David Cameron urges EU support for migration plans

[Lite Beer]

David Cameron urges EU support for migration plans

LONDON: -- David Cameron has urged other EU leaders to support his "reasonable" proposals for far-reaching curbs on welfare benefits for migrants.

Britain's prime minister said lower EU migration would be a priority in future negotiations over the UK's membership and he would "rule nothing out" if he did not get the changes he wanted.

Under his plans, migrants would have to wait four years for certain benefits.

Brussels said the ideas were "part of the debate" to be "calmly considered".

Mr Cameron said he was confident he could change the basis of EU migration into the UK and therefore campaign for the UK to stay in the EU in a future referendum planned for 2017.

But he warned that if the UK's demands fell on "deaf ears" he would "rule nothing out" - the strongest hint to date he could countenance the UK leaving the EU.

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30224493

-- BBC 2014-11-28

[oneday]

Somebody needs to teach this reporter that the word "migration" is not the same as "migrants". I thought Mr. Cameron had some kind of bird or other type of animal migratory scheme going with the EU.

[NeverSure]

I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He's concerned about migration. Migration is done by migrants.

Back on topic I hope he gets something done.

[Tatsujin]

Great news ... go David!

[JockPieandBeans]

I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He's concerned about migration. Migration is done by migrants.

Back on topic I hope he gets something done.

NS

His concern is not migration, his concern is staying in power.

A year or 2 ago, anybody voicing these concerns were instantly branded racist.

Then along came a guy called Farage. I'm sure you can read the rest.

Here is the latest.

The latest immigration stats leave in tatters the Prime Minister's promise to curb the number of people coming to live in Britain.

http://news.sky.com/story/1381360/net-migration-to-uk-soars-by-more-than-40-percent

[BaldPlumber]

Somebody needs to teach this reporter that the word "migration" is not the same as "migrants". I thought Mr. Cameron had some kind of bird or other type of animal migratory scheme going with the EU.

Did you really.

[Mosha]

I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He's concerned about migration. Migration is done by migrants.

Back on topic I hope he gets something done.

NS

His concern is not migration, his concern is staying in power.

A year or 2 ago, anybody voicing these concerns were instantly branded racist.

Then along came a guy called Farage. I'm sure you can read the rest.

Here is the latest.

The latest immigration stats leave in tatters the Prime Minister's promise to curb the number of people coming to live in Britain.

http://news.sky.com/story/1381360/net-migration-to-uk-soars-by-more-than-40-percent

The other lot would rather folks concentrate on the NHS. Watching Hard Talk when David Blunkett was on, and Stephen Sackur said immigration was, according to opinion polls, the #1 issue on peoples minds.

[JockPieandBeans]

Mosha

Not sure who you are referring too as the " Other lot " Would that be Liebour you refer to ?

I hold no sway with any Political Party or Politician. They are all as much use as t!ts on on a fish IMO.

[Mosha]

Mosha

Not sure who you are referring too as the " Other lot " Would that be Liebour you refer to ?

I hold no sway with any Political Party or Politician. They are all as much use as t!ts on on a fish IMO.

Yes Jock

[Tep]

Cameron is using a fiscal instrument to deal with a non-existent problem. It is a sharp leap to the right to prevent the anti-immigrant mob from deserting to other parties. It is a beat up of the non existent 'benefits tourism' scare.

Studies show that countries derive a net fiscal benefit from migrants. This is the case in the UK. The UK government's own data shows that migrants impose "less than proportionate costs on the health and education systems" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/uk-benefits-eu-migrants-what-crisis For those who don't like that particular news source, the links to the actual government data and studies are included.

So this becomes a levy or tax on migrants. It is the right of all governments to set the terms and conditions upon which migrants can enter, stay and work in their country but they should be honest about this. One assumes that the UK will not give migrants a 4 year tax holiday in consideration of barring them from accessing any benefits schemes. Migrants will merely factor this into their considerations. probably easier to design a fiscal instrument that collects this new levy in cash.

