Forum Topic

EU Legal threat to UK Benefits.

Since when has the UK been a member of the European Community? Why then are we being threatened by the EU Commission because they consider that tests for eligibility benefits discriminates against foreigners.Wait for it the "right to reside" is automatic for UK Nationals but assessed for other EU Nationals, well blow me down they have obviously not visited our local post office on benefit day. The commission says that the UK has breached EU Law!!! they have had the audacity to give us 2 months to say how we would bring our rules into line.NOTE:-WE DO NOT BELONG TO EUROPE and we do not want to be. give us our referendum and we will prove it to you.Have to give Chris Grayling top marks, his response was that it was unacceptable "that we should open our doors to Benefit Tourism" exactly!!

Dawn Hardy ● 5061d44 Comments

Throughout the World the UK is known as the Benefit Capital of the World. I mean where else could you go to, sign on put your wife and 2 children as dependents back home and receive benefits even though you left them back home and then still claim Family Allowance for the kids when you had made enough money to return to your homeland, it only happens in the UK folks.

Dawn Hardy ● 5052d

Fraser,Thank you so much, you have given a complete insight into our relationship with the EU also the EEC. 2007 was a dismal year for the UK, I remember Gordon Brown nearly missing the signing and was it not signed off in a back room, obviously even then he himself was not too sure of the Lisbon Treaty. Trade with the EU by all means, but take back our right to rule ourselves we the people did not agree to this, as you say economically we do not do well financially in participating with them. We are still a strong Nation and as in the past we can survive alone,any country trading with us will make a good profit. I do not want politicians telling me that it will take years to take back our rights"I want it started before the next election"

Dawn Hardy ● 5052d

Fraser, Thanks so much for a concise piece, as you say it is unfortunate that once politicians are elected by the people of any EU Country for the people of that country, then because they have achieved their own goal they do tend to ignore the populace thoughts and concerns.Edward Heath obviously knew the British People"[I]Provisional European Government[/I]", if used he would have been out by breakfast time. It is such a shame that once again we the people come second best, however government should really start to take note of our concerns and listen. We gave our trust into their keeping if abused they will most certainly lose.

Dawn Hardy ● 5052d

Bernadette,Maybe no one on here knows.Why not contact your mep?His office should know.

Keith Iddon ● 5052d

All very interesting but nobody has answered my question.  I know this country is for instance full of Poles many enjoying an assortment of benefits that the UK has to offer.  I also know there is little or nothing in the way of benefits in Poland (I have Polish connections so I really do know this) therefore I ask again, can I (I do hold an Irish passport by the way) go to Eire and claim their benefits instead of the UK's?  If not, why would the UK be obliged to cough up for everyone else in the EEC or whatever it's called?

Bernadette Paul ● 5052d

Fraser,The name put before the public in 1973 as the Common Market as far as I can remember and thge term EEC didn't become widely used much later,the 1980's me thinks.It's like joining a snooker club only to find they now only play golf!

