News4 mins ago
A Trade Deal On Brexit With The Eu Could Involve Only Allowing Eu Workers And Students With Firm Offer To Come To Uk To Take Up The Offer.
23 Answers
UK (like EU states can) should be able stop EU citizens settling in UK that have no job (or adequate financial resources) to support themselves or who are hardened criminals - this should not contravene the freedom of movement of EU workers requirement.
Immigrants (EU & non-EU) should not be able to claim benefits like - DWP, social housing, council tax benefits, tax credit, legal aid, free NHS treatment, if they have not worked in UK (and contributed into NI, HMRC) for over 5 years.
Immigrants (EU & non-EU) should not be able to claim benefits like - DWP, social housing, council tax benefits, tax credit, legal aid, free NHS treatment, if they have not worked in UK (and contributed into NI, HMRC) for over 5 years.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by willbewhatiwill. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"UK (like EU states can) should be able stop EU citizens settling in UK that have no job (or adequate financial resources) to support themselves or who are hardened criminals -"
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that's how you'd like it to be or how you think it currently is? Because it isn't.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that's how you'd like it to be or how you think it currently is? Because it isn't.
New judge,
Already for UK (still in the EU) EU migrants will not receive welfare benefits until they have to have earned at least £149 pw for 3 months. Hence no DWP benefits will be given for the duration of stay of the EU migrant - if EU nationals are unlikely to obtain employment (or unable to speak English) in UK even after 3 months in UK.
https:/
Already for UK (still in the EU) EU migrants will not receive welfare benefits until they have to have earned at least £149 pw for 3 months. Hence no DWP benefits will be given for the duration of stay of the EU migrant - if EU nationals are unlikely to obtain employment (or unable to speak English) in UK even after 3 months in UK.
https:/
You’re talking about two different things.
Denial of benefits does not stop them settling. The Lisbon Treaty provides an (almost) irrefutable right for citizens of any of the 28 member nations to travel to and settle anywhere in the EU. They do not have to have a job to go to; they do not need a student placement to take up; they do not have to have any income; they do not have to have any money; they do not need to speak the language of their chosen host nation; they cannot be removed if they fail to meet any any of those criteria. Citizens of other EU nations who come to the UK and who are not working, studying, self-employed or self-sufficient simply have to declare that they are "looking for work".
So the follow-up paragraph to your question is incorrect. No EU country can prevent EU citizens settling in their country on the basis that they have no job (or adequate financial resources) to support themselves as that will contravene the “freedom of movement” principle. (Incidentally, the principle is not one of free movement of labour or workers. Labour or work is not a requirement. The principle is free movement of people). Where you are correct is that individual nations can deny entry, settlement or residence to certain criminals. This is not straightforward. The person’s behaviour must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” and simply having committed criminal offences will not suffice.
Any trade deal that is concluded with the EU should not compromise the right of the UK to determine who does and does not enter or settle in the UK. No other trade deal stipulates free movement of people must be allowed between the signatory nations. It is simply not a requirement to facilitate trade. The principle is a part of the EU’s ambitions to become a single federal state. The majority of those who voted in the referendum last year decided they wanted no further part of those ambitions.
Denial of benefits does not stop them settling. The Lisbon Treaty provides an (almost) irrefutable right for citizens of any of the 28 member nations to travel to and settle anywhere in the EU. They do not have to have a job to go to; they do not need a student placement to take up; they do not have to have any income; they do not have to have any money; they do not need to speak the language of their chosen host nation; they cannot be removed if they fail to meet any any of those criteria. Citizens of other EU nations who come to the UK and who are not working, studying, self-employed or self-sufficient simply have to declare that they are "looking for work".
So the follow-up paragraph to your question is incorrect. No EU country can prevent EU citizens settling in their country on the basis that they have no job (or adequate financial resources) to support themselves as that will contravene the “freedom of movement” principle. (Incidentally, the principle is not one of free movement of labour or workers. Labour or work is not a requirement. The principle is free movement of people). Where you are correct is that individual nations can deny entry, settlement or residence to certain criminals. This is not straightforward. The person’s behaviour must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” and simply having committed criminal offences will not suffice.