It will be interesting to see the response from the other EU governments and whether they will call out Cameron for this in some way or other.

[JockPieandBeans]

Cameron is using a fiscal instrument to deal with a non-existent problem. It is a sharp leap to the right to prevent the anti-immigrant mob from deserting to other parties. It is a beat up of the non existent 'benefits tourism' scare.

Studies show that countries derive a net fiscal benefit from migrants. This is the case in the UK. The UK government's own data shows that migrants impose "less than proportionate costs on the health and education systems" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/uk-benefits-eu-migrants-what-crisis For those who don't like that particular news source, the links to the actual government data and studies are included.

So this becomes a levy or tax on migrants. It is the right of all governments to set the terms and conditions upon which migrants can enter, stay and work in their country but they should be honest about this. One assumes that the UK will not give migrants a 4 year tax holiday in consideration of barring them from accessing any benefits schemes. Migrants will merely factor this into their considerations. probably easier to design a fiscal instrument that collects this new levy in cash.

It will be interesting to see the response from the other EU governments and whether they will call out Cameron for this in some way or other.

Non existent problem ? Yeah right. It is a big problem, unless you are part of the Liberal and PC Brigades.

The UK Government cannot give you an accurate figure of the amount of people currently in the UK. Official Government stats are never slewed in their favour

It is the right of all governments to set the terms and conditions upon which migrants can enter, stay and work in their country

Funny you should that phrase. that is exactly the problem. The UK Government does not have the right to set the terms and conditions. It is dictated by the unelected clowns in Brussels.

The way I see it, the EU has 2 options. It either back Cameron and agree to monumental changes. Or if they refuse it will go to an EU in / out referendum, which I believe would result in an out vote. Which ultimately could very possibly lead to the demise of the EU.

Not before time.

[Basil B]

Yes, DC is trying to save face as he is likely to get a good beating from a bunch of half baked kippers...

We do need reform of of the EU, not just on free movement but other things as well, particularly on limiting the powers of the EU.

As for DC's proposals, I would be more in favour of the country from which migrants came from being responsible for benefit payments (and repatriation costs) until they have worked two years in the UK, of course the UK should make benefit payments if needed to Brits living in the EU.

As for only allowing 6 moths for finding a job, how on earth can we keep track of who has been here more than 6 months? We do not stamp EU citizens in and out, we do not even have exit control.

[Benmart]

Somebody needs to teach this reporter that the word "migration" is not the same as "migrants". I thought Mr. Cameron had some kind of bird or other type of animal migratory scheme going with the EU.

Perhaps writing the newspaper would help "teach" whatever it is that needs teaching.

[Tep]

The University College of London research demonstrates a net fiscal benefit from migration to the UK, consistent with all the other studies done on this subject both in the UK as well as the US and Australia. Over the period 2001 - 2011 European immigrants contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

Using a fiscal instrument to address an ideologically driven, social issue of so called benefits tourism is fiscally irresponsible. Numerous studies demonstrate the insignificant fiscal impact of this benefits tourism so fiscal responses are not appropriate. If Cameron wants to respond politically through regulation to this beat up non issue, that is a different matter. He would then be held accountable through normal channels. The UK used to have a requirement imposed by an office within the Cabinet Office called the Better Regulation Bureau that all new regulations must include a cost benefit analysis. I have not seen any CBA for this regulation. What will be the losses to the UK Treasury as a result of a regulation that imposes an additional levy on prospective migrants and will this cause them to go elsewhere and contribute their tax money to another's economy?

On the argument that UK statistics cannot be trusted. I see no evidence of this. Moody's sovereign bond rating for the UK is AA1/Stable. Note that institutional strength is one of Moody's four-factor methodology for assessing sovereign credit risk. It is pure ignorance to accuse the Office of National Statistics and the UK Statistics Authority of incompetence because of ideological bias. I will take assessments from Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poors any day over blow hard anti-immigration nuts.

