strategy).

Screw what's actually best for the country, it's all about them.
6
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Stig:


If you operate in a trade such as plumbing etc, there is so much anecdotal evidence of low rates coming form migrants that it is difficult to deny. After all alot of people used low cost Polish housebuilders etc and it was openly talked about.Nobody really gave any consideration to the impact on Uk trades people, they were marginilised and ignored by both Labour and Tory.You reap what you sow.
1
 Dave Garnett 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

> If you operate in a trade such as plumbing etc, there is so much anecdotal evidence of low rates coming form migrants that it is difficult to deny.

I can't believe that UK nationals don't have an intrinsic advantage in most markets given the almost unavoidable 'nativism' Stig mentions above. The fact that Polish plumbers have managed to overturn this is a tribute to their reputation for quality and reliability. Do we really want to level down to trademen offering a worse service who happen to be UK nationals? As for costs and wages, we don't have to leave the EU in order to enforce our minimum wage legislation.

I'll concede that this does leave us with the more entrepreneurial self-employed EU immigrants, who may be prepared (for now) to be paid less because of the larger advantage when translated into local currency and/or local cost of living. This must be a temporary phenomenon as standards and costs rise in recently acceded states and as long as their employees are paid at least the legal minimum.

I'll also concede that this is a problem resulting from the recklessly rapid expansion of the EU into low wage countries for geopolitical or philosophical motives of which I've never been a supporter. If UK had played a full and leading role as it should have done, we may have been able to prevent some of this but, as usual, we refused to engage until it was too late.
 jethro kiernan 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

Lots of anecdotal evidence that polish workers were hardworking more reliable and better trained 😀
As has been pointed out applying minimum wages etc can mitigate this, and there was nothing wrong with raising the bar a bit.
 Simon4 02 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:
> The British problem is you are too fair.

> BTW. We all know here about people who moved to Britain because it´ s very easy to misuse your social security

It is curious Pavel, that the only 2 genuine conversations I have had about Brexit were with you and another Czech, the latter at the Gratton bivouac, after I had scared his girlfriend half to death :

http://www.imgrum.net/media/1259373362040470630_43010190

because they were genuine conversations, not an exchange of harangues driven by mutual but opposite confirmation bias.Which are incredibly tedious and wearisome.

Perhaps I should climb the Grivola some day. BTW, despite now having climbed the Brunneghorn 3 times, I STILL haven't done that North face properly!
Post edited at 12:33
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Most tradesmen are not paid minimum wage( they earned more), they do not want to be earning thta sort of money..its a red herring.
 Stig 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

I don't deny it at all, I agree. I've sat in pubs and listened to people ranting about it. Whatever the complexities of the bigger picture that is the reality they see. It is precisely in those sorts of traditionally 'working class' male-dominated trades that I suspect the most obvious problem has occurred - construction, haulage, plumbing - because after all it is young males who are most able to migrate to UK. And yes they are marginalised and talked down to (or fairly or unfairly dismissed as racist) but in many cases people like that don't vote (in GEs). I suspect the disaffection however spread out to their communities/ family/ friends and led to the revulsion as expressed in the Brexit vote.

The flip side to that is that in plenty of other industries (and I suspect ones that are far more significant to the economy in GDP terms) - agriculture, warehousing, assembly line industries, some basic service industries - employers could not recruit sufficient quantity and quality of 'native' staff so turned to EU migrants. On the whole I'm willing to bet these migrants are more skilled, more hard working and disciplined (and sometimes overqualified) so that they are far more congenial to employ - and employers are perfectly within their rights to prefer foreign workers.

Anecdotal of course but my dad said he talked to a farmer recently who said EU migrants work harder without supervision so at the very least it saves him the cost of an overseer.

But yeah, we've sown and reaped.
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:



The so called temporary phenomenom has been going on for 10 plus years...its not temporary in tradesmens eyes.

I take a wider view. One of the big econmic issues in the Uk has been low productivity keping wages down.Migration is part of that picture ( alongside poor investment).
 jondo 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Stig:

isn't it a 'thing' to come from eastern Europe during pregnancy and have a child in the UK to get maternity care and any benefits ?
I don't know it for a fact but it was claimed as such on Sky the other day.
would be interesting if anyone has actual figures on this...
 pavelk 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Doug:

Specially in France they often refuse to accept foreign (Czech, Slovakian and Polish, as far as I know, I don´ t know about British) profesional qualifications, they force foreign companies to pay their foreign employess French salaries - even truck drivers loading goods in France, they force even the smallest companies to open office in France and to deal with moutains of forms in French only. They send endless controls and have found hundreds of other ways how to make business for foreigner the least enjoyable.
 pavelk 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Simon4:

Thank you

The mountais look really great, I should climb them once as well!
In reply to jondo:

> I don't know it for a fact but it was claimed as such on Sky the other day.

Hmm. . . . . was it really? What a surprise. You mean the UK version of Murdoch's soapbox, it's called Fox in the US. The right-wing billionaires have pulled a fast one on us and it won't be long until we're doffing our caps and tugging our forlocks.

In reply to neilh:

> If you operate in a trade such as plumbing etc, there is so much anecdotal evidence of low rates coming form migrants that it is difficult to deny. After all alot of people used low cost Polish housebuilders etc and it was openly talked about.Nobody really gave any consideration to the impact on Uk trades people, they were marginilised and ignored by both Labour and Tory.You reap what you sow.

I heard a builder talking about this on LBC recently. He said that initially this was the case when the Polish first started coming in numbers, but now they are asking for just as much money as the British. I guess they probably initially undercut to get into the market. He also said the biggest problem in the UK building industry was a massive lack of experienced tradespeople and that Eastern Europeans were in general highly skilled and hard working.
cb294 02 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

WTF?

I see no bureaucratic bullying of the people working in my institute, and we are about 35% Germans....