Keith Iddon ● 5052d

We didn’t join the EU in 1973. Instead, Britain joined an EEC far smaller in scale and less than honest in its aspirations.The EU only came into being in 1992, via the Maastricht Treaty, and only gained legal title four years ago with the Lisbon Treaty.1973 was like a couple agreeing to go steady, 1992 was the engagement and 2007 the wedding.---Vanessa’s right though (but perhaps for the wrong reasons), how can Britain possibly afford to leave the EU now?Economically, the UK’s done very badly out of the EEC and EU. The only year Britain ever got back more than it gave was – entirely coincidentally – the year of the referendum. The EU’s own estimates tell us the Single Market costs 12% of EU GDP but only adds an extra 4% - a net loss of 8% of GDP across the EU.In UK terms, 8% equated to over £116 billion last year (compared to total health spending of £118 billion).So why does the EU insist on a system that imposes such a huge loss? Firstly, it concentrates power in the EU’s favour. Secondly. in the EU’s own words, the Single Market is a system that’s:“broadly consistent with the public choice theory that sees regulation as a mechanism to create rents for politicians and the firms they support." Do the bank bailouts fit into this pattern of rent seeking?---So, what if a country left the EU? Before the Lisbon Treaty, any country was free to leave (with Greenland leaving the EEC in 1985). With Lisbon, however, a system was put in place where, if a country wanted to leave, the other 26 would join with the European Commission to decide what penalties and sanctions would be put in place. Crucially, the country wanting to leave would not be included in these discussions. In effect, the Lisbon Treaty was like a wedding pre-nup that allows your spouse and in-laws to decide the terms of your divorce settlement.If de Gaulle wanted Britain to sacrifice its fishing and agriculture when the UK originally joined the EEC, imagine the penalty now if the UK left the EU.---And what about trade? Britain has a huge trade loss with the EU. If the UK left, however, it would be illegal under international trade law for EU countries to stop trade with Britain.Look at it another way - the UK’s been the biggest source of foreign investment into France and the biggest consumer of French goods. If the EU broke the law and said ‘non’ to UK trade, this would torpedo the French economy. The French people wouldn’t stand for it.Likewise, if Germany left the EU, would EU citizens stop buying Mercedes, BMW, Bosch and Siemens? Of course they wouldn’t.The point is that, with or without the EU, there will still be trade with countries in Europe. This itself reiterates what should be obvious – that Europe and the EU aren’t the same thing.This is why countries like Mexico and South Korea today have EU trade privileges similar to those the UK gained in 1973. The EU cannot stop them trading with European countries and it wouldn’t be able to stop the UK either.Furthermore, Switzerland isn’t in the EU but has a greater proportion of trade with the EU than the UK does. It’s European but not in the EU.Switzerland doesn’t have to be in the EU to do well. It’s in the ‘European Free Trade Association’, which shows that the EU isn’t the only version of ‘Europe’ on offer. In 2006, for example, the Swiss federal Government estimated that if Switzerland were to join the EU, it would cost her nine times more than her present free trade and other bilateral arrangements with Brussels.So, trade needn't be a barrier to leaving the EU.The problem is that EU citizens are rarely presented with the alternatives on offer. At the same time, those favouring different versions of European integration have been derided as racists and xenophobes.

Fraser Pearce ● 5053d

“[I]Why did we not notice Countries monetary difficulties before the ascent of the Euro[/I]...”They [I]were[/I] noticed, Dawn. The Bundesbank, Bank of England and the EU’s own economists warned of the Euro’s flaws and pitfalls before it was rolled out.The Euro, however, wasn’t about just economics. It was rather another stepping stone to political integration, a gearing up to something bigger.* If successful, the Euro could therefore be the pretext for more political integration, more EU. If unsuccessful, the Euro could still be the pretext for more political integration – [I]by arguing there hasn’t been enough EU[/I]. They gambled and thought they couldn’t lose. Romano Prodi, for example, headed up the EU when the Euro was introduced. In 2001 he commented:“[I]I am sure the Euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created[/I].”We have seen some of these “new instruments” in recent months.---They knew the Euro would bring a crisis – they were warned - yet thought they could spin a crisis their way to bring about further economic and political integration (look at Greece). The only shock is that people are shocked. The political class across the EU colluded in a game of mass delusion. They lied to create the Euro and, since then, lied and colluded in breaking its rules.The media went along with them.*During the Paris Summit of October 1972, European leaders discussed an official "[I]Provisional European Government[/I]", monetary union and the eclipse of national sovereignty. Later that year, however, some leaders said this name wouldn’t work back home (with Edward Heath saying "That would get me into great difficulties.") So, a more neutral alternative phrase was floated - the "[I]European Union[/I]". A member of the French president's staff was puzzled by this opaque label, inquired what it meant and was told: "Nothing… but then that is the beauty of it".That was back in 1973 – when leaders were already planning European government, monetary union and EU sovereignty. Strangely, these leaders failed to let their people in on the plan.