If anyone knows of a CBA done on this proposed fiscal instrument, please post a link. I would be interested in reading this.

[RustBucket]

The University College of London research demonstrates a net fiscal benefit from migration to the UK, consistent with all the other studies done on this subject both in the UK as well as the US and Australia. Over the period 2001 - 2011 European immigrants contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

Using a fiscal instrument to address an ideologically driven, social issue of so called benefits tourism is fiscally irresponsible. Numerous studies demonstrate the insignificant fiscal impact of this benefits tourism so fiscal responses are not appropriate. If Cameron wants to respond politically through regulation to this beat up non issue, that is a different matter. He would then be held accountable through normal channels. The UK used to have a requirement imposed by an office within the Cabinet Office called the Better Regulation Bureau that all new regulations must include a cost benefit analysis. I have not seen any CBA for this regulation. What will be the losses to the UK Treasury as a result of a regulation that imposes an additional levy on prospective migrants and will this cause them to go elsewhere and contribute their tax money to another's economy?

On the argument that UK statistics cannot be trusted. I see no evidence of this. Moody's sovereign bond rating for the UK is AA1/Stable. Note that institutional strength is one of Moody's four-factor methodology for assessing sovereign credit risk. It is pure ignorance to accuse the Office of National Statistics and the UK Statistics Authority of incompetence because of ideological bias. I will take assessments from Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poors any day over blow hard anti-immigration nuts.

If anyone knows of a CBA done on this proposed fiscal instrument, please post a link. I would be interested in reading this.

It sort of pisses me off with this contrived UCL study that crows on about migrants being a net benefit to the UK.

That report would have almost certainly have been contrived to add to the armoury of the loony left. But misses the point on lots of issues facing the UK.

As for the £20Bn net benefit... Bullshit!

They did not factor in the most obvious point that mass migration has in fact compressed wages for the past 10 years and in some extreme cases, some companies and especially the employment agencies are actually paying LESS than they were 10 years ago. So that means even the British worker's salary has been muted and that means less income tax across the entire board. That in itself would be hundreds of billions in lost income tax over that 10 year period.

Then you need to look at the strain on public services that mass immigration is having. How the hell can a country look at the issue of say the education system with an open door immigration policy?... How can we sit down and say, 'look... what effect will immigration have on the system in 5 years'?... We don't know, because we have no clue about how many kids we will have at school age in 5 years... We have no clue about if there will be 66 million in the country or 85 million.... we just don't know.

Same with health, housing and all the rest of the infrastructure required for a stable society.

The British are NOT better off with an open door policy, they are worse off by far. It is breeding hatred and nationalism in the country on a daily basis.

Cameron is talking out of his ring. He has promised us 'something big' on immigration for weeks now and we already have been reading about this before he made his speech. So it is nothing new. It was already in the Telegraph a week ago that some of his back benchers advised him to promise a renegotiation with Brussels on sweeping reforms for Britain on the free movement of people across the EU or he would support the 'OUT' campaign in a referendum.... This was to pull the rug out from under Nigel Farage. and UKIP.... But that is if we ever get a referendum on leaving the EU which of course we will not.

people seem to forget that his words in the run up to the last election in 2010 was that he would guarantee the people a referendum on EU membership if they voted for him, and they voted for him and as soon as he was in power we had the all too familiar 'u-turn'. He did it then and he will do it again.

Hecan NOT negotiate the Lisbon Treaty with the EU.... He would need the support of 27 other countries to do that and already he has the disapproval of Germany, the main country that runs Brussels. and When the Germans say NO... they all say NO. When the Germans say NO, there will be no going back. They are straight talking and they would rather see the UK out of the EU than watch the Lisbon Treaty being unpicked.

Cameron is trying to 'out-UKIP' UKIP...... They seem to be taking UKIP's policies as their own one by one..... why? Because they has totally lost the trust of the people and they see the rise in UKIP support as a major threat. They call UKIP fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists..... so why are they stealing their policies????????

