UKIP poster boy is a racist immigrant, film at 11

[Sheilbh]

That may recently be the demand for £1.7 billion by 1 December

[Josquius]

That may recently be the demand for £1.7 billion by 1 December

So its a fad and people don't actually care about Europe most of the time.

[Agelastus]

By the way, one important thing to notice here is who is actor and who only reacts. Britain wants to change the status quo, Germany and the rest of the EU don't. The UK doesn't have to go, they are very welcome to stay part of the EU. But only when they are willing to accept the core principles of the treaties they signed in 1973.

Of course, read literally, this means that you think we should be forced to join the Euro and the Schengen Area as well since our exceptions to both items would be against the "Core Principles" too. Exceptions already exist in Britain's implementation of aspects of the Four Freedoms.

As Sheilbh says, the understanding of "Free Movement of Workers" has rather changed since 1973. The "Four Freedoms" as currently implemented go back no further than the Eighties.

Moreover, I believe that article 7 contains a version of this line, does it not? "as long as they are not an undue burden on the country of residence and have comprehensive health insurance." I would think that given the massive numbers of arrivals compared to both British government and EU predictions, their effect on local services and the nature of the NHS in the UK that it would be fairly easy to make an "undue burden" argument compared to much of the rest of the EU. Not for workers, of course, who have free movement guaranteed, but for their dependants and non-economic migrants.

Still, I don't particularly support Cameron on this issue. Anyone with half a brain in the UK can see that there's no way that the EU can give on this issue (or, in fact, seems to be willing to give on any issue, although that is another discussion entirely.) If the matter matters sufficiently to the UK public the only way to restore the British government's control of immigration (and to end the discrimination the government has effectively applied to Commonwealth and non-European citizens) is to vote to leave the EU. Or to accept the issue and vote to stay in it.

The nature of the EU's changed sufficiently enough since the 1975 vote (which I've been taught by my family was sold to the UK public as member ship of a free trade area, nor a political union - although I know Richard Hakluyt here disagrees with me, and since I was less than a year old then I'm in no position to know which impression is the truth) that the UK needs to hold a new referendum to settle the issue, in or out.

----------------

As for the recent demand for 1.7 billion surprisingly enough I have no issue with it in principle; reassessments happen. What I do have issue with is the way they've implemented it. It should either have been asked for as a set of smaller special payments with the first due on the 1st December, or applied as a surcharge on our next few regular payments. Demanding it all at once and with such relatively short notice is genuinely unfair as well as appearing as a slap in the face to Britain.

I don't think that Tyr's right about it being a fad though. The high level of concern preceded the demand for the payment, as did the polling showing the high levels of UKIP support at the recent by-elections.

And immigration has been at the top of people's concerns a lot longer.

[Not mine, actually - my two big issues are Europe and Defence...and apparently defence no longer counts as an issue. ]

-----------------

As for the next election I've spent the last Four years convinced that Labour would win a majority and that the Coalition had only a single term to fix the economy before the wreckers returned.

Now, I honestly am not sure. The polls suggest that Labour should win (neck and neck is effectively a large Labour lead given the current distribution of seats) but then I look at the latest polling data from Scotland and wonder if Labour are really secure there - and without those seats there's no way they can take enough of an England for a majority, even, I think, with the UKIP effect. Not to mention the issue with how many seats the Liberals can retain with two-thirds of their voters having deserted them for the twin crimes of keeping to their principles and of acting for the good of the country.

As Sheilbh does I suspect another hung parliament is coming up, one without a clear coalition choice unlike in 2010.

For a country used to "strong" government it's going to be a bit of a nightmare, in other words. And at a time when a clear political direction is genuinely needed as well.

[Tamas]

1. How did the free movement environment changed since 1973?

2. Is there any reliable statistics on how much welfare abuse is being done by EU immigrants? Lets put being long-term unemployed ones on that list as well, for convenience.

[Sheilbh]

1. How did the free movement environment changed since 1973?

Even until the 90s to qualify as a worker you had to have a job offer in the other country. It also didn't include dependants or non-working, non-EEA citizens.

Edit: And the Maastricht idea of common European citizenship was a pretty huge shift too.

2. Is there any reliable statistics on how much welfare abuse is being done by EU immigrants? Lets put being long-term unemployed ones on that list as well, for convenience.

Barely any. Far less fraud than by Brits. But tightening the rules on benefits is something that would only require a directive and would probably have support from other EU countries. It's something Merkel's also talked about and the usual suspects in the Netherlands and Scandinavia are supportive.

[Tamas]

So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

[Gups]

Democracy is not one of the core principles of the ToFEU.

According to the treaty of Lisbon it is. Unless you think later treaties don't count.

[Gups]

Thats unusual. I was actually referring to yougov polls, if you look back it was quite consistently around 10%. Europe seems to have really blown up in recent months.

But immigration has been a big issue for a long time now and that's equated with the EU in most people's minds.

[Martinus]

Democracy is not one of the core principles of the ToFEU.

According to the treaty of Lisbon it is. Unless you think later treaties don't count.

Not in the same way as the four freedoms are. Besides, I was responding to a troll. Obviously, Hungary has not abolished democracy yet and nonetheless is under a huge pressure from the EU. The Cameron's proposal effectively does away with one of the four freedoms. I don't find Germany's reaction to be disproportionate or selective in the slightest.

[Gups]

Except Cameron has  said nothing about ending freedom of movement within EU countries. He has said it need to be considered when admitting new entrants and hinted Britain may veto new entries if controls are not put in place.

It should be absolutely obvious to Merkel that this is positioning ahead of a general election and that she should keep out of it.

[Sheilbh]

So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

I mean this'll probably be the change Cameron goes for.

But not really, they want to curb welfare for everyone. But there's a media-driven view that most people on welfare are undeserving scrounged and that we're a soft touch. They agree with you (as do the Tories) on welfare in general.

It's not really about Euro immigrants (except for Romanians) more like the odd story of a radical Muslim preacher on benefits.

Also UKIPpers are pessimistic. They think this country's going or gone down the pan in all sorts of ways. I don't think they necessarily realise that this country is a mildly pleasant/optimistic place to live. I think that mindset struggles with the idea people would move here to improve their lives.

[Razgovory]

So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

Well that's the point of curbing welfare, to hurt people you don't like.  They want to hurt immigrants, you want to hurt lazy brits.  Same thing.

[Tamas]

So when UKIP talks about curbing welfare to combat immigration (IIRC they do that), its total BS.

I do agree with curbing welfare, and that WILL ease up on the immigration thing, as Brits will be forced, to, you know, take up jobs.

Well that's the point of curbing welfare, to hurt people you don't like.  They want to hurt immigrants, you want to hurt lazy brits.  Same thing.

It is welfare which is about hurting people. It is hurting those who have to finance it for people who have made it a lifestyle choice to live on it.

[Martinus]

Except Cameron has  said nothing about ending freedom of movement within EU countries. He has said it need to be considered when admitting new entrants and hinted Britain may veto new entries if controls are not put in place.

It should be absolutely obvious to Merkel that this is positioning ahead of a general election and that she should keep out of it.

Are you sure about that? The article which quoted Merkel's response seemed to suggest that Cameron wanted to introduce caps on immigration from existing member states - not just new entrants.

[Sheilbh]

The article reported Merkel's response to the reported plans Cameron's coming up with. It's all a bit distant.

Welfare as 'lifestyle choice', you really should consider the Tories/UKIP