The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[NigelFargate 10]

'dissuade' as in stating that EU migrants are not eligible to the same benefits as British citizens you mean? Daft argument as that is the case in most North-Western EU countries - Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, I believe France... all have rules in place for that because they were allowed to do so years and years ago. The fact is Britain chose not to implement those rules then, Cameron went to the EU saying: WE WANT THIS NOW! The EU said - sure, implement it, it is national legislation, not EU wide. Cameron came back to the UK and said: I said WE WANT THIS NOW! and they said no.

 

Pretty ridiculous state of affairs, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

It would be if it were true, but the above is based on an over simplification. The basic principle is that Eu migrant workers have to be treated in the same way as domestic workers, to comply with EU law.

[tzijlstra 11]

It would be if it were true, but the above is based on an over simplification. The basic principle is that Eu migrant workers have to be treated in the same way as domestic workers, to comply with EU law.

 

Yes, that is correct, in terms of their employment law, not in terms of their benefits. It isn't an oversimplification, it has been enshrined in law in the Netherlands since 2011, even before it became a topic here.

 

In sum:

 

If you can not sustain yourself by working in the Netherlands your right to remain will be terminated. If you have been unemployed for three months, the same. When you lose your right to remain you are not entitled to benefits.

 

If you fail to register for the civil registry you have no right to remain. If you don't register for a fiscal registration you have no right to remain.

 

If you have a recidivist criminal record you can be declared undesirable and forced out of the country, including petty crime.

 

If you have no right to remain (including if you are deemed unable to sustain yourself because you do not earn a living wage) you are not entitled to rent support, you don't get entitlements for child benefit unless you have contributed significantly to the economy (I believe it is now 18 months employed).

 

There is a whole raft of amendments that the Dutch government implemented that COULD have been implemented here. The government just didn't.

 

In-work benefits can not be denied. So a Polish worker has the same holiday entitlement as a Dutch worker, that is right and how it should be. However, of the many EU migrants I know that live or have lived in the Netherlands NONE have felt they were being discriminated against, they all understood the reasons and accepted it.

 

Why couldn't the UK do that?

[Flexo 10]

It doesn't detract substantially from the overall benefit of allowing vacancies to be filled better by giving employers the freedom to recruit from a much larger pool.

 

We can recruit from around the world at the moment. Am looking forward to being able to hire from outer space.

[chalga 10]

Under EU law, 'people', meaning 'citizens' of the EU, can invite themselves and there is virtually nothing we can do to stop them.

 

Seeking to dissuade them is also likely to fall foul of EU law, as Cameron found out.

 

So how come when the UKIP/Farage movement started to take hold and the Tories started to feel threatened,they began to take measures like stopping the 'Pull Factors' as they called them,and implemented laws to deter migrants from coming to the UK,like job seekers,housing benefits,the right to remove from the country?

[I1L2T3 10]

You being a great case in point.

 

()

 

If that is what you're reduced to I'm happy

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 21:01 ----------

 

We can recruit from around the world at the moment. Am looking forward to being able to hire from outer space.

 

We can but we can't easily fly in fruit pickers from India.

 

I look forward to farmers bitching at the cost of inter-continental air travel for their casual staff.

[NigelFargate 10]

Yes, that is correct, in terms of their employment law, not in terms of their benefits. It isn't an oversimplification, it has been enshrined in law in the Netherlands since 2011, even before it became a topic here.

 

In sum:

 

If you can not sustain yourself by working in the Netherlands your right to remain will be terminated. If you have been unemployed for three months, the same. When you lose your right to remain you are not entitled to benefits.

 

If you fail to register for the civil registry you have no right to remain. If you don't register for a fiscal registration you have no right to remain.

 

If you have a recidivist criminal record you can be declared undesirable and forced out of the country, including petty crime.

 

If you have no right to remain (including if you are deemed unable to sustain yourself because you do not earn a living wage) you are not entitled to rent support, you don't get entitlements for child benefit unless you have contributed significantly to the economy (I believe it is now 18 months employed).

 

There is a whole raft of amendments that the Dutch government implemented that COULD have been implemented here. The government just didn't.

 

In-work benefits can not be denied. So a Polish worker has the same holiday entitlement as a Dutch worker, that is right and how it should be. However, of the many EU migrants I know that live or have lived in the Netherlands NONE have felt they were being discriminated against, they all understood the reasons and accepted it.

 

Why couldn't the UK do that?

 

Good question. Basically because human rights laws have made it virtually impossible to remove people from the UK in large numbers. Interminable appeals processes slow down removal decisions. In many cases, I suspect, even when a person is removed, he or she could be back on the next plane back to the UK. The fact that we do not have an identity card system adds to the ease with which such people can flout the law. I would like to see evidence of the numbers removed by the Netherlands and Germany.

