Politics, politics, politics

[Baleforce]

Potentially for the Tories, there was the upside of making demonstrable progress toward a key manifesto pledge that was failing spectacularly. And for remainers (including the then-tory leadership), the possibility of effectively killing off the leave campaign. So, if genuine manoeuvre was actually possible in this regard, I can't understand why it wouldn't have been pursued?

it damages us financially, medically, educationally, scientifically and reputationally

 

[r-u-s-x]

there wasn’t any upside

Maybe but was responding to a comment saying he refused to believe there was something that we could have done to control immigration while within the EU and this was an option we did not try

 

[r-u-s-x]

But why? It's not as if this wasn't known to be a major issue of voter concern.

They didn't want to control immigration, they were happy with the low cost labour and demonised the EU as it was politically easy as they didn't dream that people would vote Brexit.

 

[Parklaner81]

They didn't want to control immigration, they were happy with the low cost labour and demonised the EU as it was politically easy as they didn't dream that people would vote Brexit.

Assuming this were true, it doesn't explain why nobody (to my knowledge) picked up on and called out the apparent discrepancy between the government protestations (and generally accepted sentiment) that nothing could be done to control EU-immigration, and what was actually possible.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Assuming this were true, it doesn't explain why nobody (to my knowledge) picked up on and called out the apparent discrepancy between the government protestations (and generally accepted sentiment) that nothing could be done to control EU-immigration, and what was actually possible.

Loads of people did, I saw it at the time on a number of shows. Obviously not on any of the right wing papers or anything related to murdoch.

*just realised that sounded snarky was not my intention

 

[Parklaner81]

Loads of people did, I saw it at the time on a number of shows. Obviously not on any of the right wing papers or anything related to murdoch.

Really? I'm struggling to believe that an issue like this wasn't shouted from the rooftops by non-tory remainers.

Why didn't Labour make an issue of it? Sounds like an open goal. Tory government committed to curbing immigration, deliberately hoodwinking it's voters...

 

[DTA]

Really? I'm struggling to believe that an issue like this wasn't shouted from the rooftops by non-tory remainers.

Why didn't Labour make an issue of it? Sounds like an open goal. Tory government committed to curbing immigration, deliberately hoodwinking it's voters...

I promise you people were talking about it. But I understand if you didn't witness it you may not believe it.... But you do know that there was more immigration from non EU states then there was from within the EU.... this was completely controllable yet the government likes immigration because it depresses wages.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Really? I'm struggling to believe that an issue like this wasn't shouted from the rooftops by non-tory remainers.

Why didn't Labour make an issue of it? Sounds like an open goal. Tory government committed to curbing immigration, deliberately hoodwinking it's voters...

A mixture of Labour were a mess with loads of internal issues, they were an irrelevance politically at the time and I imagine they thought it best to sit back and let the tories argue amongst themselves.

 

[scaramanga]

That assumes equality of choice which is almost as fairytale as gutterboys ramblings.

Huge businesses have huge marketing budgets, they can put a store on every corner. The have huge lobbying budgets which mean that things that will work towards equality of that choice (like labeling) would be minimised by the government that won' want to go against them.

Basically is not a level playing field so... Yes that one of the reasons for EU (for example) regulation.

If the demand for non-chlorinated whateverthefudges is high enough, then it will be worth selling non-chlorinated whateverthefudges on every street corner.

Even if we take your presumptions as given (and I don't, because markets) we can just pass our own laws on what can and cannot be sold in this country, just like every single other country that's not in the EU does. Even if we disagree on whether we should be spoonfed by the state and have them wipe our arses, kiss our bruises better, etc. there are still plenty of mechanisms in place to allow the state to dip its grubby mitts into our lives without resorting to a superstate.

 

[Baleforce]

Really? I'm struggling to believe that an issue like this wasn't shouted from the rooftops by non-tory remainers.

Why didn't Labour make an issue of it? Sounds like an open goal. Tory government committed to curbing immigration, deliberately hoodwinking it's voters...

the ONS data with the net benefit to the economy of current immigration levels (at the time, that March) was all over the front of the guardian for a week

 

[scaramanga]

We spent a lot of time demonizing the EU rather than work around the rules we agreed to. There are lots of things we could have done to control immigration within the EU and did not, the most glaring one is the 3 month rule.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3.1.3.html

So either Cameron is an idiot or there is another reason why it was not tried.

Some highlights from that page:

"Job seekers have the right to reside for a period exceeding six months (CoJ, Case C-292/89 Antonissen) without having to meet any conditions if they continue to seek employment in the host Member State and have a ‘genuine chance’ of finding work; during this time they cannot be expelled. "

"The status of first-time job seekers is currently the subject of intense discussion, as they do not have a worker status to retain. In Cases C-138/02 Collins and C-22/08 Vatsouras, the CoJ found that such EU citizens had a right of equal access to a financial benefit intended to facilitate access to the labour market for job seekers"

"Article 14(4)(b) of the directive prohibits the expulsion of unemployed EU citizens as long as they continue to seek employment,"

" the mere fact of claiming a benefit is not sufficient to prove that a person is not self-sufficient," - this is with regard to deciding whether an immigrant is a burden on the state or not

Add to that the following conditions required to deport an EU citizen:

• Public policy or public security decisions to deport someone should be “proportionate”, and based exclusively on the behaviour of the individual involved
• Previous criminal convictions aren’t on their own a valid reason to deport someone
• The person’s behaviour must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”
• Countries can’t deport a person just to make an example of them

Then add the fact that each of these cases would likely be taken all the way through the courts by some Huffington Post type and you have an incredibly expensive way of removing unwanted immigrants.

On top of that we have the payment of child benefit to children who don't even live in this country.