What has happened to them in the last 2 by-elections?

Britain is waking up to the mess Labour and the Con/LD coalition has put us in. I hope every migrant who ever claimed a benefit without working gets thrown out of the country and banned for life.

Edited November 29, 2014 by RustBucket

[JockPieandBeans]

Rusty

Your points are logical.

Unfortunately, there are certain posters who cannot work out logic. Its all a conspiracy by Immigrant hating racists.

[Tep]

It sort of pisses me off with this contrived UCL study that crows on about migrants being a net benefit to the UK.

That report would have almost certainly have been contrived to add to the armoury of the loony left. But misses the point on lots of issues facing the UK.

As for the £20Bn net benefit... Bullshit!

They did not factor in the most obvious point that mass migration has in fact compressed wages for the past 10 years and in some extreme cases, some companies and especially the employment agencies are actually paying LESS than they were 10 years ago. So that means even the British worker's salary has been muted and that means less income tax across the entire board. That in itself would be hundreds of billions in lost income tax over that 10 year period.

Then you need to look at the strain on public services that mass immigration is having. How the hell can a country look at the issue of say the education system with an open door immigration policy?... How can we sit down and say, 'look... what effect will immigration have on the system in 5 years'?... We don't know, because we have no clue about how many kids we will have at school age in 5 years... We have no clue about if there will be 66 million in the country or 85 million.... we just don't know.

Same with health, housing and all the rest of the infrastructure required for a stable society.

The British are NOT better off with an open door policy, they are worse off by far. It is breeding hatred and nationalism in the country on a daily basis.

Cameron is talking out of his ring. He has promised us 'something big' on immigration for weeks now and we already have been reading about this before he made his speech. So it is nothing new. It was already in the Telegraph a week ago that some of his back benchers advised him to promise a renegotiation with Brussels on sweeping reforms for Britain on the free movement of people across the EU or he would support the 'OUT' campaign in a referendum.... This was to pull the rug out from under Nigel Farage. and UKIP.... But that is if we ever get a referendum on leaving the EU which of course we will not.

people seem to forget that his words in the run up to the last election in 2010 was that he would guarantee the people a referendum on EU membership if they voted for him, and they voted for him and as soon as he was in power we had the all too familiar 'u-turn'. He did it then and he will do it again.

Hecan NOT negotiate the Lisbon Treaty with the EU.... He would need the support of 27 other countries to do that and already he has the disapproval of Germany, the main country that runs Brussels. and When the Germans say NO... they all say NO. When the Germans say NO, there will be no going back. They are straight talking and they would rather see the UK out of the EU than watch the Lisbon Treaty being unpicked.

Cameron is trying to 'out-UKIP' UKIP...... They seem to be taking UKIP's policies as their own one by one..... why? Because they has totally lost the trust of the people and they see the rise in UKIP support as a major threat. They call UKIP fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists..... so why are they stealing their policies????????

What has happened to them in the last 2 by-elections?

Britain is waking up to the mess Labour and the Con/LD coalition has put us in. I hope every migrant who ever claimed a benefit without working gets thrown out of the country and banned for life.

Over the period 2001 - 2011 European immigrants contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. This finding from the research is based on data. It is consistent with all the other research for the UK and other countries. Disprove this. You cannot, so you rant against the institution, the report and society. You introduce irrelevancies. The data is based on tax receipts to the Treasury so your sole counterpoint on 'wage compression' is irrelevant. You are clearly not economically literate.

The research shows that there are no strains on public services. Public services benefit from the increase in treasury receipts. This is data driven fact based research and analysis.

Proceed with shaking your fist at the sky. Expend your energy on this by all means. But you do not provide one iota of evidence, data or fact to counter the findings of the report. Until you do, people who come to considered, rational views on issues will rightfully ignore you.