CB
 andyfallsoff 02 Feb 2017
In reply to jondo:

I don't know about this point in particular, but the studies I have looked at all tend to indicate that this type of NHS / benefits tourism is far, far less common than the public perception of it. My guess would be that it probably is a "thing" in that someone has done it; but it probably isn't a "thing" in sufficient number so as to be worth influencing policy to deal with.
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Indeed. Front page news on The Daily Fail, whereas the jailing of a racist murderer of a public representative is on page 30.
Post edited at 14:21
1
 Stig 02 Feb 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Health tourism is definitely a 'thing' (and incidentally it was featured on Newsnight last night, it's not a Sky/rightwing conspiracy).

But, a) overall it is a tiny part of the NHS budget (and the cost of treating people from the rest of the world far outweighs use by EU citizens), b) it would cost a huge amount to put in place systems to improve the recoup of costs, or charge at the point of use, and c) part of the reason the NHS gets 'abused' in this way is that care is free at the point of use which is quite unusual within Europe (and the world).... which I suspect is related to the stuff I mentioned above is that we have no sensible way of controlling access to care because we don't have a single ID card.

The perceptiion of foreigners milking the system of course has been blown completely out of proportion by the Daily Mail etc constantly banging on about it.

And yes there are figures, from a govt' report in 2013. I don't think they exactly drew much attention to the findings.
 pavelk 02 Feb 2017
In reply to cb294:

Drivers (not only) from my company were repeatedly fined for sleeping in truck over the weekend in France though its fully legal..
The construction company in my town dont take any work in France any more because of things like that. One of their foreman told me that even Brasil was better.
 andyfallsoff 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I'll also concede that this is a problem resulting from the recklessly rapid expansion of the EU into low wage countries for geopolitical or philosophical motives of which I've never been a supporter. If UK had played a full and leading role as it should have done, we may have been able to prevent some of this but, as usual, we refused to engage until it was too late.

I think the UK's failure on this is worse - my understanding is that we have been one of the countries pushing for the expansion of the EU to the East. Then when it happens, we cry foul and storm off...
1
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I think the UK's failure on this is worse - my understanding is that we have been one of the countries pushing for the expansion of the EU to the East. Then when it happens, we cry foul and storm off...

Yes, my recollection is that this was a deliberate policy by lukewarm Conservative Europhiles in the 1980s. Ostensibly to enlarge and strengthen the EU, but actually a way of weakening it. Above all by diluting Germany's power.
1
 jethro kiernan 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:
I appreciate the fact that these arnt minimum wage jobs but also a lot of the jobs in construction arnt one man bands, these are agency jobs and it is this freewheeling employment culture that is part of the problem, unregegulated, ununionised and generally not respected as far as training and education is concerned.
In countries such as Holland and Germany there seems to be less off a problem, they bring people in when demand is up (aufedersain pet) rather than the wages going up and down like a yo yo thus avoiding some of the resentment to incomers
This is because skilled tradespeople are more respected and the structures a bit more rigid, less of the treating people as a market commodity at the mercy of supply and demand.
cb294 02 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

The transport business is a tricky one. It is probably the one field of business where it is easiest to undercut existing EU minimum wage standards that apply to all other occupations, and possibly the one where these rules are broken most frequently.

The idea is that noone can get paid less than the minimum wage of where the business is conducted, irrespective of where in the EU the company resides. So if you want to transport goods within France you will have to pay French wages.

I think this is a good rule, rather than calling it red tape. As a Czech lorry driver you might even agree. Understandably as his boss, less likely!

CB
1
 jethro kiernan 02 Feb 2017
In reply to cb294:

Also highlights one of the myths that is used by British politicians, we'd love to do something but our hands are tied by Brussels technocrats.
Other European countries seem to be able to work within EU rules and still offer support to industries and workers, ie steel, car manufacturing, ship yards, Energy etc.
It's not laziness on our part it seems to be ideological, there was no way the government was going to do anything to help the steel industry (way to late anyway) especially as they had argued against tariffs on the cheap Chinese steel that was being offloaded
The rest of Europe seemed to be able to game the system to the Benifit of their own countries but we seemed quite selective and happy to blame Brussels for what was effectively a lack of political will.
 pavelk 02 Feb 2017
In reply to cb294:

There is nothing like EU minimum wage standart.
Protectionism is contraproductive whether it is American or French
France has no right to do it under existing EU rules because it violates the freedom to conduct business (but it´ s France so who cares?)
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Except it has become an issue as well in these countries.So I do not buy into your proposition.
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to cb294:
Well I have too many collections for European road transport at my place to know that this is just claptrap.The Czech guy - unless he lives in the Uk - gets paid czech wages. It s a well recognised issue in the haulage industry.And there has been a parlaimentary enquiry on this identifying that there is about a 60,000 shortfall in uk drivers as a result.Was for about or 4 months ago.
Post edited at 15:50
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

All depends on the market..... and the competition... so then you have Bulgarians/Romanians then undercutting the others...I agree its a problem for tha industry---but then step back and put yourself in the uk person's shoes..to them it is neverending
 winhill 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> Bloody Eastern Europeans coming over here and blagging off our welfare state, we need to get out now!

> So we could have kept the "spongers" out, legally, but we chose not to.

This is woefully missing the point because it doesn't describe the range of benefits available to EU migrants.

Child benefit and Child Tax Credit could be worth £10K a year, rent and council tax another few grand.

I guess you didn't notice Cameron's efforts before the referendum?

The judges in Luxembourg threw out the challenge by the European commission, which argued that the decision by Britain to impose a “right to reside” test on EU immigrants before they could claim child benefit or child tax credit was discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of an EU directive.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-u...

