Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[wc98]

loafer123 said:

I think its is fair enough for us to contribute where we get things back, so the Erasmus programme, pan-European security, standards setting where we are happy to go with the CE route and so on.

It isn't a tariff by the back door. If it were, they owe us for the net deficit of goods and we would pay for passporting.

i generally agree though the erasmus programme nmay not be the best example .it appears to have two purposes , the second appears to look very much like a common purpose training manual for my taste.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Mrr T said:

230TE said:

andymadmak said:

FMOP

I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).

As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.

Please avoid sensible posts on freedom of movement it upsets many of the leave team.

As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.

The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.

The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).

I'm surprised you didn't add a forth point and say we can kick out people after 6 months if they don't have a job. It would have complimented quite nicely the rest of the rule book posting that doesn't translate into reality.

I did not add it because it not a rule. The rule is once you fall outside the above rights you have no rights to free movements.

So which bit of the rule book does not translate into reality?

(a) and (b) are concepts open to much abuse. If we cannot then do the hypothetical (d), what redress is there?

None.

If people have a job to come to, fair enough. Coming here to seek work not so much.

[Deptford Draylons]

Mrr T said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Mrr T said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Mrr T said:

230TE said:

andymadmak said:

FMOP

I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).

As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.

Please avoid sensible posts on freedom of movement it upsets many of the leave team.

As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.

The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.

The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).

I'm surprised you didn't add a forth point and say we can kick out people after 6 months if they don't have a job. It would have complimented quite nicely the rest of the rule book posting that doesn't translate into reality.

I did not add it because it not a rule. The rule is once you fall outside the above rights you have no rights to free movements.

So which bit of the rule book does not translate into reality?

You turn up with your EU passport, you get in because no one turns you away, no one kicks you out.

You do not really get reality do you.

No one needs to kick you out. Since an EU immigrant has very limited access to benefits they either properly exercise the freedom or you have no money and you have to leave.

It’s the market solution, low cost and efficient.

I don't rely on rule book posting, no. There is little to no difference between FMOL and FMOP when there is nothing to distinguish between the two when coming to the UK. To back it up the other day you actually posted the point about being able to remove people after 6 months and some kinda last safety net. The reality being no one ever is subject to this or could ever be because its near impossible to enforce and you would probably be upset if any number of people ever were subject to it. Claiming to seek work is another such rule that's near meaningless and open to abuse.

Seems to me that a majority of people ( not just the leave/remain voter split ) want to see numbers come down and that actually means some enforcement and checks of some kind and no longer an open door. You seem to be arguing that as long as they are all employed who cares, which is different and could see numbers continue to rise. The Government has to find a way to reduce numbers which this arguing about differences in FMOL and FMOP doesn't achieve.

[230TE]

Mrr T said:

Please avoid sensible posts on freedom of movement it upsets many of the leave team.

As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.

The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.

The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).

A couple of problems with that. Firstly, almost anyone between the ages of 16 and 65 can plausibly claim to be "seeking work". I'd be much happier if FM was limited to people who actually have a job offer in their hand before they turn up here. Secondly, the EU treaty I was looking at (Lisbon I think, although rather unhelpfully the EU doesn't give its treaties the names that everyone else uses to describe them, this one was "Treaty for various things to do with the functioning of the EU" or something like that) quite explicitly links social security entitlement to FMOW, stating that migrant "workers" should not be treated less favourably than locals when it comes to Govt handouts.

Hence paying JSA to newly arrived migrants who have never worked here. And the treaty clause, I suspect, is why our own Govt's talk of deporting workless EU migrants or refusing them benefits is just hot air. In practice, the last thing they want is for someone to bring a case via the ECJ and end up with a ruling that we have to pay all EU migrants the same benefits as UK nationals including housing benefit, income support, disability etc from day 1. Safer to let sleeping dogs lie.

