Brexit. The public need to re-engage

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-04-19 9:01 AM

 

But then if you have understood it, why do you keep posting links to the Daily Mail as though its a reliable source?

 

Why are you ignoring the question Peter? ;-) ..........

 

Are you ashamed of how you get your money? :-S .........

 

Maybe you're a secret toff? >:-) .........

 

 

[derek pringle]

Hi all,

I wonder what the response would be if we told the EU that we would stay IN providing MAJOR changes were made to the basic rules of membership. Cameron failed dismally but it is true to say that if he had succeeded, and I don't believe he tried very hard, then we would have remained with no referendum.Other countries within the EU would I believe welcome some major changes so we could succeed. On the other hand we could end up still paying a lot of money for the bits we want and just dropping from full members to sort of associate members.

cheers

derek

[Tracker]

derek pringle - 2018-04-19 9:24 AM

I wonder what the response would be if we told the EU that we would stay IN providing MAJOR changes were made to the basic rules of membership. Cameron failed dismally but it is true to say that if he had succeeded, and I don't believe he tried very hard, then we would have remained with no referendum.Other countries within the EU would I believe welcome some major changes so we could succeed. On the other hand we could end up still paying a lot of money for the bits we want and just dropping from full members to sort of associate members.

derek

 

Nice thought Derek but would it be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas?

 

My perception is that asking a majority of net gainers to accept a few less from the golden egg layers is not going to happen?

 

Even worse I suspect that should we re-apply to join the terms might well be even less favourable than before - who knows?

 

I have not spotted any conciliatory gestures or offers to get us to remain from the EU yet - has anyone?

 

Cameron failed so spectacularly because neither he nor the EU ever thought we would leave and I consider the intransigence of the EU at least as much responsible as DC.

[Barryd999]

Tracker - 2018-04-19 9:50 AM

 

derek pringle - 2018-04-19 9:24 AM

I wonder what the response would be if we told the EU that we would stay IN providing MAJOR changes were made to the basic rules of membership. Cameron failed dismally but it is true to say that if he had succeeded, and I don't believe he tried very hard, then we would have remained with no referendum.Other countries within the EU would I believe welcome some major changes so we could succeed. On the other hand we could end up still paying a lot of money for the bits we want and just dropping from full members to sort of associate members.

derek

 

Nice thought Derek but would it be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas?

 

My perception is that asking a majority of net gainers to accept a few less from the golden egg layers is not going to happen?

 

Even worse I suspect that should we re-apply to join the terms might well be even less favourable than before - who knows?

 

I have not spotted any conciliatory gestures or offers to get us to remain from the EU yet - has anyone?

 

Cameron failed so spectacularly because neither he nor the EU ever thought we would leave and I consider the intransigence of the EU at least as much responsible as DC.

 

I think there could well be a chance of EU Reform before the UK leaves. They wouldn't have to offer much, maybe some tighter changes on rules on free movement across the bloc. The entire referendum would be null and void then as it would be based on a vote on the old EU rules and as Immigration was such a (red herring) vote winner such reform could well swing a vote to remain in any final public vote.

 

Its unlikely to happen but I would not rule it out as being on the table at the 11th hour.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2018-04-19 9:11 AM

 

John52 - 2018-04-19 9:01 AM

 

But then if you have understood it, why do you keep posting links to the Daily Mail as though its a reliable source?

 

Why are you ignoring the question Peter? ;-) ..........

 

Are you ashamed of how you get your money? :-S .........

 

Maybe you're a secret toff? >:-) .........

 

 

Brian Kirby was dead right when he said Desmond of the Daily Mail is playing you like a fiddle (lol)

If you have finally realised that, why don't you say so, instead of trying to change the subject :D

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-04-19 12:01 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-19 9:11 AM

 

John52 - 2018-04-19 9:01 AM

 

But then if you have understood it, why do you keep posting links to the Daily Mail as though its a reliable source?

 

Why are you ignoring the question Peter? ;-) ..........

 

Are you ashamed of how you get your money? :-S .........

 

Maybe you're a secret toff? >:-) .........

 

 

Brian Kirby was dead right when he said Desmond of the Daily Mail is playing you like a fiddle (lol)

If you have finally realised that, why don't you say so, instead of trying to change the subject :D

 

Oh I forgot he's another who's income your so interested in ;-) ........

 

Dontcha think folk who criticise other folks income should be open and honest about theirs too? >:-) .......

 

So how do you get by Peter? :D .........

 

Just askin? ;-) ...........

 

Is the "Morning Star" not paying you enough? (lol) ..........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2018-04-19 4:31 PM

 

John52 - 2018-04-19 12:01 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-19 9:11 AM

 

John52 - 2018-04-19 9:01 AM

 

But then if you have understood it, why do you keep posting links to the Daily Mail as though its a reliable source?

 

Why are you ignoring the question Peter? ;-) ..........

 

Are you ashamed of how you get your money? :-S .........

 

Maybe you're a secret toff? >:-) .........

 

 

Brian Kirby was dead right when he said Desmond of the Daily Mail is playing you like a fiddle (lol)

If you have finally realised that, why don't you say so, instead of trying to change the subject :D

 

Oh I forgot he's another who's income your so interested in ;-) ........

 

Dontcha think folk who criticise other folks income should be open and honest about theirs too? >:-) .......

 

So how do you get by Peter? :D .........

 

Just askin? ;-) ...........

 

Is the "Morning Star" not paying you enough? (lol) ..........

 

 

I'll take your changing the subject as 'Yes' then (lol)

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-04-19 6:08 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-19 4:31 PM

 

John52 - 2018-04-19 12:01 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-19 9:11 AM

 

John52 - 2018-04-19 9:01 AM

 

But then if you have understood it, why do you keep posting links to the Daily Mail as though its a reliable source?

 

Why are you ignoring the question Peter? ;-) ..........

 

Are you ashamed of how you get your money? :-S .........

 

Maybe you're a secret toff? >:-) .........

 

 

Brian Kirby was dead right when he said Desmond of the Daily Mail is playing you like a fiddle (lol)

If you have finally realised that, why don't you say so, instead of trying to change the subject :D

 

Oh I forgot he's another who's income your so interested in ;-) ........

 

Dontcha think folk who criticise other folks income should be open and honest about theirs too? >:-) .......

 

So how do you get by Peter? :D .........

 

Just askin? ;-) ...........

 

Is the "Morning Star" not paying you enough? (lol) ..........

 

 

I'll take your changing the subject as 'Yes' then (lol)

 

I'll take your ignoring the question as typical Loony lefty hypocrisy (lol) .........

 

 

[John52]

Tracker - 2018-04-19 9:50 AM

I have not spotted any conciliatory gestures or offers to get us to remain from the EU yet - has anyone?

Why would you expect to?

Did you think 27 other countries were going to change their principles to suit Boris Johnson *-)

With the amount of trouble Britain has caused to the EU I expect them to be rubbing their hands at the prospect of getting rid of their British problems. :-(

[John52]

malc d - 2018-04-18 5:54 PM

It does seem a shame to me that Theresa May is getting all the flak when it's David Cameron who screwed it all up. Theresa May has been handed the impossible job of sorting it all out.