Some actual informed figures here:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/eu-migration-wel...
 jethro kiernan 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

The proposition is there is a problem, but that there is a bigger picture other than just pressure from immigration, the flip side of the flexible market in labour is if it is to flexible it can leave people unable to react and they become victims of the flexabity, I work in construction and work with time served craftsmen and have been involved in some interesting conversations about agencies really pushing wages and the pressure isn't coming from immigration but because of a down turn in the oil industry. Some off the younger guys were understandably pissed off that they had undergone 4 years apprenticeship to start receiving offers from agencies leaving them with less money than stacking shelves in Tesco.
My point I guess is we have allowed the labour market here to be more flexible but that also makes it more vulnerable but that immigration is only one of many things and removing immigration isn't going to remove the vulnerability and that feeling of vulnerability among working class people is not good.
 wercat 02 Feb 2017
In reply to winhill:

you are partly missing the point with the Tax credit as this was derived originally from tax allowances to cover dependants, till Gordon the Clown started messing us all about to our detriment. Or are tax allowances of any kind wrong?
Removed User 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Stig:

I imagine that the true cost of "Health Tourism" will remain unknown as there seems to be an inherent lack of will power in the NHS to record any figures or check on eligibility unlike in France where your right to treatment is requested as soon as you arrive at hospital or doctors. Even as a French resident I am only entitled to recover 70% of the costs and i am always asked if I have a "mutuel" insurance and I am always asked for a credit card.
All of this is done by the reception staff and I cannot see why the same staff in the UK cannot do exactly the same with very little extra cost.
I have seen reports that hospital staff do not think that they should be responsible for collecting these monies. FFS who's job is it then?
The problem is that no-one knows just how many people are "milking" the system but reports of people arriving to have emergency operations/ deliveries etc without having insurance will not persuade UK residents who have to pay for the NHS, that nothing needs to be done.
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Those guys will do what others in have done over the years - up sticks and move elsewhere- where the money is good. HS2 is the obvious one or the new heathrow runway.
 Trangia 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

Are you telling us now, that the whole Referendum and Battle of Brexit has been fought in vain?
cb294 02 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

> There is nothing like EU minimum wage standart.

This is true. However, this is also precisely the reason why EU rules say that irrespective of where in the EU a company is resident, it has to comply with the LOCAL minimum wage or collective bargaining agreements.

If a UK or Czech company wants to tender for a job lot on a German building site, they will have to pay the workers doing the job in Germany according to German minimum wage, or, as it is higher for the building industry, the collective bargaining agreement reached by unions and employers that was subsequently declared binding by the government.

This rule is called "Entsenderichtlinie" in the German version, no time to look up the official English name, and it also applies to the transport industry.

Nothing to do with letting France getting away with breaking rules. There are other examples where this may be true, but not that one.

CB



Removed User 02 Feb 2017
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

You're not wrong. The NHS spends an inordinate amount time collecting and entering date. Ward clarks should be doing this. It won't slow down an individuals access to care but merely find out who pays. In the trade it's called clinical coding.
cb294 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

As I said, the rule is probably the most undercut / badly enforced rule of all. Even worse, at a recent systematic check on the motorway east of Berlin, 90% of Eastern European lorries had illegal, retrofitted defeat devices on their urea injectors that are supposed to reduce NOx emissions.

CB
 jethro kiernan 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:
So the theory goes, but as Heathrow and HS2,new power stations etc haven't kicked off yet there is no well paid work
So again an increase in vulnerability.
£12 an hour self employed, cover your own expenses, training and travel, no holiday, or sick pay for welder platers. It was an outlier agency but indicates how we have allowed the Labour market to go. Again it's not immigration applying the pressure.

 pavelk 02 Feb 2017
In reply to cb294:

France and Germany are the only two EU countries who apply the rule and The European Commission leads some kind of proceedings with them. Both countries were asked not to apply the rule until some result is known but they ignore it largery. Germany doesn´ t require drivers to have a proof of the amount of wages at least.
 jimtitt 02 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

The law is currently being applied to drivers EMPLOYED in Germany. The original German interpretation which is being disputed by the EU is that the place of employment is the truck and therefore all persons driving on German territory are subject to the minimum wage. Currently this is not being applied depending on the outcome of talks with the EU and only those loading, unloading or transporting within Germany are being prosecuted, transit traffic is not being examined.
A transport company wishing to work inside Germany as explained above must provide wage details if requested.
The Netherlands are also applying the rule.

Currently there are a considerable number of Rumanian (and other) freight companies with contracts with large German companies such as DHL who are working on €200 a month salary and "topped up" with €55 per day expenses to avoid the minimum wage laws which is in fact illegal.
 Simon4 02 Feb 2017
 neilh 02 Feb 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

DHL of course being in effect the German state equivalent of the Royal Mail. Therein lies one of the issues.
1
 jimtitt 02 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

The German government bank only own 21% of Deutsche Post DHL though it is still perceived as being state owned. The largest percentage of the shares are actually owned in the UK.
Jim C 03 Feb 2017
In reply to Stig:

> Fair point.

> But, it has always struck me as utterly ludicrous that we don't have a single ID document - and of course that has to be linked to a database in order to perform to its potential for streamlining and providing fair access to services, particularly NHS (as well as smoothing border crossing and improving internal security).

> Yet we consent to having a NI number/card; driving license and passport. All of this could be combined into a single 'card'.

I use my thumb print to access my phone, and also to clock in to work.
I would have no issues in using it to get access to healthcare, and to help stop others (who are not eligible) abusing it ( emergencies excluded)



 neilh 03 Feb 2017
In reply to jimtitt:
Both as bad as each other then.I am sure the German govt could if it wanted sort this out...

21% is still pretty influential

I wonder how that will be resolved post Brexit.
Post edited at 09:29
 elsewhere 03 Feb 2017
In reply to Jim C:
Like most ID thumbprints can be faked.

Unfortunately issueing a new thumbprint and revoking the original is very painful!
1
 Rob Exile Ward 03 Feb 2017
In reply to Jim C:
'I would have no issues in using it to get access to healthcare, and to help stop others (who are not eligible) abusing it ( emergencies excluded) '

I'm still not convinced this as big an issue as the Daily Fail would have people believe, certainly not anything like as large as the cost of implementing a national identity database that would bee needed to definitively solve it.

I suspect if hospitals were geared up to efficiently collect uncontroversial revenue e.g. from insurance companies, EU governments and patients who were happy to pay but hadn't been asked, that would solve a lot. During hospital stays patients have to say who their GP is, it can't be very hard to phone up a GP and confirm the patients eligibility; and if they're not elgible, treat them anyway, give them a bill and ensure that they won't be admitted to the UK again until it's paid.

