rodp Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 I'm confused. Are you suggesting immigrants should starve to death? If you just suddenly decided to up sticks and leg it to a third world country, turning up with no money and nothing to sell, would they keep you to a better standard of living than you have here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 If you just suddenly decided to up sticks and leg it to a third world country, turning up with no money and nothing to sell, would they keep you to a better standard of living than you have here? Question with a question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 What gets me is when they come to this country and say they have a child or two who checks this. They could say they have 5 when in reality they have 1, yet claim for 5.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 The principal should be that a migrant should only get the same benefits in this country that they would get in their own country under the same circumstances. For many of that would mean they would get nothing. There is however considerable evidence that some migrants can be claiming benefits in two or more countries at the same time. Its not hard to do, the main other country I know about in this respect is Holland. But its not only possible its very easy to do because we pay the benefits directly into their bank account. Once its set up and running who is to say whether they are even still in the country. We know that is happening with child benefit and probably things like tax credits and income support as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 I appreciate it was started several years ago but the implication is that it supports the case and negotiation made by our Dave. Link to the Independent below. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-court-backs-uks-ability-to-restrict-child-benefits-for-migrants-a7081046.html Oowee, think you are missing the key word...IF Taken from your link.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-court-backs-uks-ability-to-restrict-child-benefits-for-migrants-a7081046.html "However, the court agreed with the British Government’s position that it was lawful for the UK to withhold benefits to migrants IF they did not have the right to reside in the UK" I thought anyone coming from a EU country had the right to reside in any other EU country, free movement of people within the EU. If that is the case...the, "IF they did not have the right to reside in the UK" would only apply to none EU migrants, unless I have it wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 Catch 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lampwick Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 And when we leave we can determine our own course of action!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 And when we leave we can determine our own course of action!!!!!............ ........subject to the agreements we make with the EU to remain part of the EEA, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 Oowee, think you are missing the key word...IF Taken from your link.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-court-backs-uks-ability-to-restrict-child-benefits-for-migrants-a7081046.html "However, the court agreed with the British Government’s position that it was lawful for the UK to withhold benefits to migrants IF they did not have the right to reside in the UK" I thought anyone coming from a EU country had the right to reside in any other EU country, free movement of people within the EU. If that is the case...the, "IF they did not have the right to reside in the UK" would only apply to none EU migrants, unless I have it wrong? Come to this country and live here for less than 5 years but dont work then you get no welfare. 'The ruling means EU citizens who have been in the UK for less than five years are not entitled to welfare benefits if they (and their family members) are not economically active and not able to support themselves.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 Mmm...smell a rat.. I think!...the BBC should be broke up and sold off...they are so biased towards the In camp... they are a bloody DISGRACE I didn't notice any bias toward leave - surprisingly. Also BBC's Andrew Neil gives politicians a hard time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 I didn't notice any bias toward leave - surprisingly. Also BBC's Andrew Neil gives politicians a hard time. +1 I think the BBC do a great job all round not just with this referendum stuff. I am so glad the Government backed off with what could have been a very damaging hatchet job on the corporation. Not saying its perfect and I don't think they should enter bidding wars for things like the Grand Prix but on the whole excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wb123 Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 +1 I think the BBC do a great job all round not just with this referendum stuff. I am so glad the Government backed off with what could have been a very damaging hatchet job on the corporation. Not saying its perfect and I don't think they should enter bidding wars for things like the Grand Prix but on the whole excellent. Me too, if anything my impression had been a bbc bias towards leave but slight enough to make me think its pretty balanced. Im still very much on the fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 Question with a question... And your answer to the question is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 And your answer to the question is ? Stop being evasive. You know what I asked, a simple answer please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 I'm confused. Are you suggesting immigrants should starve to death? The fact you asked a stupid ,loaded question to start with is good enough reason not to answer it ,I wouldnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 The fact you asked a stupid ,loaded question to start with is good enough reason not to answer it ,I wouldnt. Nothing loaded or stupid about it. This is what his statement appeared to imply. I was just asking for clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 And the last time any immigrants starved to death in this country? Wait and see, they'll claim, we'll pay one way or another. Where is that then? Where is the implication he would see immigrants starve? What rodp said was,stopping one benefit ,would just make another benefit kick in. No one starves in this country unless they are forced (criminally) or chooses to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.