 

( Where is Cameron by the way - is he in hiding ? )

 

;-)

 

Last I heard Cameron was cashing in on his inside knowlege like Bliar. Speeches, books, whatever.

But at least Cameron asked Parliament for permission before launching military action - he was refused so Theresa May didn't bother asking and just went ahead with it. A convenient distraction from the crisis in her own administration, like Thatcher & The Falklands.

I had a lot of respect for her when she started, but sadly she has failed every test of integrity since. Signed off Cameron's Crony list, sending another 40 croniesto the absurdly over-populated unelected House of Lords its now bigger than the whole of the EU Parliament for 27 countries.

Called an election she said she wouldn't.

Bribed the DUP to vote for her - with our money

Now tries to negotiate with 27 EU countries, so weakened she daren't sack the likes of Boris Johnson in case it costs her own job.

Just another self-serving politician. :-(

[Tracker]

John52 - 2018-04-20 6:58 AM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-19 9:50 AM

I have not spotted any conciliatory gestures or offers to get us to remain from the EU yet - has anyone?

Why would you expect to?

 

In the context of my reply to Barry from which you snipped that bit, that is the whole point, I don't expect the EU to change or reform itself, which is one very good reason for us to get out while we have the opportunity.

[Brian Kirby]

derek pringle - 2018-04-19 9:24 AM

 

Hi all,

I wonder what the response would be if we told the EU that we would stay IN providing MAJOR changes were made to the basic rules of membership. Cameron failed dismally but it is true to say that if he had succeeded, and I don't believe he tried very hard, then we would have remained with no referendum.Other countries within the EU would I believe welcome some major changes so we could succeed. On the other hand we could end up still paying a lot of money for the bits we want and just dropping from full members to sort of associate members.

cheers

derek

 

This will be a bit long, so my apologies, but it should lay to rest a number of myths for those concerned enough to read on. On immigration to the EU, here is what "Europa" has to say on migration from outside the EU:

 

IMMIGRATION RULES IN THE EU: WHO DOES WHAT?

 

The EU and its Member States share the competence in the area of immigration. There are certain common immigration rules valid across the EU, while other aspects are determined by each EU country. This means that immigration rules are not identical in different EU countries and national authorities are best placed to reply to your detailed questions. Residence permit applications must always be made to the authorities of the EU country you plan to move to. There is no European institution handling applications or issuing residence permits on behalf of individual countries.

 

What does the EU do - further information

 

Since 1999, the EU has been developing a common immigration policy for Europe.

 

EU countries have agreed that the EU should have common, or EU-wide, immigration and visa rules that will be valid all across the EU. These are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2009)

 

Common measures to date include:

• EU-wide rules that allow citizens of countries outside the EU to work or study in an EU country. They cover specifically individuals who are:

? Highly-qualified workers (hyperlink)

? Researchers

? Students

? Trainees, school pupils or volunteers

? Intra-corporate transferees

? Seasonal workers

 

• EU-wide rules that allow citizens of countries outside the EU who are staying legally in an EU country to bring their non-EU family members to live with them and to become long-term residents.

 

Exceptions to EU-wide rules

 

EU-wide immigration rules generally apply in 25 out of the EU’s 28 countries. The following exceptions apply:

 

Denmark does not apply EU-wide rules which relate to immigration, visa and asylum policies.

 

Ireland and the United Kingdom choose, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to adopt EU rules on immigration, visa and asylum policies.

 

For more information on migration policy in the EU, you can visit the Website of the Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission.

 

What do Member States do

 

Each EU country alone decides:

• The total number of migrants that can be admitted to the country to look for work;

• All final decisions on migrant applications;

• Rules on long-term visas – stays for periods longer than three months; and

• Conditions to obtain residence and work permits when no EU-wide rules have been adopted.

Select a country from this map to find up-to-date information on each of the 28 EU countries regarding their national institutional framework, i.e. the competent authorities for immigration, key legal texts, policy plans and statistical studies.

 

And here are the Current (as far as I am aware) "rules" on how free movement of people (this does not apply to migrants from outside the EU - unless they have been granted legal residency under the immigration rules) is supposed to operate:

 

European Commission upholds free movement of people

 

(see also IP/13/1151)

 

With over 14 million EU citizens resident in another Member State on a stable basis, free movement – or the ability to live, work and study anywhere in the Union – is the EU right most cherished by Europeans. The main motivation for EU citizens to make use of free movement is work-related, followed by family reasons. Of all the EU citizens residing in another EU country (‘mobile EU citizens’) in 2012, more than three quarters (78%) were of working age (15-64), compared to around 66% among nationals. On average the employment rate of mobile EU citizens (67.7%) was higher than among nationals (64.6%).

 

Mobile EU citizens not in employment (namely students, retired persons, jobseekers and inactive family members) represent only a limited share of the total number of mobile EU citizens. Moreover, 64% of them had worked previously in their current country of residence. 79 % are living in a household with at least one member in employment. The overall rate of inactivity among intra-EU mobile citizens declined between 2005 and 2012 from 34.1% to 30.7%.

 

Free movement of citizens, which is enshrined in the EU Treaties, is an integral component of the Single Market and a central element of its success: it stimulates economic growth by enabling people to travel and shop across borders. Equally, the free movement of workers benefits not only the workers involved but also the Member States' economies, allowing for an efficient matching of skills with vacancies in the EU labour market. Despite the economic crisis, today around 2 million vacancies remain unfilled in the EU.

 

The Communication on Free Movement adopted on 25 November by the European Commission underlines the joint responsibility of Member States and the EU institutions to uphold EU citizens' rights to live and work in another EU country and outlines concrete actions to support Member States efforts to do so while helping Member States to reap the positive benefits it brings. The policy paper clarifies EU citizens' rights to free movement and access to social benefits, and addresses the concerns raised by some Member States in relation to the challenges that mobility can represent for local authorities.

 

1. Legal framework on free movement

 

What is free movement of workers?

 

EU workers have benefitted from the freedom to work in another Member State since the 1960s: this right was enshrined in the EU Treaties already at the launch of the European project in 1957. This right is now laid down in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This includes the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality as regards access to employment, pay and other working conditions.

 

Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 details workers' rights to free movement and defines specific areas where discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited, in particular as regards: access to employment, working conditions, social and tax advantages, access to training, membership of trade unions, housing and access to education for children.

 

Tackling discrimination against workers from other Member States and raising awareness of EU nationals' right to work in other EU countries are the main objectives of the proposal for a Directive to facilitate free movement of workers put forward by the Commission at the end of April 2013 (see IP/13/372, MEMO/13/384 and SPEECH/13/373) and due to be adopted formally by the EU's Council of Ministers and the European Parliament in the coming weeks.

 

Labour mobility in the EU benefits not only the workers involved but also the Member States' economies. It benefits host countries because it allows companies to fill vacancies that would otherwise not be filled, and so produce goods and provide services that they would otherwise be unable to do. And it benefits citizens' countries of origin because it allows workers that would otherwise be less able to find jobs and so ensure financial support to their family back home and acquire skills and experience they would otherwise lack. When mobile workers subsequently return to their country of origin they benefit from this experience.

 

What is free movement of citizens?