Fraser Pearce ● 5053d

Both the Tory and Lib Dem Manifesto before the election promised that they would repatriate powers from the EU, according to William Hague this cannot be achieved in the foreseeable future. Well I and every other citizen of our country want to know why. Why cannot we take back what is rightfully ours right away, we the people never ever gave any government the OK to do this.When Mr Wilson gave we the people a referendum whether to stay in the EU or not, it was the understanding of most that it was purely for trade purposes not to give up the rights that have been ours for eons.Government need to remember that we the people do indeed have the backbone to go it alone, after all it's what we do best, what will be unforgivable is if you break your word to us, it must be seen to be started and carried through. Perhaps Mr Cameron should go to the nation because being in a coalition with Lib Dem's whilst Nick Clegg is all for our country entering the EU full blown is not what we expected, you Mr Cameron have your hands tied by this coalition, you yourself asked we the British public to show some backbone the time is for you to do the same. Take back our POWERS from the EU, and you will have us eating out of your hands.

Dawn Hardy ● 5053d

Why did we not notice Countries monetary difficulties before the ascent of the Euro, was it possibly that Countries had a good economy with their own currencies and this in fact went out the window when competition went. One currency however much you wish it, is not good for competitive rates this is why so many are no longer holidaying on the continent it is too expensive.Keith you are so right, it is so very easy to borrow but so very very hard to pay back, never ever borrow do without save and then only buy the best, you deserve it and it is so satisfying. A chip of the old block well done to you.

Dawn Hardy ● 5055d

Frightening,isn't it?The economic madness of giving these levels of benefit when the arse is hanging out oif your trousers beggars belief.This is all done too on borrowed money(partly ours)and money granted (partly ours) from the EEC.Greece are in an even worsre boat.For small countries,or even larger ones,these levels of benefit are unrealistic and unsustainable and encourage benefit careerism and benefit tourism.Moral of story?Don't borrow what you can't pay back and think twice before you borrow at all,,don't live beyond your means,put a few quid away for a rainy day and cut your suit according to your cloth,not according to what the neighbours are wearing.Advice given to me by my parents.

Keith Iddon ● 5055d

I really do not know the answer to this question but, if people come to the UK for the benefits (and I do believe many of them do) does that mean we can go elsewhere to claim their benefits?  I know that poor old Ireland is going down the pan financially (and this could be why) unemployment benefit in Ireland is over £200 per week in the UK its £67.50.  Pensions are also higher and pensioners have considerably more benefits there than they do in the UK.  Can I go to Ireland and claim their benefits?  If I can, I'm off!

Bernadette Paul ● 5055d

Exactly!!The need to trade with the European Union is a necessity 40% of our goods are taken by the European Community.However why does this trading with them allow our laws to be made by them.We have been threatened legal action by them because they say that Europeans should be allowed Job Seekers allowance and whatnot as soon as they arrive here, they consider that they have the right to live in our Country without contributing anything. If David Cameron gives in it will cost an additional 2.6 Billion Pounds per year which we cannot afford being in Europe is costing us too much without benefits.We are all having a very difficult time at the moment and it is not going to get any better in the near future.

Dawn Hardy ● 5056d

Dawn I'm not responsible for being in the EU - as I said I voted against. However, I do accept that geographically we are European, we are also linked by the Chunnel. The world is a far smaller place now, most of our exports go to Europe and over the intervening years since 1973 we've got closer and closer, most of the European financial transactions take place in London. I just cannot see how we'd survive if we came out of the EU, and the money this would undoubtedly cost would be phenomenal and we're hardly flush at the moment - so all this talk is just that - talk. Why don't we adopt the other approach and fight our corner inside instead of contantly being the whingeing outsider? I don't think you can keep re-visiting decisions made for good or ill, years ago. I'm, not sure what you are getting at about slavery (William Wilberforce), or kids going down mines (Lord Shaftesbury) what has that go to do with us as members of the EU?

