You pay nothing

[meridian]

You pay nothing

(assuming they meet the criteria that the U.K. currently chooses not to apply) - My understanding is we can't discriminate between our local population and EU immigrants. So, you can't deny benefits to an EU waiter who is poorly paid unless you also apply that rule to your local population.

Let me know what I've got wrong because I've read similar argument a couple of times now.

“Sort of”, is the answer I think.

The relevant info is here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsh...ent-of-workers

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.

So for non-workers (eg family members or job seekers with no offer of employment) it’s fairly clear.

For workers it’s less clear - workers then presumably fall under what you’re saying which is that they can’t be denied benefits while they remain workers. So the question then is what benefits are U.K.-born workers entitled to?

Child benefit would be one, which is a fairly universal benefit no matter which country you reside in. Are there any others? (I genuinely don’t know).

After 5 years there is the right to permanent residency which then means that the person is not a “migrant worker” so would then fall under normal resident rules.

Edit: that link provides a load more info on what constitutes a worker, rights before employment, rights between jobs, etc. You’re right, it’s not as simple as it sounds and there is a lot of technical court decisions to get through to try to understand the actual position

[woohoo]

“Sort of”, is the answer I think.

The relevant info is here:

Free movement of workers | Fact Sheets on the European Union | European Parliament



So for non-workers (eg family members or job seekers with no offer of employment) it’s fairly clear.

For workers it’s less clear - workers then presumably fall under what you’re saying which is that they can’t be denied benefits while they remain workers. So the question then is what benefits are U.K.-born workers entitled to?

Child benefit would be one, which is a fairly universal benefit no matter which country you reside in. Are there any others? (I genuinely don’t know).

After 5 years there is the right to permanent residency which then means that the person is not a “migrant worker” so would then fall under normal resident rules.

Edit: that link provides a load more info on what constitutes a worker, rights before employment, rights between jobs, etc. You’re right, it’s not as simple as it sounds and there is a lot of technical court decisions to get through to try to understand the actual position

It's not simple, but I think it's fairly easy to get a low paid job in this country. So that would mean you would then be allowed benefits etc. So I don't think it's really practical to restrict benefits and deter the poorly paid or skilled to the country - unless you applied harsher criteria to the local population and then labour would win the election. But I could be wrong.

[meridian]

It's not simple, but I think it's fairly easy to get a low paid job in this country. So that would mean you would then be allowed benefits etc. So I don't think it's really practical to restrict benefits and deter the poorly paid or skilled to the country - unless you applied harsher criteria to the local population and then labour would win the election. But I could be wrong.

Agreed it’s not simple, but like I say I have no idea what benefits a low-paid EU citizen would be entitled to. You’d need to go through each one to be certain.

As an example, housing benefit:

https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/eligibility

Who is not eligible:
- you’re residing in the UK as an European Economic Area jobseeker

Then, presumably, you’d need to trawl through gov.uk to find out their definition of jobseeker.

[sasguru]

It's not simple, but I think it's fairly easy to get a low paid job in this country. So that would mean you would then be allowed benefits etc. So I don't think it's really practical to restrict benefits and deter the poorly paid or skilled to the country - unless you applied harsher criteria to the local population and then labour would win the election. But I could be wrong.

My lawyer friend has an interesting take on this. The EU directive says that:

"...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. "

He says that the UK could have required ALL EU immigrants to have private health insurance on entry to the UK. This is because "on entry" very few of them, especially the lower skilled would have had jobs. And so on the instant of entry they could potentially have become a burden "on the host Member State’s social assistance system".
Especially if they had pre-existing conditions or even if they got run over by a bus on the first day.
This could have acted as a mechanism to control EU immigration.

At best the wording is ambiguous and so the UK could have interpreted it as such.

[woohoo]

My lawyer friend has an interesting take on this. The EU directive says that:

"...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. "

He says that the UK could have required ALL EU immigrants to have private health insurance on entry to the UK. This is because "on entry" very few of them, especially the lower skilled would have had jobs. And so on the instant of entry they could potentially have become a burden "on the host Member State’s social assistance system".
Especially if they had pre-existing conditions or even if they got run over by a bus on the first day.
This could have acted as a mechanism to control EU immigration.

At best the wording is ambiguous and so the UK could have interpreted it as such.

"few of them, especially the lower skilled would have jobs". I'm not sure that's true. There are companies for example in Poland, that arrange jobs then bus people out of Poland to the UK to do those jobs. It's an industry. Would they not be classed as workers? Again, i would imagine if they still required insurance it would be part of the fee they paid to the company that arranges their work.

[sasguru]

Again, i would imagine if they still required insurance it would be part of the fee they paid to the company that arranges their work.

The cost of private insurance would have been prohibitive to most.