Why is the Daily Fail always so exercised that someone, somewhere might be cheating and thieving better than they do?
Post edited at 13:39
2
 summo 03 Feb 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

> Like most ID thumbprints can faked

But in conjunction with a photo and other biometric data is a fairly robust form of ID, which could be used in many other parts of life, banking, social security, travel.... for example

 pavelk 07 Feb 2017
In reply to jimtitt:
Fortunately. But this is not the case in France.
BTW since the beginning of the year there is the third country in EU with similar law - Austria. They even require to report all routes in advance - even transit routes. Because all three coutries have different rules it means three sets (yet two) of officially translated documents with separate timesheets for each country (driver must carry them to France nad Austria). Other countries will follow probably and they speak about some retaliatory measures here and in Poland
I don´ t think this is the common market
 neilh 07 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

So I guess this will favour the big haulage companies who just switch the driver at each border as the load is moved seamlessly from one country to the next.
 jimtitt 07 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

> So I guess this will favour the big haulage companies who just switch the driver at each border as the load is moved seamlessly from one country to the next.

Transit traffic is exempted. The laws apply to all drivers working inside the countries (delivering, picking up or transporting within the country) where the driver must be able to show he is being paid the minimum wage set in that country and the driving hours/rest period requirements.
This is completely in the spirit of equal and fair competion throughout the common market countries whether pavelk likes it or not, the choice being we are all reduced to the Rumanian level of economic development OR Rumania elevates itself to our level.
The current dispute is what designates a workplace, where the companies office is based or where the work is actually carried out? This affects a larger number of industries than just the transport sector.
 pavelk 07 Feb 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

Transit traffic is NOT exempted in France and Austria (likely - Austrian authorities did not provide exact rules to our national asociation yet but we know the Austrian rules aply to one day bus trips even). There is numer of Czech drivers who was fined in France while in tranzit.

> This is completely in the spirit of equal and fair competion throughout the common market countries whether pavelk likes it or not, the choice being we are all reduced to the Rumanian level of economic development OR Rumania elevates itself to our level.The current dispute is what designates a workplace, where the companies office is based or where the work is actually carried out? This affects a larger number of industries than just the transport sector.

I can agree if there is a systematic activity but the rulea are applied to causal activities and it makes the whole contention just false argument hiding protectionism.
As all bureaucratic nonsense this one will be bypassed in large. Polish drivers ceases to be employees and they are becoming to be tradesman, so they are out of working law.
 Doug 07 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

> Drivers (not only) from my company were repeatedly fined for sleeping in truck over the weekend in France though its fully legal..

This sounds very odd, its very common to see drivers sleeping in their cabs, even cooking in the lorry parks, at motorway service stations, many even have special 'trucker' areas. Is there more to this story?

Jim C 07 Feb 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think having listened to various programmes of politicians discussing this , the easiest answer is that no one enters the UK whether on business, or as tourist etc without having valid health insurance in place , problem solved.
No Insurance Policy no entry
 pavelk 07 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:

Yes. But the right reason is to protect home companies because it makes difficult to take any load as capacity utilization during the jurney
 jimtitt 07 Feb 2017
In reply to Doug:

The daily rest periods may be taken in the vehicle (as long as it has sleeping facilities). The weekly rest periods may not.
 Doug 07 Feb 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

Guess it prevents companies 'exploiting' their drivers by effectively getting them to live for extended periods in their cabs - but is that good or bad ? I guess the French unions would say its protecting the rights of the drivers to a home life (whether the driver wants it or not)
 pavelk 07 Feb 2017
In reply to Doug:

The ERTA (now regulation 561/2006) says that if the truck (or bus) is equipped with bed driver can spend the rest period in car. But French interpretation is that only daily rest period, not weekly rest period can be spent in the car. It has no support in any international agreement or EU law (and no one knows if they apply their interpretation to all drivers) and it seems to be just way how to punish foreign companies
 neilh 07 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

Or it could be Road Safety. There have over the years been a number of significant coach crashes in France as a result of tired drivers. Perhaps they are more on top of the issue.

Anyway in the UK there is a shortage of HGV drivers

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmtrans/68/6805...
 jimtitt 07 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

Rubbish.
"8. Where a driver chooses to do this, daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base may be taken in a vehicle, as long as it has suitable sleeping facilities for each driver and the vehicle is stationary."

Full weekly rest periods are not included.
 pavelk 07 Feb 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

> Rubbish."8. Where a driver chooses to do this, daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base may be taken in a vehicle, as long as it has suitable sleeping facilities for each driver and the vehicle is stationary."Full weekly rest periods are not included.

Absurd point. (Specially in France) drivers must wait for previously unknown time often. So they can´ t plan the lenght of their brake precisely. Moreover its enough to cross or change parking after 44 hours to change full weekly rest period to reduced weekly rest periods. France is the only country which "controls" it - fine foreign drivers
 jimtitt 07 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

Absurd is your opinion. All the member states in the EU approved it so clearly you are in a slight minority.
You can only have one reduced weekly rest period before you must take a normal one + hours to make up.
France is not the only country enforcing it.
1
 neilh 07 Feb 2017
In reply to pavelk:

You want to look up the history of major road accidents cause by tired drivers in France especially on the autoroutes.

The French have always been forceful on enforcing rest stops for this reason.

So tough.
In reply to winhill:

> This is woefully missing the point because it doesn't describe the range of benefits available to EU migrants.Child benefit and Child Tax Credit could be worth £10K a year, rent and council tax another few grand.I guess you didn't notice Cameron's efforts before the referendum?The judges in Luxembourg threw out the challenge by the European commission, which argued that the decision by Britain to impose a “right to reside” test on EU immigrants before they could claim child benefit or child tax credit was discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of an EU directive.

No, as usual it is you who are totally missing the point.