None of this would be a problem, were it not for the fact that EU enlargement has brought in some countries where average wages are perilously close to average benefit payments in this country. FMOW was never intended to operate in that environment, otherwise I suspect it would have been rather more tightly worded.

[Fastdruid]

wc98 said:

paulrockliffe said:

The only problem with that is that bit about Fiscal transfers. Without everyone considering themselves European rather than German etc there's no chance of that happening. Do the Germans even acknowledge that there's already a fiscal transfer the other way via the shared currency and it's trading value?

Everything else becomes academic long-term while that bit is unresolved. I wonder if they could have virtual floating Euros within the Eurozone somehow, with Fiscal transfers justified as a mechanism to balance the different values of the Euro? I suppose even if that was workable, it wouldn't address the part of the problem that is culture driving economics, though it might be a step in the right direction.

It's an interesting debate about payment for access to the Single Market. What's the justification for payment, beyond the fact that we already pay to be in the EU? Surely the argument to be made is that there should be payments both ways and proportional to the flow of trade?

Fundamentally, isn't paying to access a market the very opposite of 'free' trade though? Just because the cost isn't loaded onto the goods you buy, but paid out of general taxation, doesn't make the cost go away. Obviously there are mechanisms and running costs to pay for, but I can't see that that costs the billions of pounds that are quoted. Especially when you scale those billions up by all the other countries that pay for the single market.

How daft would it sound if we were trying to negotiate trade deals but insisting that those countries pay a percentage of our overall civil service budget and then establishing a trade surplus with those countries anyway. Yet that's roughly what's being proposed.

looking at the eurozone there is only two ways it can go now, imo of course. complete integration with all that entails including fiscal transfers, or complete collapse. now if it is the former that should, imo again, make it far easier to overcome the issues with trade between the uk and the eurozone .i completely agree with your views on free trade. personally i would like to see trade both ways completely tariff free along with no payments either way for accessing markets. possibly pie in the sky but i do believe in free trade and free market capitalism .the problem is neither of those exist in reality anywhere in the world today.

i think the germans are more than aware of just how much the current situation benefits them, i have a hard time believing they think the situation will continue for ever though. i read something along the lines of 60% of ecb money printed in recent times ends up in german banks . sooner or later the disparity of benefits of eu/eurozone membership is going to cause some serious unrest if not addressed. that may be the route the eu think will achieve their aims in the shortest possible time though i have a funny feeling that it might not go quite the way they thought it would.

+1

I'm not sure how much the "normal" Germans realise how much the current situation benefits them at the cost of all of southern Europe.
I totally agree that they need to either go full union or break up, the current situation is not sustainable (20 years of no growth in Italy for example) and we're already seeing now that Greece is being offered an ultimatum, "structural reforms" (more austerity) or leave the Euro[1].

The issue really is that it will cost Germany a *lot* more to properly pay their way and that is IMO (and of many others) unlikely to succeed as it would be exceedingly unpalatable to the public and toxic to whichever government tried to do it.

Something has to happen though as the way things stand the EU is being dragged down to East European wages and a few successful countries with the rest in permanent austerity.


[1]The issue there is that unlike with Article 50 there is no way out of "just" the Euro so if Greece leaves that then legally they leave the EU as well. That might itself bring down the Euro and then the EU.

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Mrr T said:

230TE said:

andymadmak said:

FMOP

I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).

As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.

Please avoid sensible posts on freedom of movement it upsets many of the leave team.

As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.

The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.

The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).

I'm surprised you didn't add a forth point and say we can kick out people after 6 months if they don't have a job. It would have complimented quite nicely the rest of the rule book posting that doesn't translate into reality.

I did not add it because it not a rule. The rule is once you fall outside the above rights you have no rights to free movements.

So which bit of the rule book does not translate into reality?

(a) and (b) are concepts open to much abuse. If we cannot then do the hypothetical (d), what redress is there?

None.

If people have a job to come to, fair enough. Coming here to seek work not so much.

Why do you suggest there is much abuse of a) and b)?