 

20 years ago, with the Treaty of Maastricht, the right to free movement was recognised for all EU citizens, irrespective of whether they are economically active or not as one of the fundamental freedoms conferred on them by EU law (Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). It goes to the heart of Union Citizenship.

 

The specific rules and conditions applying to free movement and residence are set out in a Directive agreed by Member States in 2004 (Directive 2004/38/EC).

 

Freedom of movement is the most cherished right of EU citizenship: for 56% of European citizens, free movement is the most positive achievement of the European Union. Indeed, more and more Europeans benefit from this right and live in another EU Member State: at the end of 2012, 14.1 million citizens were living in a Member State other than their own for one year or more. In Eurobarometer surveys, more than two thirds of Europeans consider that free movement of people within the EU has economic benefits for their country (67%).

 

Who can benefit from free movement?

 

First three months: Every EU citizen has the right to reside on the territory of another EU country for up to three months without any conditions or formalities.

 

After the first three months: EU citizens' right to reside in another EU country for more than three months is subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host EU country:

 

•Workers and the self-employed, and their direct family members, have the right to reside without any conditions.

 

•Job seekers have the right to reside without any conditions for a period of six months and even longer, if they continue to seek employment in the host EU country and have a "genuine chance" of getting work. Job-seekers can export unemployment benefits from their home Member State for a minimum of three months while seeking work in another Member State, if they have first been registered as unemployed in their home Member State.

 

•Students and other economically non-active persons (e.g. unemployed, retired, etc.) have the right to reside for longer than three months if they have for themselves and their family sufficient financial means so as not to become a burden on the host EU country’s social assistance system as well as health insurance.

 

After five years: After five years of continuous legal residence, EU citizens and their family members obtain the right to reside on a permanent basis in the host EU country. Once acquired, this right is no longer subject to the conditions applicable in the previous five years.

 

2. Social assistance and benefits

 

Who is entitled to social assistance?

 

Social assistance is a "subsistence benefit" and typically consists of benefits paid to cover minimum living expenses or assistance paid for special circumstances in life.

 

EU citizens who reside legally in another EU country must be treated equally with nationals. Thanks to the principle of equal treatment, they are therefore generally entitled to benefits as well as social and tax advantages, including social assistance, in the same way as the host country's own nationals.

 

However, EU law provides for safeguards as regards access to social assistance for economically inactive mobile EU citizens, to protect host Member States from unreasonable financial burdens.

 

•First three months: The host EU country is not obliged by EU law to grant social assistance to economically non-active EU citizens during the first three months of residence.

 

•Between three months and five years: Economically non-active EU citizens are in practice unlikely to be eligible for social assistance benefits, since to acquire the right to reside they would have initially needed to show to the national authorities that they had sufficient resources (see above).

 

If they apply for a social assistance benefits, for example because their economic situation subsequently deteriorates, their request must be assessed in the light of their right to equal treatment. But also here, EU law provides for safeguards:

 

First, in specific cases, claiming social assistance can give rise to a reasonable doubt on the part of national authorities that the person may have become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system.

 

Furthermore, the Member State may make the grant of a social assistance or special non-contributory benefit (i.e. benefits that have elements of social security and social assistance at the same time and are covered by Regulation 883/2004) conditional on that citizen meeting the requirements for obtaining legal right of residence for a period of more than three months. However, the Member State cannot refuse to grant these benefits automatically to non-active EU citizens nor can they automatically be considered as not possessing sufficient resources and thus not having a right to reside.

 

National authorities should assess the individual situation, taking into account a range of factors (amount, duration, temporary nature of difficulty, overall extent of burden on national assistance system).

 

If, on the basis of such an individual assessment, authorities conclude that the persons concerned have become an unreasonable burden, they may terminate their right of residence.

 

After five years: EU citizens who have acquired the right of permanent residence are entitled to social assistance in the same way as nationals of the host EU country. No derogations are allowed under EU law.

 

Who is entitled to social security benefits?

 

Typical social security benefits include old age pension, survivor's pension, disability benefits, sickness benefits, birth grant, unemployment benefits, family benefits or health care.

 

Member States set their own social security rules in line with their own circumstances. The EU coordinates social security rules (Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and 987/2009) only to the extent necessary to ensure that EU citizens do not lose their social security rights when moving within the EU.

 

This means that the host country's laws determine which benefits are provided for, under which conditions they are granted (such as taking into account the period of work), for how long and how much is paid. Benefit entitlement varies therefore in different EU countries.

 

(Regulation 883/2004/EC) merely ensures that mobile EU citizens remain protected by social security coverage after they move, essentially by deciding which one of the relevant Member States is responsible for the social security coverage.

 

Workers — employed or self-employed —and their dependants are covered by the host country's social security system under the same conditions as own nationals - because they contribute, like all other national workers, through their contributions and taxes to the public funds from which the benefits are financed.

 

For mobile EU citizens who are not working in the host Member State, the rule of the state of employment cannot be applied as, by definition, there is no country in which such people are working. Under EU law on co-ordination of social security schemes, the Member State of residence becomes responsible for the social security coverage only once such citizens pass a strict habitual residence test, proving that they have a genuine link with the Member State in question. The strict criteria of this test ensure that citizens who are not working may only have access to social security in another Member State once they have genuinely moved their centre of interest to that State (for example their family is there).

 

3. Impact of mobile EU citizens on national social security systems

 

According to figures communicated by Member States and a study published in October 2013 by the European Commission in most EU countries, EU citizens from other Member States use welfare benefits no more intensively than the host country's nationals. Mobile EU citizens are more likely to receive housing and family related benefits in most countries studied.

 

In the specific case of cash benefits such as social pensions, disability allowances and non-contributory job-seekers allowances financed by general taxation rather than contributions by the individual concerned (so-called special non-contributory cash benefits - SNCBs), the study shows that economically non-active EU mobile citizens account for a very small share of beneficiaries and that the budgetary impact of such claims on national welfare budgets is very low. They represent less than 1% of all such beneficiaries (of EU nationality) in six countries studied (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Malta and Portugal) and between 1% and 5% in five other countries (Germany, Finland, France, The Netherlands and Sweden).

 

The study also found that:

 

•the vast majority of EU nationals moving to another EU country do so to work

 

•activity rates among such mobile EU citizens have increased over the last seven years

 

•on average EU mobile citizens are more likely to be in employment than nationals of the host country (partly because more EU mobile citizens than nationals fall in the 15-64 age bracket)

 

•non-active EU mobile citizens represent a very small share of the total population in each Member State and between 0.7% and 1.0% of the overall EU population.

 

•on average, the expenditures associated with healthcare provided to non-active EU mobile citizens are very small relative to the size of total health spending (0.2% on average) or the size of the economy of the host countries (0.01% of GDP on average).

 

•Mobile EU citizens account for a very small share of recipients of special non-contributory benefits, which are benefits combining features of social security and social assistance at the same time: less than 1 % of all beneficiaries (who are EU citizens) in six countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Malta and Portugal); between 1 % and 5 % in five other countries (Germany, Finland, France, the Netherlands and Sweden), and above 5 % in Belgium and Ireland (although figures for Ireland are estimates based on claims)

 

•There is no statistical relationship between the generosity of the welfare systems and the inflows of mobile EU citizens.