These benefits are available (as your"informed figures" suggest) to EU citizens with jobs, which as far as I'm concerned is only fair as they are contributing to our economy, that is the case in other European countries. The part of the directive that I pointed out states that EU citizens who are not working "must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay." If this policy had been inforced, as it is in other European countries, then the argument that there are Eastern Europeans coming over here to blag our benefits would have been a non-starter, instead of what was likely to have been a crucial issue to many voters. The reason it was not enforced is that it would cost more to enforce than it would to just forget about it. Which makes me think it can't be a big a problem as certain elements of the media make it out to be.

It genuinely makes me wonder if Brexit was a stitch up by the establishment (Tories and billionaires) to return to the days of the working classes doffing their caps and tugging their forlocks, enabling a reduction in worker rights in order for them to make even more money that they don't need.
1
baron 07 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:
There was a TV programme which showed a Romanian who came to the UK as a self employed scrap metal dealer.
As he didn't make much money (hardly surprising as he spent most of his time back in Romania) but was still 'employed' he was entitled to all sorts of benefits.
These benefits he was using to build a new house back home.
Yes I know this is only one example and every other migrant is hard working and doesn't claim a penny.
3
 pavelk 07 Feb 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

Absurd or not, this is generally shared experience here in Czech (and Poland and Slovakia as well as far as I know). There is no report about fine for full weekly rest period from any European country but dozens from France at our national Association of Road Transport Operators and there is no report about fine for failure to document the minimum wage but dozens from France. May be the German experience is different.
Have a nice absurd day
 pavelk 07 Feb 2017
In reply to neilh:
May be this is the reason. But since France is well known "troubled country" here not only in transport business but construction business as well nobody should wonder we are a little suspicious about their real motives
Post edited at 17:21
In reply to baron:

A Daily Fail argument.

My argument is that it is the UK letting people like that do these things and not the EU. The EU has directives that prevent exacty this kind of abuse and we choose not to enforce them, then make a big political issue about it. There would be many British people doing exactly the same in Europe if they could, but they can't and why would they when things are so easy here? Especially when they don't have to learn another language either.
1
In reply to pavelk:

The French use EU directives to prevent people taking the piss, unlike the UK.
1
 Jerry Sword 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

You think is easetern europeans fault? Try to kick them out, UK will be looking for stuff, beacuse British people don't want to work for minimum wage. after 15 years in Uk I never seen British Kitchen porter, cleaner, most of bar staff is foreign. Always complaining about foreings. You should be happy beacuse of us you can get your benefits. I left Uk 1 year ago and I'm really happy. Most of people are two faces, they pretending to be your friend , but behind your back you get stabbed by them. I hope you will leave EU and kick foreigns peoples out and then you will understand
3
 RomTheBear 08 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:
> There was a TV programme which showed a Romanian who came to the UK as a self employed scrap metal dealer.As he didn't make much money (hardly surprising as he spent most of his time back in Romania) but was still 'employed' he was entitled to all sorts of benefits.These benefits he was using to build a new house back home.Yes I know this is only one example and every other migrant is hard working and doesn't claim a penny.

The problem here is not freedom of movement, it's more an issue of a badly designed in work benefit system and misapplication of the law. In this particular case (if it is true) the person would normally fail the habitual residence test and would not be able to claim those benefits.
Post edited at 12:39
1
 Timmd 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Jerry Sword:

I'm sorry that's your experience of living in the UK.
In reply to Jerry Sword:

I don't think you understand that my original statement is a joke. I don't blame Eastern Europeans for anything, but instead I blame our government and our newspapers for the situation that you describe. I work with many Polish and Hungarian people and they are very good workers who contribute to our society. I feel some of the people in this country have let down these people and also have let down themselves. As you have said, many Eastern Europeans do the work that the British do not want to do and we will be a poorer country without them. But the people with "two faces" will be happy. (Until they find out that their food is costing more, their hotel rooms are costing more and they have to pay more tax to pay for the jobs that the British won't do for the money that Eastern Europeans will do it for).


I'm not surprised that you feel the way you do and I'm not surpised that you have left the UK. It won't be long until I do the same.
2
baron 08 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
The Romanian in question was very adept at playing the system and knew exactly how to maximise his benefits without doing any work.
Doubtless he'd never done any work back in Romania.
As you say it's a broken benefits system that allows this to happen. In the same way that UK citizens can also play the system.
However, the attraction for people to migrate to the UK where even minimum wages are much higher than in their home countries does, along with in work tax credits, allow wages to be falsely depressed.
Removing the migrants, both EU and non EU, from the equation would force the UK government to address the issue of low wages, broken benefits and long term unemployed.
A bit like leaving the EU will remove it (the EU) as the government's excuse for not being able to do things.
1
 Big Ger 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> It won't be long until I do the same.


Don't let the door hit you on the @ss on your way out!


3
Jim C 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> I'm not surpised that you have left the UK. It won't be long until I do the same.


I heard quite a few people who said they would do this if we voted to leave, so far only one has ( but turns he has a holiday home in Turkey.

When are you intending to leave ?
Jim C 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Don't let the door hit you on the @ss on your way out!

It's all very well when people threaten to go on a point of principle , if they don't go , people rip the piss ( endlessly)
If you DO go, no one even notices.
Post edited at 21:13
pasbury 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

Well they don't have any protected status now as the amendments have been defeated.

I'm ashamed.
Jim C 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As featured on Hospital, along with other patients who presented after recently coming into the country with known pre existing conditions.
I watched this programme myself and every one of the patients who did not pay had come here knowing they could not pay.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/nigerian-mum-who-gave-birth-to-quadru...
2
Jim C 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

> I imagine that the true cost of "Health Tourism" will remain unknown .........The problem is that no-one knows just how many people are "milking" the system but reports of people arriving to have emergency operations/ deliveries etc without having insurance will not persuade UK residents who have to pay for the NHS, that nothing needs to be done.

I'm persuaded that something has to be done.

My grandmother, mother,sister and daughter were/are all in the NHS as nurses audiologist or speech therapists, for those that are still working at least there are always more patients than they can cope with in reasonable timescales, so there are long waiting lists.
So ANY health tourists are not only stealing money from the UK taxpayer, they are stealing treatment that is therefore denied to eligible uk patients.