Firstly job seekers allowance is only available after 3 months. Once claimed it requires you to provide records of applications, attending the job centre, and attending interviews when sent by the job centre. Would you do it for £90 per week. Far better to get a job.

As for setting up you own business why would you use it to stay if you cannot get any benefits.

Why does there need to be a redress. Deporting people is expensive.

In this system they deport themselves when they run out of money.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

Why do you suggest there is much abuse of a) and b)?
...

I didn't.

[Mrr T]

230TE said:

Mrr T said:

Please avoid sensible posts on freedom of movement it upsets many of the leave team.

As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.

The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.

The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).

A couple of problems with that. Firstly, almost anyone between the ages of 16 and 65 can plausibly claim to be "seeking work". I'd be much happier if FM was limited to people who actually have a job offer in their hand before they turn up here. Secondly, the EU treaty I was looking at (Lisbon I think, although rather unhelpfully the EU doesn't give its treaties the names that everyone else uses to describe them, this one was "Treaty for various things to do with the functioning of the EU" or something like that) quite explicitly links social security entitlement to FMOW, stating that migrant "workers" should not be treated less favourably than locals when it comes to Govt handouts.

Hence paying JSA to newly arrived migrants who have never worked here. And the treaty clause, I suspect, is why our own Govt's talk of deporting workless EU migrants or refusing them benefits is just hot air. In practice, the last thing they want is for someone to bring a case via the ECJ and end up with a ruling that we have to pay all EU migrants the same benefits as UK nationals including housing benefit, income support, disability etc from day 1. Safer to let sleeping dogs lie.

None of this would be a problem, were it not for the fact that EU enlargement has brought in some countries where average wages are perilously close to average benefit payments in this country. FMOW was never intended to operate in that environment, otherwise I suspect it would have been rather more tightly worded.

You actually ask a lot of sensible questions so I am afraid my reply is long.

With regard to benefits once an EU immigrant works they are entitled to in work benefits. These tend to be quite high in the UK.

The question is how much do they effect immigrant behaviour. The answer is we do not know. There are some statistic but they are very poor.

What we do know is in work benefits really only kick in if you have children. Migrating with children is not easy, you need child care which means one partners income will be limited.

The facts are most EU immigrants tend to be younger and childless so its unlikely benefits influence many.

Job seekers allowance is not paid to EU immigrants for the first 3 months. So an EU immigrant has no access to benefits when they arrive they need to get job quickly.

As for the ECJ ruling all benefits are available to EU immigrant. It will not happen because they have just ruled the other way.

Once again your comments on the E10+2 are not as straight forward as you suggest.

Firstly, this is not new for the EU, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland all had significant income differences when they joined the EU.

Secondly, comparing income levels means nothing you need to consider costs as well. Particularly hosing costs.

In most, not sure all, of the E10+2 when communism fell the citizens where given the property they lived in. This means for the middle aged in the E10+2 there is very little incentive to emigrate.

I have done the sums and for most EU immigrants a minimum wage job in the UK after accommodation costs is not much different to local income levels.

The problem for the potential EU immigrant is not so much wage levels but the shortage of higher skilled job. The EU country I know best (outside the UK) is full of computer graduates. The problem is limited jobs so wages remain low. They know there are job in the rest of the EU where there is a shortage of skilled labour.

That makes an EU immigrant. They will arrive with limited money so will need to take the first job they get even if its minimum wage. They can then start looking for better jobs.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

...
The question is how much do they effect immigrant behaviour. The answer is we do not know. There are some statistic but they are very poor.
...

This is key. We have no decent statistics on pretty much anything to do with immigrants/immigration. Until we do, it's impossible to say anything for sure.

Regardless, however, uncontrolled immigration is categorically a bad idea IMO (without full fiscal and political union - but then I wouldn't really consider it immigration then as you're in essence moving around within the same state). The vast majority of the rest of the planet evidently agrees.

[anonymous-user]

Greg66 said:

Just for a day, try to contribute something of value to the discussion.