 

•Main characteristics of mobile EU citizens not in employment:

 

•64% of them have worked previously in their current country of residence

 

•71% of them are pensioners, students and jobseekers

 

79% of them live in a household with at least one member in employment

 

The latest study's results complement those of other studies that consistently show that workers from other Member States are net contributors to the public finances of the host country. EU workers from other Member States usually pay more into host country budgets in taxes and social security than they receive in benefits because they tend to be younger and more economically-active than host countries' own workforce. These studies include the OECD's International Migration Outlook 2013, the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration study on Assessing the Fiscal Costs and Benefits of A8 Migration to the UK and the recent study by the Centre for European Reform.

 

4. How to deal with potential abuse?

 

What tools are there under EU law to help Member States avoid abuse?

 

EU law includes strong safeguards to prevent abuse of the right to free movement.

 

EU rules on free movement of citizens allow Member States to take effective and necessary measures to fight against abuse, such as marriages of convenience, and fraud, such as document forgery, or other artificial conducts or deceptions solely made to acquire the right to free movement, by refusing or terminating rights conferred by Directive 2004/38 (Article 35). Such measures must be proportionate and are subject to the procedural safeguards laid down in the Directive.

 

National authorities may investigate individual cases where they have a well-founded suspicion of abuse and, if they conclude that there is indeed an instance of abuse, they may withdraw the person's right of residence and expel him/her from the territory.

 

In addition, after assessing all relevant circumstances and depending on the gravity of the offence (for instance, forgery of a document, marriage of convenience with involvement of organised crime), national authorities may also conclude that the person represents a genuine, continuous and sufficiently serious threat to public order and, on this basis, also issue an exclusion order in addition to expelling him/her - thus prohibiting his/her re-entry into the territory for a certain period of time.

 

What does the Commission propose to address concerns raised by Member States?

 

On 25 November the European Commission presented five concrete actions that require the cooperation of Member States to succeed. These are concrete examples of how the EU can help national and local authorities maximise the benefits of the free movement of EU citizens, tackle cases of abuse and fraud, address the challenges of social inclusion, and use available funds on the ground.

 

Fight marriages of convenience: The Commission will help national authorities implement EU rules which allow them to fight potential abuses of the right to free movement by preparing a Handbook on addressing marriages of convenience by spring 2014.

 

Apply EU social security coordination rules: The Commission has been working closely with the Member States to clarify the 'habitual residence test' used in the EU rules on social security coordination (Regulation 883/2004/EC) in a practical guide published on 13 January 2014 (IP/14/13). The strict criteria of this test ensure that citizens who are not working may only have access to social security in another Member State once they have genuinely moved their centre of interest to that State (for example their family is there).

 

Address social inclusion challenges: Help Member States further use the European Social Fund to tackle social inclusion: in the 2014-2020 programming period at least 20% of the ESF allocation in each Member State (compared to the current share of around 17%) must be spent on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty and any form of discrimination. In addition, the ESF will also be able to fund capacity building for all stakeholders at national, regional or local level. Policy guidance will be provided to Member States, of both origin and destination of mobile EU citizens, for developing social inclusion programmes with the support of the ESF. The Commission will keep up its efforts to help build the capacity of local authorities to use European structural and investment funds efficiently.

 

Promote the exchange of best practices amongst local authorities: The Commission will help local authorities to share best practices developed across Europe to implement free movement rules and address social inclusion challenges. The Commission will produce a study evaluating the impact of free movement in six major cities, to be presented at a meeting with mayors from around Europe on 11 February 2014. With this meeting the Commission wants to help mayors address challenges that they might be facing in their municipalities, allow them to exchange best practices and give guidance on how to apply for EU funding for social integration. The meeting will be hosted by the Committee of the Regions.

 

Ensure the application of EU free movement rules on the ground: The Commission will set up before the end of 2014 an online training module to help staff in local authorities fully understand and apply free movement rights of EU. The Commission has proposed that legal support and information bodies for mobile EU workers be set up in all the Member States (see IP/13/372). On 17 January 2014, the Commission is due to present a proposal to modernise EURES, the European network of employment services, to enhance the role and impact of employment services at national level, improve the coordination of labour mobility in the EU and develop EURES into a fully-fledged European placement and recruitment tool. Today 47% of EU citizens say that the problems they encounter when they go to live in another EU country are due to the fact that officials in local administrations are not sufficiently familiar with EU citizens’ free movement rights.

 

It should be noted that both the above were implemented through treaties that the UK government signed so, if what happens within the UK appears in conflict with these rules, it is for the UK government to use its delegated powers to correct that. If it choses not to do so, it is either because it is incompetent, or because it has decided of its own free will not to use to the maximum the powers it has.

[Barryd999]

Quoting the last bit rather than the entire thing, the government chooses itself not to give that much of a care to immigration but it will conveniently blame the EU. If anyone is still under the impression that immigration will ever be much different to what it is currently because of Brexit they are IMO Very much mistaken. Yet it was the primary reason people voted out. Take that away and what does Brexit leave us with? Not much really as we clamber to get back into the various agencies and parts of the EU membership we just voted to leave.

 

We cannot and never will be able to pull up the drawbridge because we depend too much on trade outside of our own country and with that comes people. Swap the EU Bloc for something else further afield if you like but the same rules will apply.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-20 3:16 PM

 

Quoting the last bit rather than the entire thing, the government chooses itself not to give that much of a care to immigration but it will conveniently blame the EU. If anyone is still under the impression that immigration will ever be much different to what it is currently because of Brexit they are IMO Very much mistaken. Yet it was the primary reason people voted out. Take that away and what does Brexit leave us with? Not much really as we clamber to get back into the various agencies and parts of the EU membership we just voted to leave.

 

We cannot and never will be able to pull up the drawbridge because we depend too much on trade outside of our own country and with that comes people. Swap the EU Bloc for something else further afield if you like but the same rules will apply.

FWIW, I think the most likely result of Brexit for immigration is that the emphasis will shift away from EU, toward non-EU, countries. That, I think, will result in more, rather than less, friction with the "native" population than at present, because those from the non-EU countries are likely to be culturally less convergent with UK culture than those from the EU.

 

There seem to be roughly three reasons driving immigration to the UK.

 

One is that migrants, especially young male migrants, come mainly for the money, do not generally intend settling, will tolerate student "digs" housing standards, and consequently cost less to employ than a native population that is looking for incomes adequate to set up permanent homes in UK. This obviously miffs the natives, whose income expectations price them out of the market - but they are not the employers, who are well suited.

 

Another is that government needs to import young labour to redress the economic strains of an ageing native population that is living longer. The ageing population means that the native working population is reduces, while the cost of pensions and welfare rises. Young migrants, with little intention of staying to pension age and beyond are, therefore, attractive - because they contribute to taxation while working, but are likely to have left before they become costly to service.

 

The third reason is that employing additional labour is a useful alternative to investment as a means of increasing output when demand rises, and is easily reversed if demand falls. Historically, this has been the Achilles heel of British manufacturing, because it results in low productivity. It's main cause seems to be the fluctuating value of Sterling, which causes export demand to fluctuate, so making productivity-boosting investment highly risky. If you lay off labour your costs fall, but once you've made the investment, the cost remains whatever the level of demand.