2
 RomTheBear 08 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:
> The Romanian in question was very adept at playing the system and knew exactly how to maximise his benefits without doing any work.Doubtless he'd never done any work back in Romania.As you say it's a broken benefits system that allows this to happen. In the same way that UK citizens can also play the system.However, the attraction for people to migrate to the UK where even minimum wages are much higher than in their home countries does, along with in work tax credits, allow wages to be falsely depressed.

There is no evidence that EU immigration has depressed wages of natives.
Besides, Cameron's EU deal addressed the problem of in work benefits. Those who rubbished that deal should be ashamed frankly.

> Removing the migrants, both EU and non EU, from the equation would force the UK government to address the issue of low wages, broken benefits and long term unemployed.

Bit everything suggest it would achieve the opposite. It would in fact depress the wages of natives, and make the benefit system harder to finance.

> A bit like leaving the EU will remove it (the EU) as the government's excuse for not being able to do things.

Believe me they'll find another excuse, in fact I bet you they will still blame the EU and EU immigrants for all the ills they have created, even after we leave.
Post edited at 22:43
1
In reply to Jim C:

> As featured on Hospital, along with other patients who presented after recently coming into the country with known pre existing conditions.I watched this programme myself and every one of the patients who did not pay had come here knowing they could not pay.

When will you get your head around the fact that it's not the people who abuse the system that are the problem but that the system is able to be abused? I can tell you now it doesn't happen in France unless it's a life threatening emergency. I have also seen the price list in a French hospital if you have no entitlement and no insurance.
In reply to Jim C:

> When are you intending to leave ?

In about a month, which has been the plan for about 3 years. I certainly won't miss the likes of you.
In reply to Big Ger:

> Don't let the door hit you on the @ss on your way out!

Don't worry Big Ger, I intend to kick it off it's f*cking hinges!
 Big Ger 08 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

Going anywhere nice for your holiday?
1
 zv 09 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:

Very nice to hear that my getting removed from the country would magically fix some of the biggest socioeconomic problems in this country... Thanks.
 Sir Chasm 09 Feb 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> As featured on Hospital, along with other patients who presented after recently coming into the country with known pre existing conditions.I watched this programme myself and every one of the patients who did not pay had come here knowing they could not pay.

The woman was en route from Chicago to Nigeria via Heathrow (the UK wasn’t her destination), she was having contractions when the plane landed at Heathrow. Is your proposal that she should have been made to stay on the plane and refused medical treatment? Or do you propose that every flight that transits through the UK be checked to make sure all passengers have valid UK health insurance even though it isn’t their destination? Yes, it’s a lot of money, but it’s one case. If streams of Nigerian women bearing quadruplets start appearing at Heathrow I’ll concede we have a problem, but I’m not going to worry about this case.
1
 Big Ger 09 Feb 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> The woman was en route from Chicago to Nigeria via Heathrow

I wonder what she would have done if the contractions had started a day earlier?
3
 Sir Chasm 09 Feb 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> I wonder what she would have done if the contractions had started a day earlier?

I suspect she would have given birth in the US, that being where she was.
 Big Ger 09 Feb 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Free there is it?

Or was she sensible and had insurance to cover her there?
Post edited at 09:03
3
 Sir Chasm 09 Feb 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Free there is it?Or was she sensible and had insurance to cover her there?

No, it's not free. All the details of the story are available on the internet for you to read.
baron 09 Feb 2017
In reply to zmv
That's not what I was trying to say although that's how it might have sounded. What I was trying to say was that migration allows the UK government to avoid confronting problems within the country by providing a source of willing and able people who will often work for low wages.
Removing the migrants would force the UK to examine and hopefully sort some of the socio-economic problems as without said migrants the UK economy could not function properly at this moment in time. This is, of course, not the fault of those migrants who come here simply to work but it does cause issues, perceived or actual, with some of the existing workforce. The government can ignore these issues as the economy continues to grow but this ignores the way that many people are failing to benefit from this economic growth. Again, migrants aren't to blame for this the government is. The removal of migrants is of course merely a hypothetical argument put forward by me to force the government into a corner and make them do something about those UK citizens who feel abandoned. Removal will never happen in the real world.
I'm sorry if my previous post caused you any offence.
 MG 09 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:

Classic.

"Foreigners bad, foreigners out. All their fault. What? You're a foreigner? Oh, sorry, not you, you're a nice foreigner"
1
baron 09 Feb 2017
In reply to MG:
While we will probably never agree on many things Brexit related I do find it upsetting that, while I was attemting to state more clearly a point I had previously tried to make and while I apologised for any unintended offence to another poster, you have deliberately twisted my words and actions to make me sound 'classic'.
Classic what?
Racist?
Bigot?


 MG 09 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:
It's certainly the classic line taken by unthinking racists and bigots - all foreigners are bad except the ones they meet. Whether you are one I can't say. However the screeching back peddling certainly shows you are blind to the consequences of the populist simplicity of "Removing the migrants, both EU and non EU," until they are thrust in your face by the people who would be affected.
Post edited at 11:24
2
baron 09 Feb 2017
In reply to MG:
What is this 'screeching back peddling' that you talk about?
I restated my opinion and apologised if I'd offended someone.
As to being blind, best be careful in the words you use to describe someone.
 RomTheBear 09 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:
> In reply to zmvThat's not what I was trying to say although that's how it might have sounded. What I was trying to say was that migration allows the UK government to avoid confronting problems within the country by providing a source of willing and able people who will often work for low wages. Removing the migrants would force the UK to examine and hopefully sort some of the socio-economic problems as without said migrants the UK economy could not function properly at this moment in time. This is, of course, not the fault of those migrants who come here simply to work but it does cause issues, perceived or actual, with some of the existing workforce. The government can ignore these issues as the economy continues to grow but this ignores the way that many people are failing to benefit from this economic growth. Again, migrants aren't to blame for this the government is. The removal of migrants is of course merely a hypothetical argument put forward by me to force the government into a corner and make them do something about those UK citizens who feel abandoned. Removal will never happen in the real world.I'm sorry if my previous post caused you any offence.