​Just one piece of relevant data to counter this research and its findings. Just one.

Leave it to you to introduce UKIP to a posting about UK fiscal policy.

[RustBucket]

It sort of pisses me off with this contrived UCL study that crows on about migrants being a net benefit to the UK.

That report would have almost certainly have been contrived to add to the armoury of the loony left. But misses the point on lots of issues facing the UK.

As for the £20Bn net benefit... Bullshit!

They did not factor in the most obvious point that mass migration has in fact compressed wages for the past 10 years and in some extreme cases, some companies and especially the employment agencies are actually paying LESS than they were 10 years ago. So that means even the British worker's salary has been muted and that means less income tax across the entire board. That in itself would be hundreds of billions in lost income tax over that 10 year period.

Then you need to look at the strain on public services that mass immigration is having. How the hell can a country look at the issue of say the education system with an open door immigration policy?... How can we sit down and say, 'look... what effect will immigration have on the system in 5 years'?... We don't know, because we have no clue about how many kids we will have at school age in 5 years... We have no clue about if there will be 66 million in the country or 85 million.... we just don't know.

Same with health, housing and all the rest of the infrastructure required for a stable society.

The British are NOT better off with an open door policy, they are worse off by far. It is breeding hatred and nationalism in the country on a daily basis.

Cameron is talking out of his ring. He has promised us 'something big' on immigration for weeks now and we already have been reading about this before he made his speech. So it is nothing new. It was already in the Telegraph a week ago that some of his back benchers advised him to promise a renegotiation with Brussels on sweeping reforms for Britain on the free movement of people across the EU or he would support the 'OUT' campaign in a referendum.... This was to pull the rug out from under Nigel Farage. and UKIP.... But that is if we ever get a referendum on leaving the EU which of course we will not.

people seem to forget that his words in the run up to the last election in 2010 was that he would guarantee the people a referendum on EU membership if they voted for him, and they voted for him and as soon as he was in power we had the all too familiar 'u-turn'. He did it then and he will do it again.

Hecan NOT negotiate the Lisbon Treaty with the EU.... He would need the support of 27 other countries to do that and already he has the disapproval of Germany, the main country that runs Brussels. and When the Germans say NO... they all say NO. When the Germans say NO, there will be no going back. They are straight talking and they would rather see the UK out of the EU than watch the Lisbon Treaty being unpicked.

Cameron is trying to 'out-UKIP' UKIP...... They seem to be taking UKIP's policies as their own one by one..... why? Because they has totally lost the trust of the people and they see the rise in UKIP support as a major threat. They call UKIP fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists..... so why are they stealing their policies????????

What has happened to them in the last 2 by-elections?

Britain is waking up to the mess Labour and the Con/LD coalition has put us in. I hope every migrant who ever claimed a benefit without working gets thrown out of the country and banned for life.

Over the period 2001 - 2011 European immigrants contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. This finding from the research is based on data. It is consistent with all the other research for the UK and other countries. Disprove this. You cannot, so you rant against the institution, the report and society. You introduce irrelevancies. The data is based on tax receipts to the Treasury so your sole counterpoint on 'wage compression' is irrelevant. You are clearly not economically literate.

The research shows that there are no strains on public services. Public services benefit from the increase in treasury receipts. This is data driven fact based research and analysis.

Proceed with shaking your fist at the sky. Expend your energy on this by all means. But you do not provide one iota of evidence, data or fact to counter the findings of the report. Until you do, people who come to considered, rational views on issues will rightfully ignore you.

​Just one piece of relevant data to counter this research and its findings. Just one.

Leave it to you to introduce UKIP to a posting about UK fiscal policy.

The fact that you copy and pasted something that has (as I have already pointed out) been contrived for the benefit of the lefties is a statement that you have no mind of your own.

The fact of the matter is that 70% of the British public want OUT of the EU.