[I1L2T3 10]

Good question. Basically because human rights laws have made it virtually impossible to remove people from the UK in large numbers. Interminable appeals processes slow down removal decisions. In many cases, I suspect, even when a person is removed, he or she could be back on the next plane back to the UK. The fact that we do not have an identity card system adds to the ease with which such people can flout the law. I would like to see evidence of the numbers removed by the Netherlands and Germany.

 

Yes there are checks and balances when dealing with human rights issues but seriously how big a problem is that in the great scheme of things?

 

Not much of an issue for most people on a practical level would be my guess. Certainly not worth diluting the human rights of 65m people for.

[unbeliever 10]

The Netherlands is also a signatory of the ECHR, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court.

 

Part of the problem in the UK is that there is substantial non-earned entitlement to benefits. This is our way. We whinge but when it comes down to it we don't actually want to deny subsistence level benefits to anybody.

[I1L2T3 10]

The Netherlands is also a signatory of the ECHR, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court.

 

Part of the problem in the UK is that there is substantial non-earned entitlement to benefits. This is our way. We whinge but when it comes down to it we don't actually want to deny subsistence level benefits to anybody.

 

You are better than this. You surely can't be buying into the rhetoric that people only migrate here for benefits.

 

Please say you aren't because this is getting really embarrassing

[unbeliever 10]

You are better than this. You surely can't be buying into the rhetoric that people only migrate here for benefits.

 

Please say you aren't because this is getting really embarrassing

 

No of course not.

tzilstra raised the point that immigrants have slightly different rights and entitlements in the Netherlands than in the UK.

I've also written at length about the advantages of allowing free movement of Labour.

You only have to read back a few posts to see this.

[Justin Smith 10]

There's a good chance we shall get these things. If the decisions were based purely on economics then it'll be straightforward. If games are played then less so.

 

No decisions in the affairs of nations are based purely on economics. I would suggest hat most people, even many Brexiteers, know that UK PLC would actually be richer in the EU. The ardent ones wanted to leave for other reasons. The thing is the ardent Brexiteers don`t even make up a majority of those who voted to leave.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 22:28 ----------

 

Originally Posted by NigelFargate :

It should only be startling to those with little understanding of economics and those of a rigid and dogmatic frame of mind.

 

In a nutshell, migrant workers are demand-creating as well as supply-filling, so that there are huge externalities and hidden costs in importing labour, such as additional congestion, pressure on housing, schools etc. Moreover, importing cheaper labour from abroad hardly creates a level playing field for indigenous workers. Also, 'free movement' encompasses people who do not come to work, but to take advantage of the superior social and economic benefits, in comparision with what they would receive in their home countries. It is not surprising that the EU is the only trading bloc which free movement and that no other set of countries has followed the EU along this path.

 

Yes because of course this never worked well for the USA did it....

 

Excellent answer.

Basically the USA is the richest country in the world not in spite of the fact it`s populated by immigrants, but because of it. Immigrants have more about them than natives. They`re far more motivated and in most cases work harder. Very few move for social security payments. Would you ? If people have the gumption to move countries for a bit of social security they almost certainly have more ambition than to live off the state.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 22:31 ----------

 

The US is a single country, not a group of countries. during the period of mass migration to the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries, there were virtually no welfare supports of any kind to help migrants. They were expected to stand on their own feet from the get go.

 

For the reasons given in my post above, welfare payments are more or less irrelevant for all but a tiny percentage of migrants. Basically it`s a red herring, the kind of thing the Mail or Express bangs on about, and therefore not worth taking any notice of.

[tzijlstra 11]

Good question. Basically because human rights laws have made it virtually impossible to remove people from the UK in large numbers. Interminable appeals processes slow down removal decisions. In many cases, I suspect, even when a person is removed, he or she could be back on the next plane back to the UK. The fact that we do not have an identity card system adds to the ease with which such people can flout the law. I would like to see evidence of the numbers removed by the Netherlands and Germany.

 

If there are human rights laws at the foundation of this, than they are British human rights laws (not the ECHR as is often flaunted) and a British lack of an adequate population register.

 

I don't have exact numbers for 'removed' people - that is actually besides the point anyway: Most people that bemoan EU migrants, do so because 'they get all the houses, they get all the benefits' and whatever other BritainFirst Facebook nonsense they believe. That could have been fixed, in fact it should have been fixed and it wasn't. By Britain, not the EU.

 

Opposed to what many people think - the EU directives are not 'EU laws that become UK law' - they are directives for the UK to formulate law in a particular area to achieve a particular outcome. They do not stop Britain actually implementing its own laws - although often politicians here have used it as such, mainly so they could scapegoat the EU for when they cocked up.

 

Recent example: Sajid Javid blaming the EU for not introducing measures to protect EU steel, whilst it was Sajid Javid who torpedoed EU measures to protect EU steel.