That's really naive to think removal won't happen.
Well they may not be removed physically but if they lose the right to stay, most of them being law abiding citizens, they'll leave.
To think that reducing immigration will somehow force the government to address issues that are currently alleviated by immigration is frankly bizarre. On the contrary it will put the country in a weaker fiscal position, which makes it harder to address the problems at their root.

Regardless, screwing with the lives of perfectly respectable people who made their lives in the UK, in order to achieve some vague unrelated political goal, is not the right way to proceed.
It is true that at this moment in time the UK gets away with dismal levels of productivity thanks to being able to fill skill gaps with immigrants. Removing them won't fix the issue and there is no need to remove them to fix the issues either.

Here is an idea : let's use the taxes paid by immigrants to pay for upskilling the UK workforce. Eu nationals can stay, and natives who are struggling to compete on the labour market get the skills they need. Win win.
Post edited at 12:22
1
baron 09 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
While the UK government has a ready supply of willing workers from European countries they have no need to address the problems of the disaffected workers and underclass in the U.K.
So the government will fudge the issue of migration and allow existing migrants to stay.
As you say, the consequences to the economy of withdrawing the right to work would be too great for this government to face.
There'll be a dressing up of the facts and little will change. After all most MPs, including Mrs May, are retainers.
Unless the EU screws up the negotiations.
 Dr.S at work 09 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:

>Unless the EU screws up the negotiations.

Or the UK does - its almost certainly the plan of both sides to allow the current residents to carry on as before - but there is plenty of potential for cock-ups in the negotiation process.

Just on a general point, will the 'great repeal bill' not automatically confer existing rights on EU migrants?


 RomTheBear 09 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:
> While the UK government has a ready supply of willing workers from European countries they have no need to address the problems of the disaffected workers and underclass in the U.K.So the government will fudge the issue of migration and allow existing migrants to stay.As you say, the consequences to the economy of withdrawing the right to work would be too great for this government to face.There'll be a dressing up of the facts and little will change. After all most MPs, including Mrs May, are retainers.Unless the EU screws up the negotiations.

What you fail to see, is that the government is not interested in the economy, they are interested in staying in power.
It doesn't really matter to them if the economy crashes, as long as they can blame some other people for it. As it is now their core electorate is more interested in reducing net migration than in the economy. So that's what they'll do.

My prediction : some sort of deal will be struck for EU nationals to be able to stay, but there will be all sorts of caveats, loss of rights, administrative harassment, and arbitrary decisions, and people will feel compelled to leave over a several years, and that's going to go a long way to help achieve her net migration target.

I also expect that there won't be any more right to appeal immigration decisions from the home office, currently right of appeal is guaranteed by the ECHR, I suspect queen Teresa will want to get us out of it as possible.

Basically I expect a face aving deal, bit in practice EU immigrants will be pushed out of the back door. It's very simple, it is mathematically near impossible for Theresa May to achieve her net migration target of 100,000 without getting people to leave.
Post edited at 13:10
baron 09 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
While many people voted leave due to migration many did not.
The conservatives won't stay in power if they bugger up the economy.
The migrants will stay because this government doesn't have any idea how to manage the economy without them.
 RomTheBear 09 Feb 2017
In reply to baron:

> While many people voted leave due to migration many did not.The conservatives won't stay in power if they bugger up the economy.The migrants will stay because this government doesn't have any idea how to manage the economy without them.

Very naive again. If the economy starts to shrink, they can blame it on the evil EU for not giving is a "have your cake and eat it" deal, and blame EU immigrants for "lowering wages".
Besides, it's relatively easy for them to keep protecting their core electorate of the worst economic consequences (at the expense of the others) at least in the short to medium term.


1
 Thrudge 09 Feb 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> The woman was en route from Chicago to Nigeria via Heathrow

Must have been a hell of a shock to find that what she thought was a really bad case of 9-month wind was actually a baby.

1
 GrahamD 09 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

>Besides, it's relatively easy for them to keep protecting their core electorate of the worst economic consequences (at the expense of the others) at least in the short to medium term.

How can they do that ? their key voters are the swing voters that are the middle earning tax payers who are likely to be screwed over the most.

pasbury 09 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Depressingly true
pasbury 09 Feb 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

Well there's the burgeoning number of triple locked pensioners forming a nice core group for starters.
baron 09 Feb 2017
In reply to pasbury:
There's a large number of pensioners who, triple locked or not, have, like their fathers before them, voted Labour all their lives and nothing will ever change that.
The middle earner, swing voters decide who forms the government and if you damage the economy you pay the price at the ballot box.
 RomTheBear 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> >Unless the EU screws up the negotiations.Or the UK does - its almost certainly the plan of both sides to allow the current residents to carry on as before - but there is plenty of potential for cock-ups in the negotiation process.Just on a general point, will the 'great repeal bill' not automatically confer existing rights on EU migrants?

Probably not, one can expect immigration rules will change at the same time otherwise EEA nationals (residents and new comers alike) will still be under the same free movement rules.
1
 RomTheBear 10 Feb 2017
In reply to GrahamD:
> their key voters are the swing voters that are the middle earning tax payers who are likely to be screwed over the most.

Rather their key voters are baby boomers who are now on triple lock pensions or will be soon, who are basically protected from inflation, and people who would vote ukip unless they delivered nothing but the hardest of brexit.
The demographics and FPTP makes this a winning combination.
Post edited at 09:23
3
 Ridge 10 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Rather their key voters are baby boomers who are now on triple lock pensions or will be soon, who are basically protected from inflation,

I think we can safely kiss the triple lock goodbye, together with these 'gold plated' public sector pensions that appently everyone over 50 has. It's been 72 years since the postwar shagging frenzy that spawned the evil baby boomers, they'll be dead soon anyway.


2
 GrahamD 10 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Rather their key voters are baby boomers who are now on triple lock pensions or will be soon, who are basically protected from inflation, and people who would vote ukip unless they delivered nothing but the hardest of brexit. The demographics and FPTP makes this a winning combination.