By the way..... that so called £20Bn net tax benefit over the past 10 years represents about 0.5% of total income tax receipts.... Over the past 10 years how much tax have we lost by wages being driven down?

Just go read your Guardian. This subject is for people who can think for themselves. If you want to know UKIP fiscal policy, get off your arse and go find it yourself... you can start with doing a youtube search for 'UKIP conference' or 'Patrick O Flynn' who is economic spokesman for UKIP.

I am sorry for you if you can be manipulated by media spin.

[7by7]

Tep, you make some very valid points, all backed up by independent research.

But the anti immigration lobby will ignore you; even though many of them are themselves immigrants living in Thailand for economic reasons!

Just like the EU migrants in the UK; most of whom who come to work.

To the people who say these EU migrants are taking jobs from British people, I have one question.

Why are these jobs available to these migrants; why have British people not already taken them?

In many cases it's because British people don't have the necessary skills, or the jobs are menial and low paid and British people don't want them.

I am not denying that some EU migrants do take advantage of our benefits system; or at least try to.

I am not denying that some reform is necessary.

But anyone who knows something of the freedom of movement regulations can tell you that much of what Cameron has said is hot air designed to appeal to the right wing of his party and possible UKIP defectors; many of the 'changes' he proposes are not changes at all; they are already in the regulations.

Take one aspect; the 'find work in 6 months or leave." The regulations actually say job seekers are only supposed to stay for three months; Cameron wants to allow them double the amount of time in the regulations!

[Scott]

[Tep]

The fact that you copy and pasted something that has (as I have already pointed out) been contrived for the benefit of the lefties is a statement that you have no mind of your own.

The fact of the matter is that 70% of the British public want OUT of the EU.

By the way..... that so called £20Bn net tax benefit over the past 10 years represents about 0.5% of total income tax receipts.... Over the past 10 years how much tax have we lost by wages being driven down?

Just go read your Guardian. This subject is for people who can think for themselves. If you want to know UKIP fiscal policy, get off your arse and go find it yourself... you can start with doing a youtube search for 'UKIP conference' or 'Patrick O Flynn' who is economic spokesman for UKIP.

I am sorry for you if you can be manipulated by media spin.

You have a quite unsophisticated rhetorical style. Very consistent with many who share your fringe views. To help you understand further, just writing the word fact in front of a statement does not actually make it a fact. Let me make the statement for the third time "Over the period 2001 - 2011 European immigrants contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits". This is a finding based on data. You have offered nothing to counter this. You provide no data, no research, no evidence.

If you wish a reasonable discussion on UK fiscal policy and EU immigration, I will be happy to respond. Until then I will let you continue shaking your fists at life spurred on by your fellow travellers and engage in discourse with rational minds.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[Tep]

Tep, you make some very valid points, all backed up by independent research.

But the anti immigration lobby will ignore you; even though many of them are themselves immigrants living in Thailand for economic reasons!

Just like the EU migrants in the UK; most of whom who come to work.

To the people who say these EU migrants are taking jobs from British people, I have one question.

Why are these jobs available to these migrants; why have British people not already taken them?

In many cases it's because British people don't have the necessary skills, or the jobs are menial and low paid and British people don't want them.

I am not denying that some EU migrants do take advantage of our benefits system; or at least try to.

I am not denying that some reform is necessary.

But anyone who knows something of the freedom of movement regulations can tell you that much of what Cameron has said is hot air designed to appeal to the right wing of his party and possible UKIP defectors; many of the 'changes' he proposes are not changes at all; they are already in the regulations.

Take one aspect; the 'find work in 6 months or leave." The regulations actually say job seekers are only supposed to stay for three months; Cameron wants to allow them double the amount of time in the regulations!

My own view is that the US and Australian federal systems demonstrate that the market is an efficient arbitrator of immigration, in those cases it is internal immigration. Studies in the US and Australia find that internal immigration is a net fiscal positive for the state to which migrants migrate. I am not so far right wing to say that the free market should be the only control over immigration, clearly the issues are more complex but I do not per se think the freedom of movement concept in the EU the wrong path.