Vanessa Smith ● 5056d

Keith, Got this off the net.Britain made attempts to join the EEC in 1963 and 1967. This ended in failure, mainly due to the opposition of President Charles De Gaulle of France. Britain, under the leadership of Edward Heath, was finally admitted in 1973. Denmark and Ireland also joined at the same time.In 1975, the new British prime minister, Harold Wilson decided to hold a referendum on membership of the European Economic Community. Wilson allowed his Cabinet to support both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns and this led to a bitter split in the party. The Conservative Party was also divided over this issue but the British people eventually voted to remain in the EEC.

Dawn Hardy ● 5056d

Vanessa,Give us a clue as to what we actually benefit by being handcuffed to the EU. As for the slavery it was an Englishman who got the abolition of slavery started,I feel sure that it was also one of us who abolished little kids of the age of 6 or 7 from going down coal mines.

Dawn Hardy ● 5056d

Dawn,The referendum we had in the 70's wasn't about whether to join .We were already in.It was about whether we stayed in or not.The whole shhoting match was called the Common Market and not the EEC or the EU.

Keith Iddon ● 5056d

I do hope that the server will not go down this time.If we are not to be permitted to vote on a Referendum at least show some backbone and take back the right to rule ourselves, after all the 67% of the vote to enter Europe was to trade with them. It is shameful that 85% of new laws that go through our Parliament actually come from the European Community.

Dawn Hardy ● 5056d

Grrr That should have read "*they're* good enough for that".

Tony Wood ● 5057d

Vanessa  I agree with you re Churchill,but what are your views on Blair and Iraq? Wouldn't it have been better to have faffed around a bit having a referendum,there would probably be about 100,000 totally innocent people still alive? Oh and a large number of the cruise missile used had Union Jacks on them.  Things change, sometimes for the better,Churchill got dumped at the first opportunity, but out of that we got Bevan and the NHS. Soon to be NHS Ltd. I'll wager.Now that would be a good thing to have a referendum on.  "sometimes the price of being that wrong is too higher price to trust to people who may not have all the facts that are at the disposal of the government."  With respect,that's a tiny bit totally mad,the Governments (last and this) are trusting those same people who still don't have all of the facts, to dig them out of the financial mess that we're in,good enough for that,but too stupid to have a say on something that is going to haunt us for I guess a couple of decades. The Governments both knew what was going with the bankers and did you know what about it. I reckon that if we have to pay, then we should have a say,voting once every few years doesn't cut it with me I'm afraid.   I don't think that I said MPs shouldn't be elected,I said that numbers should be reduced and a non elected jury for want of a better word should be called at random,if they're smart enough to try murder cases at the Old Bailey there good enough for that.  Don't worry,nothing will happen it never does, we'll get poorer they'll get richer. That'll be OK then.

Tony Wood ● 5057d

Agreed.I don't think we need a referendum yet on the EU. Just as much repatriation as we can get.Referenda make me suspicious. A lot depends on how they are worded. The wording is very heavily edited to assist the government of the day. Not always, but the validity of referenda need to be very carefully considered before I would support them.In addition to tinkering with the size of Parliament, I think the constitution should be changed to prevent any person from being Prime Minister for more than 10 years.

George Knox ● 5057d

The sobering thought for me is that so many people wanted to appease Germany in the 1930's after the horror of WW1, that I hardly want to contemplate what would have happened had the government of the day faffed around with a referendum. Not many people wanted Churchill back but whatever your feelings about him, he at least was prepared to make a decision and work with whoever he had to to survive another war, and thank God he did. It seems to me sometimes the price of being that wrong is too higher price to trust to people who may not have all the facts that are at the disposal of the government, after all things are rarely as simple as they may appear. The whole point of democracy is that we mandate an elected government to make those decisions for us, right or wrong, and they will get it wrong, they are only human like the rest of us, but the saving grace of this system is that we can get rid of them at the next election. I too would like to see some re-jigging, but I'd start with the House of Lords, we need a second chamber BUT we also need the members to be elected and not just appointed.