 

Plus, all three are a useful hedge against inflation.

 

The upshot is that government and employers are generally content, while the population in general is less so. Can't see that changing while we retain our market sensitive floating currency.

 

I didn't attempt to précis, or selectively quote, the above EU migration conditions, because both contain a number of pre-conditions and provisos, without which their meaning would be distorted.

[Tracker]

I can't speak for others but personally immigration was not the only issue involved.

 

Only one of immense naivity would imagine any government to get a proper handle on immigration control to prevent undesireables coming here in the first place and deny them entry if they try and remove them if they enter illegally or are convicted of any crime against citizens of the UK.

 

However I did hope that by limiting EU immigration, something we currently appear unable to do, it would be the start of proper immigration control.

 

The UK, like the USA, Australia and others is a very desirable place to live and it is high time we allowed in and to stay only those who are able to integrate as law abiding reisidents.

 

In my view the EEC was of it's era and was good for the UK as well as the other nations in that era but as it evolves from the EU towards a USE (United States of Europe) I feel, rightly or wrongly, that I do not want to be European first and British second.

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-04-20 5:25 PM.........................However I did hope that by limiting EU immigration, something we currently appear unable to do, it would be the start of proper immigration control..............................

But Rich, what my (admittedly tediously long) quotations from the EU rules on free movement and immigration show, is that the UK is free to limit immigration. The conditions under which it may do so are reasonably clear, appear fair and reasonable, and are no more than we would probably apply to would-be migrants from any source.

 

It seems to me that our government has failed to use the powers it agreed to in those two treaties effectively to manage EU migration to the UK to the proper advantage of our native population.

 

So far as I can see, all the clauses that say EU citizens have rights of entry to other states, attach conditions that reasonably restrict the extent and manner in which those rights can be invoked.

[Barryd999]

Well it looks like the Brexiteers are backing down on the Customs Union although they have no choice.

 

http://www.cityam.com/284403/exclusive-brexiters-making-their-peace-temporary-customs

 

What next? The Single Market?

 

It just re-enforces what I have been saying all along. We simply were not prepared or in a position to leave. The way it is going we will be forced to leave in name only so whats the point?

 

 

[derek pringle]

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-20 6:51 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-20 5:25 PM.........................However I did hope that by limiting EU immigration, something we currently appear unable to do, it would be the start of proper immigration control..............................

But Rich, what my (admittedly tediously long) quotations from the EU rules on free movement and immigration show, is that the UK is free to limit immigration. The conditions under which it may do so are reasonably clear, appear fair and reasonable, and are no more than we would probably apply to would-be migrants from any source.

 

It seems to me that our government has failed to use the powers it agreed to in those two treaties effectively to manage EU migration to the UK to the proper advantage of our native population.

 

So far as I can see, all the clauses that say EU citizens have rights of entry to other states, attach conditions that reasonably restrict the extent and manner in which those rights can be invoked.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the detailed info earlier. I agree with Tracker that immigration was not the only reason, I believe the pressure brought about by immigration on housing and the Benefits system were also major factors in the 'Leave' decision. As far as I am aware if a EU citizen arrives in your country they are entitled to any benefits that your native citizens get,provided they meet any qualifying requirements to achieve any benefit. We did/do not have many requirements so this means immigrants to this country become immediately qualified for many benefits. I believe this is one main reason why immigrants travel the extra distance to get to the UK instead of staying in countries nearer their homeland. Better benefits are paid in some other EU countries but would not be achievable to immigrants as easy as the UK.If the EU had a common benefits agreement aligned with each other then the playing field would be more level.

So, obviously, the less we give our own the less we have to give others, I do not think the problem is quite as sharp in some other EU states as their qualifications for achieving benefits alleviate much of the pressure.

cheers

derek

[Barryd999]

derek pringle - 2018-04-21 9:44 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-20 6:51 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-20 5:25 PM.........................However I did hope that by limiting EU immigration, something we currently appear unable to do, it would be the start of proper immigration control..............................

But Rich, what my (admittedly tediously long) quotations from the EU rules on free movement and immigration show, is that the UK is free to limit immigration. The conditions under which it may do so are reasonably clear, appear fair and reasonable, and are no more than we would probably apply to would-be migrants from any source.

 

It seems to me that our government has failed to use the powers it agreed to in those two treaties effectively to manage EU migration to the UK to the proper advantage of our native population.

 

So far as I can see, all the clauses that say EU citizens have rights of entry to other states, attach conditions that reasonably restrict the extent and manner in which those rights can be invoked.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the detailed info earlier. I agree with Tracker that immigration was not the only reason, I believe the pressure brought about by immigration on housing and the Benefits system were also major factors in the 'Leave' decision. As far as I am aware if a EU citizen arrives in your country they are entitled to any benefits that your native citizens get,provided they meet any qualifying requirements to achieve any benefit. We did/do not have many requirements so this means immigrants to this country become immediately qualified for many benefits. I believe this is one main reason why immigrants travel the extra distance to get to the UK instead of staying in countries nearer their homeland. Better benefits are paid in some other EU countries but would not be achievable to immigrants as easy as the UK.If the EU had a common benefits agreement aligned with each other then the playing field would be more level.

So, obviously, the less we give our own the less we have to give others, I do not think the problem is quite as sharp in some other EU states as their qualifications for achieving benefits alleviate much of the pressure.

cheers

derek

 

They cant just come here and start claiming benefits. They can after three months but only if they qualify and are actively looking for work and then I think its only for a maximum of six months. The UK is in the bottom four for generosity of benefits in Europe.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-20 1:01 PM

 

This will be a bit long, so my apologies, but it should lay to rest a number of myths for those concerned enough to read on. On immigration to the EU, here is what "Europa" has to say on migration from outside the EU:

 

IMMIGRATION RULES IN THE EU: WHO DOES WHAT?

 

The EU and its Member States share the competence in the area of immigration. There are certain common immigration rules valid across the EU, while other aspects are determined by each EU country. This means that immigration rules are not identical in different EU countries and national authorities are best placed to reply to your detailed questions. Residence permit applications must always be made to the authorities of the EU country you plan to move to. There is no European institution handling applications or issuing residence permits on behalf of individual countries.

 

What does the EU do - further information

 

Since 1999, the EU has been developing a common immigration policy for Europe.

 

EU countries have agreed that the EU should have common, or EU-wide, immigration and visa rules that will be valid all across the EU. These are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2009)

 

Common measures to date include:

• EU-wide rules that allow citizens of countries outside the EU to work or study in an EU country. They cover specifically individuals who are:

? Highly-qualified workers (hyperlink)

? Researchers

? Students

? Trainees, school pupils or volunteers

? Intra-corporate transferees

? Seasonal workers

 

• EU-wide rules that allow citizens of countries outside the EU who are staying legally in an EU country to bring their non-EU family members to live with them and to become long-term residents.

 

Exceptions to EU-wide rules

 

EU-wide immigration rules generally apply in 25 out of the EU’s 28 countries. The following exceptions apply:

 

Denmark does not apply EU-wide rules which relate to immigration, visa and asylum policies.

 

Ireland and the United Kingdom choose, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to adopt EU rules on immigration, visa and asylum policies.

 

For more information on migration policy in the EU, you can visit the Website of the Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission.

