Reply to: You pay nothing

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

Sure. But then you ignored my question about how you’re determining “well above-average performers”.

Even ignoring critical services such as nurses, teachers, plumbers, etc where the U.K. is taking advantage of the fact that these (relatively) lower paid workers have had their training paid for by another country, there’s an argument that a waiter in a struggling cafe is still providing a valuable community service - they are self-sufficient (assuming they meet the criteria that the U.K. currently chooses not to apply), they help keep a local business afloat, and presumably by helping a business keep afloat they help corporation tax and VAT make its way into the exchequer.

(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.

[sasguru]

We need to raise the retirement age and improve the overall health and productivity of the population.

Good luck with that. Like the 30% plus of fatties are suddenly going to slim down and work hard.

[sasguru]

Why not?

Because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Also your argument falls flat on it's face as it implies there are other countries which have a surplus of these clever people.

And if they do, why can we not, given we have some of the most respected educational institutes in the world.

No country has a surplus of clever people however good their academic institutions. All countries have a shortfall. Top companies compete for a global pool of top talent.

[TwoWolves]

We can discuss this till the cows come home.

Fact is the demographics don't favour the UK - it's an increasingly ageing population.
https://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/files/Fu...ing_Report.pdf

And even the younger population are amongst the fattest (and therefore most unhealthy) in Europe.
https://www.indy100.com/article/thes...pe--byA0nZNvxZ

...which costs the NHS hugely:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...environment--2

And are poorly educated as I mentioned before:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-parents.html

It's an interesting question as to who will be doing the work to support these people.

Migrants get old too, migration is not a solution. We need to raise the retirement age and improve the overall health and productivity of the population.

[meridian]

I agree, however "those that have jobs, can support themselves without benefits, and have personal health insurance" is not the same thing as "well above-average performers who will take our economy in an upward direction".

If someone works as a waiter in some struggling little cafe he/she could still meet your criteria. Low cost staff should not be keeping afloat all these low productivity businesses which would otherwise not survive. We need to embrace technology and aim for a more efficient, productive economy.

Sure. But then you ignored my question about how you’re determining “well above-average performers”.

Even ignoring critical services such as nurses, teachers, plumbers, etc where the U.K. is taking advantage of the fact that these (relatively) lower paid workers have had their training paid for by another country, there’s an argument that a waiter in a struggling cafe is still providing a valuable community service - they are self-sufficient (assuming they meet the criteria that the U.K. currently chooses not to apply), they help keep a local business afloat, and presumably by helping a business keep afloat they help corporation tax and VAT make its way into the exchequer.

[original PM]

But you do need them. Your kids aren't going to become neurosurgeons or AI specialists are they?
There aren't enough clever people produced natively to run a modern economy which relies on high cognitive ability.

Why not?

Also your argument falls flat on it's face as it implies there are other countries which have a surplus of these clever people.

And if they do, why can we not, given we have some of the most respected educational institutes in the world.

[sasguru]

Ok....

and your point is?

What was being said was that we should only consider well above average performers - not that we need them.

But you do need them. Your kids aren't going to become neurosurgeons or AI specialists are they?
There aren't enough clever people produced natively to run a modern economy which relies on high cognitive ability.

[original PM]

Will "well above-average performers" want to come to what has become perceived as an insular, grey, rainy little island with reduced economic prospects post-Brexit?

Ok....

and your point is?

What was being said was that we should only consider well above average performers - not that we need them.

[sasguru]

I agree, however "those that have jobs, can support themselves without benefits, and have personal health insurance" is not the same thing as "well above-average performers who will take our economy in an upward direction".

If someone works as a waiter in some struggling little cafe he/she could still meet your criteria. Low cost staff should not be keeping afloat all these low productivity businesses which would otherwise not survive. We need to embrace technology and aim for a more efficient, productive economy.

Will "well above-average performers" want to come to what has become perceived as an insular, grey, rainy little island with reduced economic prospects post-Brexit?