Vanessa Smith ● 5057d

"I really just love the way you are prepared to put your trust in a referendum for anything."No you don't,you really dislike it."It seems hardly anyone is prepared to admit voting for it and yet the result was evidently 2-1 in favour.  How come?"I haven't a clue,I don't know the answer."I know it's another conspiracy theory"I like conspiracy theories,there's generally no smoke without fire, though sometimes only the cutains get singed rather than the whole house burning down. But asking the question can sometimes reveal something else that's amiss. "Based on those results, I believe any referenda that may be called in this country would merely be to appease the electorate and then override them anyway."  So you have no faith in a Governments honesty either... We agree!   Nope,we need referenda that are binding,they're quite useless if they aren't. As Joe Stalin said "That's the trouble with elections (referenda in this case)...you just never know who will win".  At the end of the day we either have to trust politicians or the public,the downside of choosing the latter is we have no-one to blame but ourselves if it goes belly up,the downside if the politicians screw up is that it's still our fault. You choose. 

Tony Wood ● 5057d

I really just love the way you are prepared to put your trust in a referendum for anything.  That, I think, was the point of my earlier post re the EU referendum.  It seems hardly anyone is prepared to admit voting for it and yet the result was evidently 2-1 in favour.  How come?  I know it's another conspiracy theory but, based on those results, I believe any referenda that may be called in this country would merely be to appease the electorate and then override them anyway.

Bernadette Paul ● 5057d

He does,but so did Brown :0)Vanessa...some random nearly thoughts.  I don't vote,as I've said before I voted for Thatcher first time round and then Blair on his first time round,I know,I'm a loser!  As far as I can see you're not thinking outside of the box. I think a complete rejig is needed in our governance,at the mo' we have 658 Parliamentarians and 830 yes 830! In the House of Lords,giving a total of 1488 of the buggers.(how much does that cost?)   On the other hand,the USA which is approx. 40 times the size of the UK has 430 in the House of Representatives and 100 Senators plus 6 non voting members from places like Guam,the Virgin Islands and Samoa. If they can manage with so few then so could we.   So what I think would be good, is a huge reduction of "the buggers", to say 150 plus a non elected, temporary but compulsorily serving Jury of say 13 members of the public under a neutral, if such a thing exists...Judge like person. That would provide a fairly non partisan element to the voting.  As far as referenda go...should the budget for a major topic (say over 5£ billion(could be any figure really)) then a referendum could be called. It doesn't matter if only 3 people turn out then the result would be secure and non voters have no come back!    Certainly a referendum should be called for major events,say to do with us declaring war on anyone,especially in the presence of dubious information being issued.  Come on ..I said it was random,I haven't finalized anything yet,but you have to admit it's outside the box.

Tony Wood ● 5058d

Ok,let's have a referendum when a govn. doesn't fulfil an election promise.Like a vote on the Lisbon Treaty,for example.If a manifesto is not going to be adhered to,isn't that extremely patronising and just taking voters for granted?

Keith Iddon ● 5058d

Hmmm, As Vanessa quite rightly says, we elect a Government and "trust" them to fulfill the mandate upon which they were elected. Who decides which issue should be taken to a referendum? The Government? local activists? I'd quite like to see speed humps removed from the roads of Britain (I don't drive) because they make my journey on buses uncomfortable.Let's have a referendum! It's difficult enough as it is to get people to the polling station when it really matters, if we ask people to go once a week, the likelihood is that they would forget that it was an important vote, like a general or local election!

Christopher Boucher ● 5058d

Not because it isn't the right thing to do then?

Keith Iddon ● 5058d

There won't be a referendum because Cameron wants to stay in.

George Knox ● 5058d

...that's the way the system works'.That's the point Vanessa.The system doesn't work and isn't working for an increasing amount of people.Partly because parties do not do what they were elected to do.It's not hard to understand.To say 'Don't vote for them' when there is little chance of any of 'them' doing what they say they will means that your vote is meaningless.You are almost making my point for me.If there were to be  areferedum on Europe tomorrow I would bet that there would be a record turn out.