 

What do Member States do

 

Each EU country alone decides:

• The total number of migrants that can be admitted to the country to look for work;

• All final decisions on migrant applications;

• Rules on long-term visas – stays for periods longer than three months; and

• Conditions to obtain residence and work permits when no EU-wide rules have been adopted.

Select a country from this map to find up-to-date information on each of the 28 EU countries regarding their national institutional framework, i.e. the competent authorities for immigration, key legal texts, policy plans and statistical studies.

 

And here are the Current (as far as I am aware) "rules" on how free movement of people (this does not apply to migrants from outside the EU - unless they have been granted legal residency under the immigration rules) is supposed to operate:

 

European Commission upholds free movement of people

 

(see also IP/13/1151)

 

With over 14 million EU citizens resident in another Member State on a stable basis, free movement – or the ability to live, work and study anywhere in the Union – is the EU right most cherished by Europeans. The main motivation for EU citizens to make use of free movement is work-related, followed by family reasons. Of all the EU citizens residing in another EU country (‘mobile EU citizens’) in 2012, more than three quarters (78%) were of working age (15-64), compared to around 66% among nationals. On average the employment rate of mobile EU citizens (67.7%) was higher than among nationals (64.6%).

 

Mobile EU citizens not in employment (namely students, retired persons, jobseekers and inactive family members) represent only a limited share of the total number of mobile EU citizens. Moreover, 64% of them had worked previously in their current country of residence. 79 % are living in a household with at least one member in employment. The overall rate of inactivity among intra-EU mobile citizens declined between 2005 and 2012 from 34.1% to 30.7%.

 

Free movement of citizens, which is enshrined in the EU Treaties, is an integral component of the Single Market and a central element of its success: it stimulates economic growth by enabling people to travel and shop across borders. Equally, the free movement of workers benefits not only the workers involved but also the Member States' economies, allowing for an efficient matching of skills with vacancies in the EU labour market. Despite the economic crisis, today around 2 million vacancies remain unfilled in the EU.

 

The Communication on Free Movement adopted on 25 November by the European Commission underlines the joint responsibility of Member States and the EU institutions to uphold EU citizens' rights to live and work in another EU country and outlines concrete actions to support Member States efforts to do so while helping Member States to reap the positive benefits it brings. The policy paper clarifies EU citizens' rights to free movement and access to social benefits, and addresses the concerns raised by some Member States in relation to the challenges that mobility can represent for local authorities.

 

1. Legal framework on free movement

 

What is free movement of workers?

 

EU workers have benefitted from the freedom to work in another Member State since the 1960s: this right was enshrined in the EU Treaties already at the launch of the European project in 1957. This right is now laid down in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This includes the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality as regards access to employment, pay and other working conditions.

 

Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 details workers' rights to free movement and defines specific areas where discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited, in particular as regards: access to employment, working conditions, social and tax advantages, access to training, membership of trade unions, housing and access to education for children.

 

Tackling discrimination against workers from other Member States and raising awareness of EU nationals' right to work in other EU countries are the main objectives of the proposal for a Directive to facilitate free movement of workers put forward by the Commission at the end of April 2013 (see IP/13/372, MEMO/13/384 and SPEECH/13/373) and due to be adopted formally by the EU's Council of Ministers and the European Parliament in the coming weeks.

 

Labour mobility in the EU benefits not only the workers involved but also the Member States' economies. It benefits host countries because it allows companies to fill vacancies that would otherwise not be filled, and so produce goods and provide services that they would otherwise be unable to do. And it benefits citizens' countries of origin because it allows workers that would otherwise be less able to find jobs and so ensure financial support to their family back home and acquire skills and experience they would otherwise lack. When mobile workers subsequently return to their country of origin they benefit from this experience.

 

What is free movement of citizens?

 

20 years ago, with the Treaty of Maastricht, the right to free movement was recognised for all EU citizens, irrespective of whether they are economically active or not as one of the fundamental freedoms conferred on them by EU law (Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). It goes to the heart of Union Citizenship.

 

The specific rules and conditions applying to free movement and residence are set out in a Directive agreed by Member States in 2004 (Directive 2004/38/EC).

 

Freedom of movement is the most cherished right of EU citizenship: for 56% of European citizens, free movement is the most positive achievement of the European Union. Indeed, more and more Europeans benefit from this right and live in another EU Member State: at the end of 2012, 14.1 million citizens were living in a Member State other than their own for one year or more. In Eurobarometer surveys, more than two thirds of Europeans consider that free movement of people within the EU has economic benefits for their country (67%).

 

Who can benefit from free movement?

 

First three months: Every EU citizen has the right to reside on the territory of another EU country for up to three months without any conditions or formalities.

 

After the first three months: EU citizens' right to reside in another EU country for more than three months is subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host EU country:

 

•Workers and the self-employed, and their direct family members, have the right to reside without any conditions.

 

•Job seekers have the right to reside without any conditions for a period of six months and even longer, if they continue to seek employment in the host EU country and have a "genuine chance" of getting work. Job-seekers can export unemployment benefits from their home Member State for a minimum of three months while seeking work in another Member State, if they have first been registered as unemployed in their home Member State.

 

•Students and other economically non-active persons (e.g. unemployed, retired, etc.) have the right to reside for longer than three months if they have for themselves and their family sufficient financial means so as not to become a burden on the host EU country’s social assistance system as well as health insurance.

 

After five years: After five years of continuous legal residence, EU citizens and their family members obtain the right to reside on a permanent basis in the host EU country. Once acquired, this right is no longer subject to the conditions applicable in the previous five years.

 

2. Social assistance and benefits

 

Who is entitled to social assistance?

 

Social assistance is a "subsistence benefit" and typically consists of benefits paid to cover minimum living expenses or assistance paid for special circumstances in life.

 

EU citizens who reside legally in another EU country must be treated equally with nationals. Thanks to the principle of equal treatment, they are therefore generally entitled to benefits as well as social and tax advantages, including social assistance, in the same way as the host country's own nationals.

 

However, EU law provides for safeguards as regards access to social assistance for economically inactive mobile EU citizens, to protect host Member States from unreasonable financial burdens.

 

•First three months: The host EU country is not obliged by EU law to grant social assistance to economically non-active EU citizens during the first three months of residence.

 

•Between three months and five years: Economically non-active EU citizens are in practice unlikely to be eligible for social assistance benefits, since to acquire the right to reside they would have initially needed to show to the national authorities that they had sufficient resources (see above).

 

If they apply for a social assistance benefits, for example because their economic situation subsequently deteriorates, their request must be assessed in the light of their right to equal treatment. But also here, EU law provides for safeguards:

 

First, in specific cases, claiming social assistance can give rise to a reasonable doubt on the part of national authorities that the person may have become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system.

 

Furthermore, the Member State may make the grant of a social assistance or special non-contributory benefit (i.e. benefits that have elements of social security and social assistance at the same time and are covered by Regulation 883/2004) conditional on that citizen meeting the requirements for obtaining legal right of residence for a period of more than three months. However, the Member State cannot refuse to grant these benefits automatically to non-active EU citizens nor can they automatically be considered as not possessing sufficient resources and thus not having a right to reside.