Any trade deal that is concluded with the EU should not compromise the right of the UK to determine who does and does not enter or settle in the UK. No other trade deal stipulates free movement of people must be allowed between the signatory nations. It is simply not a requirement to facilitate trade. The principle is a part of the EU’s ambitions to become a single federal state. The majority of those who voted in the referendum last year decided they wanted no further part of those ambitions.
New Judge,
EU countries even now need not pay BENEFITS to immigrants from other EU states, as ECJ judgment confirmed. Hence unless unemployed EU immigrants have the means to support themselves, they have to return to their home countries to receive unemployment benefits of the country they came from.
What I am saying is UK can seek to negotiate a trade deal on Brexit with the EU could involve only allowing EU workers and students with firm offer to Come to UK to take up the offer -i.e. only genuine EU workers/students with firm offer of employment from approved employer and institutions can come to UK to take up employment or studies and should the employment/studies had been completed, they should go back to the country they came from unless they have settled in UK for over 5 years.
EU countries even now need not pay BENEFITS to immigrants from other EU states, as ECJ judgment confirmed. Hence unless unemployed EU immigrants have the means to support themselves, they have to return to their home countries to receive unemployment benefits of the country they came from.
What I am saying is UK can seek to negotiate a trade deal on Brexit with the EU could involve only allowing EU workers and students with firm offer to Come to UK to take up the offer -i.e. only genuine EU workers/students with firm offer of employment from approved employer and institutions can come to UK to take up employment or studies and should the employment/studies had been completed, they should go back to the country they came from unless they have settled in UK for over 5 years.
"What I am saying is UK can seek to negotiate a trade deal on Brexit with the EU could involve only allowing EU workers and students with firm offer to Come to UK to take up the offer -i.e. only genuine EU workers/students with firm offer of employment from approved employer and institutions can come to UK to take up employment or studies..."
And what I'm saying is that the UK can negotiate what it pleases. It does not matter what the current EU rules are nor does it matter what other EU nations do. When we leave we can do as we wish. That's the idea of leaving. In my view there is no necessity to link trade and free movement of people. No other trade agreement in the world that I am aware of includes such a link and the UK should begin to act like other normal (i.e. non-EU) countries do.
And what I'm saying is that the UK can negotiate what it pleases. It does not matter what the current EU rules are nor does it matter what other EU nations do. When we leave we can do as we wish. That's the idea of leaving. In my view there is no necessity to link trade and free movement of people. No other trade agreement in the world that I am aware of includes such a link and the UK should begin to act like other normal (i.e. non-EU) countries do.
New judge,
I do not believe in rigid rules/regulations but in free open-minded imaginative negotiations and agreement for the best possible deals with the EU after Brexit.
However the caveat is a good trade deal with the EU, after Brexit - so as to protect the future of UK exports of goods and services to the EU.
I do not believe in rigid rules/regulations but in free open-minded imaginative negotiations and agreement for the best possible deals with the EU after Brexit.
However the caveat is a good trade deal with the EU, after Brexit - so as to protect the future of UK exports of goods and services to the EU.
New judge said, "there is no necessity to link trade and free movement of people. No other trade agreement in the world that I am aware of includes such a link."
It a special UK-EU deal (but not deal with other countries) whereby on Brexit, only EU citizens with firm offer of employment or studies from approved employer and institutions can come to UK to take up employment or studies without need of work permits or student visas.
The flexibility of EU workers (who can come & go between EU member states) & the rigidity of work permits for non-EU workers is important consideration when a business needs to employ workers (not necessarily skilled workers) at short notice.
Work permit applications (unlike travel visas) for non-EU workers, on the other hand, take time & require lots of administrative effort to submit to the Home Office to decide.
It is better to employ EU workers (without need of work permits) when there is insufficient British workers to do a particular job (which is bound to happen, even for low skilled jobs) than employing non-EU workers on work-permits. UK should continue not to admit (on work permits) unskilled non-EU workers, however.