Now I'm all for freedom of movement - I think it should be in place globally, not just in the EU. My business (so, by extension, me) benefits very well from freedom of movement and the correcting effect it has on lowly skilled pay in this country. Without it my business would be looking at a far smaller profit, which means I'd have to cut down on the number of hookers n coke parties I have a month.

That said, none of the above look at all like desirable outcomes for a country at the upper end of the financial scale in a "trading bloc". The whole idea of treating all EU citizens equally is just preposterous. If they want to work in the UK and are demonstrably better than an anyone else applying for that job, then great. fudge paying out benefits though - that's not free trade, that's political union.

 

[Baleforce]

any idea where I can trade in some of my new found sovereignty or returned control to find out what my govt’s brexit study papers say?

 

[r-u-s-x]

did you choose to leave out the following or just missed it? Also not sure how it relates to Tories not using EU rules open to it to control the inflow of new migrants. Are you saying that imposing the 3 month rule would have no effect, there is not a three month rule or something different?

"1.Workers’ rights of movement and residence
Directive 2004/38/EC introduces EU citizenship as the basic status for nationals of the Member States when they exercise their right to move and reside freely on EU territory. For the first three months, every EU citizen has the right to reside on the territory of another EU country with no conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. For longer periods, the host Member State may require a citizen to register his or her presence within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.

Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence."

 

[scaramanga]

did you choose to leave out the following or just missed it? Also not sure how it relates to Tories not using EU rules open to it to control the inflow of new migrants. Are you saying that imposing the 3 month rule would have no effect, there is not a three month rule or something different?

I left them out because you'd already paraphrased them and because:

"1.Workers’ rights of movement and residence

Directive 2004/38/EC introduces EU citizenship as the basic status for nationals of the Member States when they exercise their right to move and reside freely on EU territory. For the first three months, every EU citizen has the right to reside on the territory of another EU country with no conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. For longer periods, the host Member State may require a citizen to register his or her presence within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.

Is superseded by:

"Job seekers have the right to reside for a period exceeding six months (CoJ, Case C-292/89 Antonissen) without having to meet any conditions if they continue to seek employment in the host Member State and have a ‘genuine chance’ of finding work; during this time they cannot be expelled. "

So once an EU immigrant has held a job for an unspecified amount of time, the 3 month rule ceases to apply and then becomes the "something more than 6 months but we're going to be entirely vague so as to ensure as many cases as possible go to court and cost a fudging fortune as that way it discourages countries from applying it" rule.


and

Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence."

Is superseded by:
"the mere fact of claiming a benefit is not sufficient to prove that a person is not self-sufficient"

So someone can lack the self-sufficiency to require benefits under our system and simultaneously be considered to have the means to not be a burden on our society. If claiming benefit isn't considered being a burden then I don't know what fudging planet the EU is on.

 

[Parklaner81]

the ONS data with the net benefit to the economy of current immigration levels (at the time, that March) was all over the front of the guardian for a week

That does nothing to address the assertion being made here, which is essentially that the government were deliberately acting contrary to the aims of one of their key manifesto points and nobody, despite the fact that the referendum clearly hinged to a large degree on the issue, was making a big deal of it.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Sorry still a little unclear if this is a general point or specifically against my rebuttal that the Tories did have options open to them that may have reduced migration - i.e the three month rule & ensuring they had health insurance? Regardless of your feelings on the rights earned once you have been in employment I would think this is a control that would have had some impact.

the unspecified period of time is found at http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-rights/jobseekers/index_en.htm and after a year employment it appears that it is very hard to remove people with the way our benefits work but I do not think this supersedes the three month rule having any impact.


on the second point that is not what it is saying - its saying you can have the means to be self sufficient and still claim any benefit that is open to a non migrant. We have universal benefits by claiming those (as everyone is entitled) does not automatically make you non-self sufficient. I think that's pretty sensible otherwise a member state can easily game the system to effectively be detrimental to migrants (against FOM rules) i.e everyone must pay £100 p/d to be in the country but everyone entitled can claim £100 p/d.

The starting point with the EU FOM is you can not give an advantage to your citizens over another countries this is just enforcing that rule. Lots of people didnt agree with this hence Brexit but you can hardly fault the EU for having rules in place to ensure this outcome.

 

[r-u-s-x]

That does nothing to address the assertion being made here, which is essentially that the government were deliberately acting contrary to the aims of one of their key manifesto points and nobody, despite the fact that the referendum clearly hinged to a large degree on the issue, was making a big deal of it.

there was also a fairly loud voice pointing to the Non-EU migration and point out we had full control over this and it remained fairly static. To confirm I am saying they were deliberately acting contrary to their key manifesto points, but people were taking about it.

 

[Baleforce]

That does nothing to address the assertion being made here, which is essentially that the government were deliberately acting contrary to the aims of one of their key manifesto points and nobody, despite the fact that the referendum clearly hinged to a large degree on the issue, was making a big deal of it.

was it a key manifesto point or a sketchy thought experiment, the only commitment was to making immigrants earn the right to benefits wasn’t it?

 

[Baleforce]

the part in question

“
Immigration

• Keep an ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.
• Negotiate new rules with the EU so that people will have to be earning income in the UK for a number of years before they can claim benefits, including the tax credits that top up low wages.”

there’s a lot of wiggle room in that sentence

 

[Parklaner81]

was it a key manifesto point or a sketchy thought experiment, the only commitment was to making immigrants earn the right to benefits wasn’t it?

We can split hairs about wording as much as you like. My real problem with this is that if there was truly realistic scope to curb EU immigration, and the tories were ignoring it despite their manifesto "ambition", their opponents would have been all over them for it. Remain would've hammered it home, and the referendum would've been in the bag. But those things didn't happen. Why?