Keith Iddon ● 5058d

Then don't vote for them next time, that's the way the system works. I just don't see that constant referendums would work, who would decide what subjects should be voted on and when? This just seems to go against what we have a general elections for, you pays your money - you takes your choice. You are also in great danger of p****ng the electorate off, what was the turn out for the av referendum? The majority of people can hardly drag themselves to a polling station when we have elections, can you imagine trying to do that more often?

Vanessa Smith ● 5058d

"Also referendums cost an absolute fortune"  Yes,but so do wars,and not just money.If they'd had a referendum on Iraq the naysayers would have walked it,in spite of the duff gen  we were given. (talking of dodgy mandates).  I think Keith is right,we have to keep the Government of the day under intense scrutiny,you just can't trust 'em.

Tony Wood ● 5058d

I don't think there are enough referedums.Governments serially renage on their election promises.The democracy we have a present offer a vote every 5 years and situations chang a lot in that time.What are they scared of?The will of the people,that's what.

Keith Iddon ● 5058d

Good point - neither have I. I am pretty much against referendums, as I think the government of the day are elected to make the decisions, even if this lot have a very dodgy mandate, but that's the way our system works.  Also referendums cost an absolute fortune - and where would it stop?

Vanessa Smith ● 5058d

I have to say I thought the referendum was pre 1976 but whenever it was I voted and I voted NO - funnily enough I have yet to meet anyone who says they voted YES.  I didn't believe the figures at the time and I still don't believe that the country voted 2-1 in favour.  If they did, why can't I find someone who voted yes?

Bernadette Paul ● 5058d

It's only mad to you,Vanessa.It is the only referendum we have had,save the recent nonsense av,in my lifetime.It was an important issue then,and is an even more important issue now,as it has morphed into something completely different  from the Common Market,which was the name put on the table when,by accident of birth,you were able to vote and many others were not.The examples of slavery and chimney sweeps beggar belief,btw.

Keith Iddon ● 5058d

That's mad. Shall we go back and debate the wrongs of slavery or putting little boys up chimneys too? There are laws on the statute books from donkey's years ago that would have to be looked at if we follow your logic. For the record I did have a vote and I voted NO to EU membership but we're in and have been for long time, how on earth could we afford to come out now?

Vanessa Smith ● 5059d

Helen,Yes,we have been members since 1973 but it was only in 1975 or 76 that we got a vote as to whether we stayed in or not.We did not have a vote in 1973.I want my say now as it's my generation that are paying the lion's share.

Keith Iddon ● 5059d

Hi Helen,I do appreciate your comment, it's just that I abhor the idea of being dictated to by the EU who as far as I am concerned have no authority over me or mine,I am and have always been a staunch supporter of not only our Queen but our Democracy. Apologies if I appeared short with you.

Dawn Hardy ● 5061d

Hi Dawn;I was just stating the fact about being in the EU rather than debating the right and wrongs of it as you asked 'since when has the UK been a member of the European Community?'

Helen Martin ● 5061d

You are so right however what benefits have we in the UK received from this. What does it actually mean that we are a Member of the European Union, I along with many many others think that all it does is cost us money that we can ill afford. Can you explain to me what it is that we actually receive from the EU please.If our government adhere to this ridiculous ruling than that means that any European who comes into the UK will automatically be able to sign on and receive money that they have not contributed to.At this moment in time we are broke and the government have just notified over 1000 members of our Royal Navy that they are redundant because of lack of funds, has anyone actually thought about housing,schooling and social care for these soon to be ex-sailors. If we  take note of the EU Commission than that will cost you and I(taxpayers) an additional 2.6 Billion Pounds per year.If we have had to take such drastic action with our Armed Forces because of lack of funds,than  why should we follow the EU ruling?

Dawn Hardy ● 5061d

I wonder just how many people actually understood and voted on this in 1975-6, I am sick to death of being told what is right and wrong by Europeans. Let's take a vote right now.

Dawn Hardy ● 5061d

Britain has been a member of the EU since 1973.

Helen Martin ● 5061d

No argument here Dawn.I didn't get a vote in 1976 because I was too young.I want one now.

Keith Iddon ● 5061d