 

National authorities should assess the individual situation, taking into account a range of factors (amount, duration, temporary nature of difficulty, overall extent of burden on national assistance system).

 

If, on the basis of such an individual assessment, authorities conclude that the persons concerned have become an unreasonable burden, they may terminate their right of residence.

 

After five years: EU citizens who have acquired the right of permanent residence are entitled to social assistance in the same way as nationals of the host EU country. No derogations are allowed under EU law.

 

Who is entitled to social security benefits?

 

Typical social security benefits include old age pension, survivor's pension, disability benefits, sickness benefits, birth grant, unemployment benefits, family benefits or health care.

 

Member States set their own social security rules in line with their own circumstances. The EU coordinates social security rules (Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and 987/2009) only to the extent necessary to ensure that EU citizens do not lose their social security rights when moving within the EU.

 

This means that the host country's laws determine which benefits are provided for, under which conditions they are granted (such as taking into account the period of work), for how long and how much is paid. Benefit entitlement varies therefore in different EU countries.

 

(Regulation 883/2004/EC) merely ensures that mobile EU citizens remain protected by social security coverage after they move, essentially by deciding which one of the relevant Member States is responsible for the social security coverage.

 

Workers — employed or self-employed —and their dependants are covered by the host country's social security system under the same conditions as own nationals - because they contribute, like all other national workers, through their contributions and taxes to the public funds from which the benefits are financed.

 

For mobile EU citizens who are not working in the host Member State, the rule of the state of employment cannot be applied as, by definition, there is no country in which such people are working. Under EU law on co-ordination of social security schemes, the Member State of residence becomes responsible for the social security coverage only once such citizens pass a strict habitual residence test, proving that they have a genuine link with the Member State in question. The strict criteria of this test ensure that citizens who are not working may only have access to social security in another Member State once they have genuinely moved their centre of interest to that State (for example their family is there).

 

3. Impact of mobile EU citizens on national social security systems

 

According to figures communicated by Member States and a study published in October 2013 by the European Commission in most EU countries, EU citizens from other Member States use welfare benefits no more intensively than the host country's nationals. Mobile EU citizens are more likely to receive housing and family related benefits in most countries studied.

 

In the specific case of cash benefits such as social pensions, disability allowances and non-contributory job-seekers allowances financed by general taxation rather than contributions by the individual concerned (so-called special non-contributory cash benefits - SNCBs), the study shows that economically non-active EU mobile citizens account for a very small share of beneficiaries and that the budgetary impact of such claims on national welfare budgets is very low. They represent less than 1% of all such beneficiaries (of EU nationality) in six countries studied (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Malta and Portugal) and between 1% and 5% in five other countries (Germany, Finland, France, The Netherlands and Sweden).

 

The study also found that:

 

•the vast majority of EU nationals moving to another EU country do so to work

 

•activity rates among such mobile EU citizens have increased over the last seven years

 

•on average EU mobile citizens are more likely to be in employment than nationals of the host country (partly because more EU mobile citizens than nationals fall in the 15-64 age bracket)

 

•non-active EU mobile citizens represent a very small share of the total population in each Member State and between 0.7% and 1.0% of the overall EU population.

 

•on average, the expenditures associated with healthcare provided to non-active EU mobile citizens are very small relative to the size of total health spending (0.2% on average) or the size of the economy of the host countries (0.01% of GDP on average).

 

•Mobile EU citizens account for a very small share of recipients of special non-contributory benefits, which are benefits combining features of social security and social assistance at the same time: less than 1 % of all beneficiaries (who are EU citizens) in six countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Malta and Portugal); between 1 % and 5 % in five other countries (Germany, Finland, France, the Netherlands and Sweden), and above 5 % in Belgium and Ireland (although figures for Ireland are estimates based on claims)

 

•There is no statistical relationship between the generosity of the welfare systems and the inflows of mobile EU citizens.

 

•Main characteristics of mobile EU citizens not in employment:

 

•64% of them have worked previously in their current country of residence

 

•71% of them are pensioners, students and jobseekers

 

79% of them live in a household with at least one member in employment

 

The latest study's results complement those of other studies that consistently show that workers from other Member States are net contributors to the public finances of the host country. EU workers from other Member States usually pay more into host country budgets in taxes and social security than they receive in benefits because they tend to be younger and more economically-active than host countries' own workforce. These studies include the OECD's International Migration Outlook 2013, the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration study on Assessing the Fiscal Costs and Benefits of A8 Migration to the UK and the recent study by the Centre for European Reform.

 

4. How to deal with potential abuse?

 

What tools are there under EU law to help Member States avoid abuse?

 

EU law includes strong safeguards to prevent abuse of the right to free movement.

 

EU rules on free movement of citizens allow Member States to take effective and necessary measures to fight against abuse, such as marriages of convenience, and fraud, such as document forgery, or other artificial conducts or deceptions solely made to acquire the right to free movement, by refusing or terminating rights conferred by Directive 2004/38 (Article 35). Such measures must be proportionate and are subject to the procedural safeguards laid down in the Directive.

 

National authorities may investigate individual cases where they have a well-founded suspicion of abuse and, if they conclude that there is indeed an instance of abuse, they may withdraw the person's right of residence and expel him/her from the territory.

 

In addition, after assessing all relevant circumstances and depending on the gravity of the offence (for instance, forgery of a document, marriage of convenience with involvement of organised crime), national authorities may also conclude that the person represents a genuine, continuous and sufficiently serious threat to public order and, on this basis, also issue an exclusion order in addition to expelling him/her - thus prohibiting his/her re-entry into the territory for a certain period of time.

 

What does the Commission propose to address concerns raised by Member States?

 

On 25 November the European Commission presented five concrete actions that require the cooperation of Member States to succeed. These are concrete examples of how the EU can help national and local authorities maximise the benefits of the free movement of EU citizens, tackle cases of abuse and fraud, address the challenges of social inclusion, and use available funds on the ground.

 

Fight marriages of convenience: The Commission will help national authorities implement EU rules which allow them to fight potential abuses of the right to free movement by preparing a Handbook on addressing marriages of convenience by spring 2014.

 

Apply EU social security coordination rules: The Commission has been working closely with the Member States to clarify the 'habitual residence test' used in the EU rules on social security coordination (Regulation 883/2004/EC) in a practical guide published on 13 January 2014 (IP/14/13). The strict criteria of this test ensure that citizens who are not working may only have access to social security in another Member State once they have genuinely moved their centre of interest to that State (for example their family is there).

 

Address social inclusion challenges: Help Member States further use the European Social Fund to tackle social inclusion: in the 2014-2020 programming period at least 20% of the ESF allocation in each Member State (compared to the current share of around 17%) must be spent on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty and any form of discrimination. In addition, the ESF will also be able to fund capacity building for all stakeholders at national, regional or local level. Policy guidance will be provided to Member States, of both origin and destination of mobile EU citizens, for developing social inclusion programmes with the support of the ESF. The Commission will keep up its efforts to help build the capacity of local authorities to use European structural and investment funds efficiently.