My own view is that there are significant racial elements to the opposition to the Freedom of Movement concept but I would prefer to avoid that area as it is irrational and focus on fiscal, economic and social impacts of immigration.

I think a number of points you make are quite consistent with the US and Australian experience as well as the UK experience.

[JockPieandBeans]

In many cases it's because British people don't have the necessary skills, or the jobs are menial and low paid and British people don't want them.

Utter garbage. With a few exceptions there is NO jobs that British people do not have the skills for.

And if the Liberal and PC brigades would get a life, the menial and low paid jobs would be done by Brits. Refuse a job and NO benefits.

[RustBucket]

Tep, you make some very valid points, all backed up by independent research.

But the anti immigration lobby will ignore you; even though many of them are themselves immigrants living in Thailand for economic reasons!

Just like the EU migrants in the UK; most of whom who come to work.

To the people who say these EU migrants are taking jobs from British people, I have one question.

Why are these jobs available to these migrants; why have British people not already taken them?

In many cases it's because British people don't have the necessary skills, or the jobs are menial and low paid and British people don't want them.

I am not denying that some EU migrants do take advantage of our benefits system; or at least try to.

I am not denying that some reform is necessary.

But anyone who knows something of the freedom of movement regulations can tell you that much of what Cameron has said is hot air designed to appeal to the right wing of his party and possible UKIP defectors; many of the 'changes' he proposes are not changes at all; they are already in the regulations.

Take one aspect; the 'find work in 6 months or leave." The regulations actually say job seekers are only supposed to stay for three months; Cameron wants to allow them double the amount of time in the regulations!

Why are these jobs available to these migrants; why have British people not already taken them?

Erm.... Perhaps it is because when these job openings come up the employer goes straight for the person he can pay the least amount of money to. Regardless of what their competence is.

These are not jobs that sit on the open market for years being ignored by the British people.... these are jobs being secured in direct competition with British people.

As for trying to make a comparison between people coming to live in Thailand with EU migrant workers is a bit pathetic.

How can you compare Thai immigration and the rights of migrants in Thailand to a complete open door migration policy with full welfare benefits tacked on for good measure?

So if I go and apply for a job in Thailand, earn the minimum wage, will they pay my tax through tax credits?... will they pay cash in the hand for all the children i bring with me?.... Will they subsidize my rented accommodation?.... will they give me free healthcare treatment?.... will they educate my kids for free?.... will they give me a pension I can retire comfortably on?.... Will they pay me child benefit for kids I haven't even brought to Thailand and have nothing to do with Thailand?..... The fact is.... I bring money INTO this country and I am married to a Thai national... same as many people here. We are NOT all teachers.

As for Tep.... If I say it is 'fact' it is because I know it to be 'fact'.... rich coming from someone who copy and pastes contrived reports and tries to present them as 'facts'.... You clearly have no idea how politics work.

Edited November 29, 2014 by RustBucket

[7by7]

Warning of worsening in UK skills shortage

In a survey of 91,000 employers, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills found more than one in five vacancies were down to a poor skills base.

The UKCES found 146,200 job vacancies (22%) last year were unfilled because of inadequate skills, compared with 91,400 (16%) two years earlier.

What the skills shortage means for UK SMEs

In engineering, the Institution of Engineering & Technology’s (IET) recently found that almost half – 44pc – of companies said new recruits did not meet reasonable expectations for levels of skills.

Skills shortage fears temper surge in UK construction

"The resurgence in construction has entrenched itself after a summer of blistering growth but builders should prepare for growing pains this autumn as the sector labours to recover lost capacity," said David Noble, group chief executive officer at the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, one of the groups behind the survey.

"An encouraging 15 months of sustained employment growth – the longest since 2006-2008 – is revealing a major skills shortage in the sector."