They are the guaranteed Conservative voters. The key voters are the ones who aren't in this demographic (basically most people under 60) who could swing an election by voting Lib dem or Labour.
 RomTheBear 10 Feb 2017
In reply to GrahamD:
> They are the guaranteed Conservative voters. The key voters are the ones who aren't in this demographic (basically most people under 60) who could swing an election by voting Lib dem or Labour.

That used to be true, but that's not the case any longer, the labour - conservative swing has been occurring on two categories : the poorest working class areas, disillusioned labour voters who turned against immigration, and over 60s, who also have the highest turnout.
The trick is that the two categories, although not the most populous overall in the UK, are overwhelming present in a large number of constituencies. By concentrating on those the tories can get a large number of MPs, with a relatively low share of the vote.
And with the gerrymandering of the new boundary review I expect this to become even worse.

Just look at the last GE result, the tories have an absolute majority of MP with only 36.8% of the votes.
Post edited at 10:59
3
 Doug 10 Feb 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

Not sure if I count as a 'babyboomer' (born mid fifties) but expect to retire fairly soon on a public sector pension & cannot envisage ever voting Tory (although through an odd combination of circumstances I can no longer vote in the UK as I'm based in France but am considered resident in the UK for pay, taxes, pension contributions, etc)
Jim C 10 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Probably not, one can expect immigration rules will change at the same time otherwise EEA nationals (residents and new comers alike) will still be under the same free movement rules.

Or as been pointed out, the UK did not need to allow 'free movement' in the first place ( not as the UK interpreted it) we apparently can just re-interpreted the rule ( not change it) and this will prevent everyone who is not a worker with permission to enter.
 wercat 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Ridge:
I think you probably have to be over 50. Have a friend who is in the upper part of the 60s and the difference between his conditions/pensions/winterfuel etc and current 60 year olds is amazing


When I was within a year or so of qualifying for a so called entitlement to join a final salary scheme the carpet was whipped away from us, having joined the company with that promise and taken it into account in choosing the job over another. In fact I was made redundant a few years later so didn't even complete contributions into the normal poorer scheme - so definitely not gold plated - but I was always in favour of EU membership from the first time I could vote
Post edited at 14:34
Jim C 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> When will you get your head around the fact that it's not the people who abuse the system that are the problem but that the system is able to be abused? I can tell you now it doesn't happen in France unless it's a life threatening emergency. I have also seen the price list in a French hospital if you have no entitlement and no insurance.

I think you will find that I have already said that no one should get into the UK without health insurance.

And the woman ( having conceived through IVF) tried to get into the US but was refused entry as she did not have health insurance.

I'm not sure who it is , who has or has not 'got their head round' this.
Jim C 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> In about a month, which has been the plan for about 3 years. I certainly won't miss the likes of you.

Charming , and what are the likes of me exactly ?

Feel free to let rip.......
In reply to Jim C:

> Charming , and what are the likes of me exactly ?

> Feel free to let rip.......

Someone who draws way more dislikes than likes for their comments on here, which is for reasons that you may want to think about.
3
 RomTheBear 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Or as been pointed out, the UK did not need to allow 'free movement' in the first place ( not as the UK interpreted it) we apparently can just re-interpreted the rule ( not change it) and this will prevent everyone who is not a worker with permission to enter.

But that's clearly not going to happen given the overwhelming political pressure to get net migration to the 100,000, which btw seem mathematically impossible even if we closed our doors completely to all EU migrants.

This can be achieved only by closing as many routes as possible and getting as many existing foreign nationals in the UK to go back to their own country.
1
Jim C 10 Feb 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Who has ever said that we were closing our doors to immigrants from anywhere?
Not me anyway.
We simply need some control of who comes in, and what skills they have, and vetted to keep criminals out ( from anywhere)
We can't have uncontrolled numbers of people coming who are going to be a liability go taxpayers, or the health service, or putting pressure on housing etc.
Jim C 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> Someone who draws way more dislikes than likes for their comments on here, which is for reasons that you may want to think about.

I was not anywhere in the running on the average likes/dislikes stakes.

You have only pointed out that you believe that I'm unpopular on here, life's a bitch.

But I must insist that you be clear what was meant by 'the likes of you'

In reply to Jim C:

You can insist on what you like, but I might insist on telling you to f*ck off.
3
Jim C 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

You may have noticed that I never trade insults, I'm always polite, never swear and generally agree to disagree.

However, I'm asking you again to explain your comment what ' the likes of you' means ?

I'm sure others will agree with you, so go on spell it out, have the courage of you convictions and tell me just what you think of me?



2
 RomTheBear 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Jim C:
> Who has ever said that we were closing our doors to immigrants from anywhere?Not me anyway. We simply need some control of who comes in, and what skills they have, and vetted to keep criminals out ( from anywhere) We can't have uncontrolled numbers of people coming who are going to be a liability go taxpayers, or the health service, or putting pressure on housing etc.

Well there is a basic contradiction there, if you want to keep the numbers down (gvt says around 100,000), then this is not enough to close the doors to criminal and those who are going to be a liability to the taxpayer, those are already vastly excluded, and the very vast majority of people coming from the EU do not fall into that category.

The reality, is that just with students and spousal visas we already reach about 100,000.
That leaves no option but to shut the door to everything else if we want to get to those numbers.

If what you want is to keep people who are not criminals and who are net benefit to the taxpayer coming, very well, but basically you are saying we effectively change nothing except we add a huge layer of bureaucracy.
Post edited at 16:24
2
In reply to Jim C:
I find you to be like one of those small-minded-Daily-Fail-sucked-in types. Telling you to go forth is not insulting, it might be offensive, but then, so are many of your views.
Post edited at 17:39
5
 Big Ger 10 Feb 2017
In reply to Hugh J:

> Someone who draws way more dislikes than likes for their comments on here, which is for reasons that you may want to think about.

I take that as a badge of honour.
In reply to Big Ger:

> I take that as a badge of honour.

Some people earn it and some receive it purely by accident!

(I would say you're the former )
1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...