Stop being so rude!!

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

Why do you suggest there is much abuse of a) and b)?
...

I didn't.

Ok I assumed.

Murph7355 said:

(a) and (b) are concepts open to much abuse.

[anonymous-user]

bmw535i said:

Greg66 said:

Just for a day, try to contribute something of value to the discussion.

Stop being so rude!!

I am more than happy to recognise the value of of your contributions to this thread between 8.33 this morning and 3.29 this afternoon. Please keep that up.

[Zod]

don'tbesilly said:

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

By the way, relinquishing membership of the Single Market was on the ballot paper, it was inclusive of the choice of either staying in the European Union or leaving the European Union, leaving as was the choice of the electorate included leaving the single market.

You can dress it up all you like, it doesn't alter the fact.

We may very well end up leaving the SM, but you need to brush up on your reading skills, and on the meaning of "fact".

Maybe instead of making yourself look foolish you read the rights and obligations of the UK's membership of the European Union.

Then tell me what I'm stating is not fact.

Show me the part of the Treaties that supports your assertion.

[jamoor]

Good news for all concerned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

[barryrs]

jamoor said:

Good news for all concerned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

Personally I think its simply being tabled to ensure the country remains divided.

[230TE]

Mrr T said:

With regard to benefits once an EU immigrant works they are entitled to in work benefits. These tend to be quite high in the UK.

The question is how much do they effect immigrant behaviour. The answer is we do not know. There are some statistic but they are very poor.

What we do know is in work benefits really only kick in if you have children. Migrating with children is not easy, you need child care which means one partners income will be limited.

My understanding is that the dependents (which you need to have to receive most in-work benefits) do not actually have to be living in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/tax-credits-if-moving-country-o...

Some interesting stuff here:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources...

One other factor which doesn't get talked about much (possibly because no-one can quantify it) is how much of their earnings EU immigrant workers are sending back home. As far as this country is concerned that's a straight cash outflow. There may be good reasons why East Europeans in the UK are living ten to a house, work all the overtime they can get and drive tatty old sheds. If the proportion of earnings they are sending home is significant (say 20% plus) then that rather undermines the assumptions being made, that anyone who is in this country and in work is making a net contribution to the wealth of the UK.

What I'm seeing here is a kind of reverse Industrial Revolution, where expensive machines are being replaced by cheap imported labour, and the process subsidised by UK taxpayers via in-work benefits and an expansion of public services to cope (badly) with the population increase. UK productivity figures would tend to support my theory. There are only so many hand car washes that a nation actually needs. We could chop in-work benefits but that would have to be for everyone and would go down badly. So while we have to treat everyone in the EU who isn't actually in prison as a "jobseeker" entitled to the same privileges as someone born here, I can't see any way to start to reverse a process that IMHO has done a fair bit of damage to social cohesion in communities in my part of the country, and has also put my rent up (Remainers seem happy to admit to self-interest, so I don't see why I can't join in).

[W124]

barryrs said:

jamoor said:

Good news for all concerned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

Personally I think its simply being tabled to ensure the country remains divided.

I wonder what would happen if more than 50% of the voting population took up that offer.

[Mrr T]

230TE said:

My understanding is that the dependents (which you need to have to receive most in-work benefits) do not actually have to be living in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/tax-credits-if-moving-country-o...

Some interesting stuff here:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources...

One other factor which doesn't get talked about much (possibly because no-one can quantify it) is how much of their earnings EU immigrant workers are sending back home. As far as this country is concerned that's a straight cash outflow. There may be good reasons why East Europeans in the UK are living ten to a house, work all the overtime they can get and drive tatty old sheds. If the proportion of earnings they are sending home is significant (say 20% plus) then that rather undermines the assumptions being made, that anyone who is in this country and in work is making a net contribution to the wealth of the UK.