Yes, employers could take on British workers and train them, and many do with apprenticeships on the increase. But they also need skilled workers now, and cannot wait for British people to gain those skills. So they also recruit people who already have the required skills from other EU countries.

This is particularly the case in the construction industry.

I agree; people claiming JSA or other out of work benefits who refuse a job offer without a valid reason should have their benefits cut. Indeed, I understand this is already the case.

But in many cases, British people take on the job for a few months to prevent this and then leave. This is certainly the case with the company I work for. Most Brits don't stay very long; Poles and other EU nationals do.

[7by7]

To the people who say these EU migrants are taking jobs from British people, I have one question.

Why are these jobs available to these migrants; why have British people not already taken them?

In many cases it's because British people don't have the necessary skills, or the jobs are menial and low paid and British people don't want them.

Why are these jobs available to these migrants; why have British people not already taken them?

Erm.... Perhaps it is because when these job openings come up the employer goes straight for the person he can pay the least amount of money to. Regardless of what their competence is.

More assumption from you without evidence.

Employers in areas where there are skills shortages may go to other EU countries on recruitment drives as they can't fill the vacancies in the UK. A local council who wants to recruit road sweepers, for example, go to the Job Centre.

But whatever the reason, the jobs are there. I'm presently in a crappy job after being made redundant; but my opinion is that any job is better than no job. Shame so many of my fellow countrymen think differently.

How can you compare Thai immigration and the rights of migrants in Thailand to a complete open door migration policy with full welfare benefits tacked on for good measure?

I didn't.

I compared the reasons for moving to another country.

Many ex pats living in Thailand, and elsewhere, are there for economic reasons. Yet these same people complain about people moving to their home country for economic reasons.

As for Tep.... If I say it is 'fact' it is because I know it to be 'fact'.... rich coming from someone who copy and pastes contrived reports and tries to present them as 'facts'.... You clearly have no idea how politics work.

Tep and I have provided evidence to back up our assertions.

If you have different evidence which disputes or contradicts our evidence, produce it.

Offering opinions and claiming them to be fact proves nothing

If what you say is fact, you should have no trouble finding evidence to back it up.

I await that evidence with interest.

[JockPieandBeans]

Many ex pats living in Thailand, and elsewhere, are there for economic reasons. Yet these same people complain about people moving to their home country for economic reasons.

You cannot compare an expat living in Thailand to an immigrant to the UK. Chalk and Cheese.

There is a world of difference between reducing your tax liability, to moving to the UK and claiming benefits.

[7by7]

So you moved to Thailand in order to pay less tax; i.e. improve your net income.

EU migrants move to the UK to work as they can earn more here than in their home country or they cannot find work in their home country; i.e. improve their net income.

No difference in intent that I can see.

Those who do come to the UK to claim benefits and live off the state will be sorely disappointed; they can't. To claim any non contribution based benefit in the UK an EU national must first pass the habitual residence test.

Of course, an EU national who has been working in the UK, paying tax and NICs who then becomes unemployed may claim any and all benefits to which their NICs may entitle them.

But even if an EU job seeker or an EU worker who loses their job does claim benefit, they must not become an unreasonable burden upon the state. This basically means that if they have not found work within three months then they must leave unless they can prove they have a real chance of starting work within the very near future.

The benefit reforms Cameron is putting forward are to in work benefits. That means one has to be working to claim them!

He, one assumes, sees no need to change the rules governing what unemployed EU migrants can and can't claim.

Q&A: What benefits can EU migrants get?

[sustento]

So you moved to Thailand in order to pay less tax; i.e. improve your net income.

EU migrants move to the UK to work as they can earn more here than in their home country or they cannot find work in their home country; i.e. improve their net income.

No difference in intent that I can see.

Those who do come to the UK to claim benefits and live off the state will be sorely disappointed; they can't. To claim any non contribution based benefit in the UK an EU national must first pass the habitual residence test.

Don't try and confuse them with facts. It won't work...