 

Promote the exchange of best practices amongst local authorities: The Commission will help local authorities to share best practices developed across Europe to implement free movement rules and address social inclusion challenges. The Commission will produce a study evaluating the impact of free movement in six major cities, to be presented at a meeting with mayors from around Europe on 11 February 2014. With this meeting the Commission wants to help mayors address challenges that they might be facing in their municipalities, allow them to exchange best practices and give guidance on how to apply for EU funding for social integration. The meeting will be hosted by the Committee of the Regions.

 

Ensure the application of EU free movement rules on the ground: The Commission will set up before the end of 2014 an online training module to help staff in local authorities fully understand and apply free movement rights of EU. The Commission has proposed that legal support and information bodies for mobile EU workers be set up in all the Member States (see IP/13/372). On 17 January 2014, the Commission is due to present a proposal to modernise EURES, the European network of employment services, to enhance the role and impact of employment services at national level, improve the coordination of labour mobility in the EU and develop EURES into a fully-fledged European placement and recruitment tool. Today 47% of EU citizens say that the problems they encounter when they go to live in another EU country are due to the fact that officials in local administrations are not sufficiently familiar with EU citizens’ free movement rights.

 

It should be noted that both the above were implemented through treaties that the UK government signed so, if what happens within the UK appears in conflict with these rules, it is for the UK government to use its delegated powers to correct that. If it choses not to do so, it is either because it is incompetent, or because it has decided of its own free will not to use to the maximum the powers it has.

 

You forgot about the fact that criminals don't follow the rules ;-) ...........

 

Which is why we have a lot of EU criminals in our country and in our prisons *-) ..........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 10:25 AM

 

They cant just come here and start claiming benefits. They can after three months but only if they qualify and are actively looking for work and then I think its only for a maximum of six months. The UK is in the bottom four for generosity of benefits in Europe.

 

Oh we're in the bottom four? *-) ..........

 

I suspect we're number one when it comes to who can access >:-( ..........

 

Unless you're a white Brit of course >:-) .........

 

 

 

 

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2018-04-21 1:08 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 10:25 AM

 

They cant just come here and start claiming benefits. They can after three months but only if they qualify and are actively looking for work and then I think its only for a maximum of six months. The UK is in the bottom four for generosity of benefits in Europe.

 

Oh we're in the bottom four? *-) ..........

 

I suspect we're number one when it comes to who can access >:-( ..........

 

Unless you're a white Brit of course >:-) .........

 

 

 

 

You need to stop reading the Mail Dave. Its brainwashed you. Its just not that easy coming here for a freebee anymore. The rules were tightened up some time ago. If your not happy about them, blame the Government not the EU. Oh I forgot. Its the Mail again isnt it? (lol)

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 1:14 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-21 1:08 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 10:25 AM

 

They cant just come here and start claiming benefits. They can after three months but only if they qualify and are actively looking for work and then I think its only for a maximum of six months. The UK is in the bottom four for generosity of benefits in Europe.

 

Oh we're in the bottom four? *-) ..........

 

I suspect we're number one when it comes to who can access >:-( ..........

 

Unless you're a white Brit of course >:-) .........

 

 

 

 

You need to stop reading the Mail Dave. Its brainwashed you. Its just not that easy coming here for a freebee anymore. The rules were tightened up some time ago. If your not happy about them, blame the Government not the EU. Oh I forgot. Its the Mail again isnt it? (lol)

 

So those folk I highlighted didn't find accessing UK benefits easy???? 8-) ...........

 

Fer crying out loud Barry they made a fortune by bringing in fellow EU citizens they found piss*d in an alley in Slovakia and the like FFS *-) .........

 

When are you gullible folk in your nice little bits of Britain going to wake up? :-S ..........

 

Coz when they're moving in next door......... believe me it's toooo late :-| .........

 

Ask the ex residents of Paige Hall in Sheffield ........Or the East End of London ;-) .......

 

 

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2018-04-21 1:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 1:14 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-21 1:08 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 10:25 AM

 

They cant just come here and start claiming benefits. They can after three months but only if they qualify and are actively looking for work and then I think its only for a maximum of six months. The UK is in the bottom four for generosity of benefits in Europe.

 

Oh we're in the bottom four? *-) ..........

 

I suspect we're number one when it comes to who can access >:-( ..........

 

Unless you're a white Brit of course >:-) .........

 

 

 

 

You need to stop reading the Mail Dave. Its brainwashed you. Its just not that easy coming here for a freebee anymore. The rules were tightened up some time ago. If your not happy about them, blame the Government not the EU. Oh I forgot. Its the Mail again isnt it? (lol)

 

So those folk I highlighted didn't find accessing UK benefits easy???? 8-) ...........

 

Fer crying out loud Barry they made a fortune by bringing in fellow EU citizens they found piss*d in an alley in Slovakia and the like FFS *-) .........

 

When are you gullible folk in your nice little bits of Britain going to wake up? :-S ..........

 

Coz when they're moving in next door......... believe me it's toooo late :-| .........

 

Ask the ex residents of Paige Hall in Sheffield ........Or the East End of London ;-) .......

 

 

And like I said, its up to our Government to stop people like that entering the UK and if they are committing crimes, lock em up or chuck em out. How is it the fault of the EU? Ending free movement because of that is like saying because one wild camper emptied his thetord in the sand dunes all wild camping is banned across the entire country. Why do you think this sort of thing will end if we end free movement because it wont.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 3:18 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-21 1:35 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 1:14 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-21 1:08 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-21 10:25 AM

 

They cant just come here and start claiming benefits. They can after three months but only if they qualify and are actively looking for work and then I think its only for a maximum of six months. The UK is in the bottom four for generosity of benefits in Europe.

 

Oh we're in the bottom four? *-) ..........

 

I suspect we're number one when it comes to who can access >:-( ..........

 

Unless you're a white Brit of course >:-) .........

 

 

 

 

You need to stop reading the Mail Dave. Its brainwashed you. Its just not that easy coming here for a freebee anymore. The rules were tightened up some time ago. If your not happy about them, blame the Government not the EU. Oh I forgot. Its the Mail again isnt it? (lol)

 

So those folk I highlighted didn't find accessing UK benefits easy???? 8-) ...........

 

Fer crying out loud Barry they made a fortune by bringing in fellow EU citizens they found piss*d in an alley in Slovakia and the like FFS *-) .........

 

When are you gullible folk in your nice little bits of Britain going to wake up? :-S ..........

 

Coz when they're moving in next door......... believe me it's toooo late :-| .........

 

Ask the ex residents of Paige Hall in Sheffield ........Or the East End of London ;-) .......

 

 

And like I said, its up to our Government to stop people like that entering the UK and if they are committing crimes, lock em up or chuck em out. How is it the fault of the EU? Ending free movement because of that is like saying because one wild camper emptied his thetord in the sand dunes all wild camping is banned across the entire country. Why do you think this sort of thing will end if we end free movement because it wont.

 

 

Its about removing the incentive Barry *-) .........

 

I wonder how many kids in the EU are currently receive UK child benefit at twice the rate the locals do? :-| ........

 

"In brief: The EU deal would allow cross-border child benefit claims to continue. Allowing countries to stop paying child benefit to parents whose children live in another EU country would conflict with the law on free movement of workers. The deal does allow for payments to be linked to the cost of living in the country the money goes to. This poses some subtler legal problems."

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-exporting-child-benefit/

 

And you wonder why they come here???? *-) ........