It a special UK-EU deal (but not deal with other countries) whereby on Brexit, only EU citizens with firm offer of employment or studies from approved employer and institutions can come to UK to take up employment or studies without need of work permits or student visas.
The flexibility of EU workers (who can come & go between EU member states) & the rigidity of work permits for non-EU workers is important consideration when a business needs to employ workers (not necessarily skilled workers) at short notice.
Work permit applications (unlike travel visas) for non-EU workers, on the other hand, take time & require lots of administrative effort to submit to the Home Office to decide.
It is better to employ EU workers (without need of work permits) when there is insufficient British workers to do a particular job (which is bound to happen, even for low skilled jobs) than employing non-EU workers on work-permits. UK should continue not to admit (on work permits) unskilled non-EU workers, however.
"It is better to employ EU workers (without need of work permits) when there is insufficient British workers to do a particular job (which is bound to happen, even for low skilled jobs) than employing non-EU workers on work-permits. UK should continue not to admit (on work permits) unskilled non-EU workers, however."
Why should the UK continue, as it currently is forced, to discriminate against workers from non-EU nations?
Why should the UK continue, as it currently is forced, to discriminate against workers from non-EU nations?
New Judge,
UK should voluntary (certainly not forced) agree to treat EU citizens better. Many countries welcome Europeans and consider them to be well cultured, as well as economically adequate & sophisticated. The majority of people emigrated from Europe to the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, etc over the centuries. Europeans are the ancestors of the majority of current Britons (including our monarch).
https:/
UK should voluntary (certainly not forced) agree to treat EU citizens better. Many countries welcome Europeans and consider them to be well cultured, as well as economically adequate & sophisticated. The majority of people emigrated from Europe to the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, etc over the centuries. Europeans are the ancestors of the majority of current Britons (including our monarch).
https:/
"Many countries welcome Europeans and consider them to be well cultured, as well as economically adequate & sophisticated."
These qualities do not apply to all Europeans any more than they are absent from all non-Europeans. The UK should treat all potential immigrants equally, i.e. "What can you bring to this country that we need and which we are struggling to secure from those already here?"
To continue to provide preferential treatment to Europeans is unjust, unfair and unwarranted.
These qualities do not apply to all Europeans any more than they are absent from all non-Europeans. The UK should treat all potential immigrants equally, i.e. "What can you bring to this country that we need and which we are struggling to secure from those already here?"
To continue to provide preferential treatment to Europeans is unjust, unfair and unwarranted.
Togo,
It is not a matter of forced to prefer workers from the EU. It is a matter of not allowing unskilled workers from all corners of the earth (like Africa, India, Asia, commonwealth) but allowing only unskilled workers from the EU.
Giving work permits (the equivalent of ‘green card’ in the USA) to workers from all four corners of the earth is considered a first step for an immigrant to become permanent resident or citizen of the country. This is because after 5 years on work permits workers (and their extensive family members) are entitled to be given 'indefinite leave to remain in UK' forever.
The flexibility of EU workers (who can come & go between EU member states) & the rigidity of work permits for non-EU workers is important consideration when a business needs to employ workers (not necessarily skilled workers) at short notice. Turkey is not in the EU.
It is not a matter of forced to prefer workers from the EU. It is a matter of not allowing unskilled workers from all corners of the earth (like Africa, India, Asia, commonwealth) but allowing only unskilled workers from the EU.
Giving work permits (the equivalent of ‘green card’ in the USA) to workers from all four corners of the earth is considered a first step for an immigrant to become permanent resident or citizen of the country. This is because after 5 years on work permits workers (and their extensive family members) are entitled to be given 'indefinite leave to remain in UK' forever.
The flexibility of EU workers (who can come & go between EU member states) & the rigidity of work permits for non-EU workers is important consideration when a business needs to employ workers (not necessarily skilled workers) at short notice. Turkey is not in the EU.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Crosswords25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.