What I'm seeing here is a kind of reverse Industrial Revolution, where expensive machines are being replaced by cheap imported labour, and the process subsidised by UK taxpayers via in-work benefits and an expansion of public services to cope (badly) with the population increase. UK productivity figures would tend to support my theory. There are only so many hand car washes that a nation actually needs. We could chop in-work benefits but that would have to be for everyone and would go down badly. So while we have to treat everyone in the EU who isn't actually in prison as a "jobseeker" entitled to the same privileges as someone born here, I can't see any way to start to reverse a process that IMHO has done a fair bit of damage to social cohesion in communities in my part of the country, and has also put my rent up (Remainers seem happy to admit to self-interest, so I don't see why I can't join in).

You response starts ok. Yes EU immigrants get child benefit where ever the children live but not working family tax credit or housing benefit.

They do also send some money home. Not much in my experience. BMW buyers also send money abroad.

You then start down the typical all EU E10+2 immigrants have minimal skills and are working minimum wage jobs.

How about a more realistic view. Most E10+2 immigrants are well qualified. While many start on low paid work most will get better jobs more consumer with their skills. They will then be paying large amounts of tax while receiving minimal money back from the UK. Without them our ageing population will suffer a dramatic fall in their standards of living.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

Why do you suggest there is much abuse of a) and b)?
...

I didn't.

Ok I assumed.

Murph7355 said:

(a) and (b) are concepts open to much abuse.

As I think we both agree there isn't the data to support an argument either way that such abuse is actually happening in a material way. So it's just supposition.

FWIW I'm right wing enough to think that abuse does happen from both immigrants and the indigenous feckless we seem increasingly able to breed here. I'd therefore like a tighter system that closes that down.

That is simpler with immigration IMO as you can control it far more simply by refusing access to the country if someone does not have a job, and inviting them to leave the second they don't have one. (I also believe that immigration has benefitted this country in many ways, economically and not, over the decades. However that would only be "net". Far more benefit can be derived overall if you limit it to those above the net line).

You mention JSA a fair amount but there are other benefits available to all that don't have the same constraints and that could readily be gamed too. Not to mention the other services provided for "free" here.

With such a disparity in relative wealth and living standards between the countries, it is inevitable that this does happen IMO. It's the scale of it that we cannot be sure on.

[230TE]

Mrr T said:

You response starts ok. Yes EU immigrants get child benefit where ever the children live but not working family tax credit or housing benefit.

They do also send some money home. Not much in my experience. BMW buyers also send money abroad.

You then start down the typical all EU E10+2 immigrants have minimal skills and are working minimum wage jobs.

How about a more realistic view. Most E10+2 immigrants are well qualified. While many start on low paid work most will get better jobs more consumer with their skills. They will then be paying large amounts of tax while receiving minimal money back from the UK. Without them our ageing population will suffer a dramatic fall in their standards of living.

And your response also starts OK, then deteriorates rapidly once it becomes clear that you haven't actually looked at the link I provided to the qualifying rules for tax credits. "You may get Working Tax Credit as a single person if you’ve come to the UK, are working and your partner has stayed behind in their own country." That couldn't be much clearer if it tried.

It might well be true that if the Poles etc stay here long enough they will get into well-paid jobs. My impression is that for most of them, staying in the UK is not a long-term ambition. Hence the issues around community cohesion. They're not making any effort to integrate because there's no point. The plan (and it's what I would do if I were a young Pole) is to come here, make money, spend as little as possible, then return to Poland where the money you have saved will probably buy you a house. Also, if they are going to move upwards into well-paid work then they are competing directly with our own educated workforce. So we end up using immigrants to do jobs that would otherwise be done by locals. That's not the case with hand car washes or cauliflower cutting.

One of the various minor tragedies surrounding the one-way flow of migrant labour in Europe is that some of the immigrants from the Eastern Bloc are indeed massively over-qualified for the work they are coming here to do. The Eastern countries are being stripped of the talent they desperately need to grow their own economies, just so that we don't have to put our shiny white Audis through car wash machines that might scratch the paint. It's daft.