‘..Europe has given Britain two months to scrap its policies which prevent benefit tourists claiming billions of pounds in handouts..’

‘..European immigrants should be able to claim handouts and pensions without first having to pass a test proving that they have settled in Britain, the European Union has said ..’

Once again the European Union is issuing edicts without any comprehension of the impact, understanding of the eventual result or accountability; which seems to be par for the course with EU politicians and Brussels bureaucrats

Unfortunately this seems to be the way that the EU operates today, when virtually unelected politicians seek to impose their will and strengthen their ‘power base’ by including ever more disparate countries in the Union. An ‘ivory tower’ sending increasingly greater subscription costs to the membership, whilst rewarding themselves handsomely all round and ignoring the rest of Europe’s hardship or problems

How can countries with wildly different average incomes form part of any grouping without large number of the 'poorer' population moving to the 'richer' countries. Furthermore, the receiving countries have little control over their own borders because their rights have also been removed by the EU

Instead of addressing the real problems within the EU, which are too many and ranging to mention (corruption to financial), the politicians simply ‘march on’ with even more countries and regulations, which can only really end one way – badly. We now have the absurd situation where two proposed new entrants need bailouts before they even join the club – absolute nonsense.

Furthermore, it has now become questionable as to whether any of the countries ‘in bailout’ can ever (or ever wish to) repay their debts, which means that there will inevitably have to be future write-offs on a massive scale

Anyway, here are two solutions to the Social Security / Benefit issues, which should solve the problem, result in an equitable solution and prevent benefit tourism

Solution A

The EU could pass a regulation insisting that every country comes into line with identical Benefit hand-outs.

Either raise or lower the levels, it doesn’t really matter which route is chosen; just that benefits throughout the EU should be the same in every country and maintain parity. After all everyone insists on a single exchange rate so why not a single benefits rate?

Therefore, if the UK has benefits of £130 per week then so should Latvia and all the other EU countries. Alternatively Latvia etc. can maintain their £xx but UK and the rest of the EU should have to reduce their levels to come into line with Latvia - really very simple

Accordingly the position would be neutral and there would be no advantage in migrants polarising towards countries with the most beneficial Social Security systems because every country would offer the same benefits

Solution B

The UK banking structure has the concept of a ‘clearing system’, whereby all banks collect money owed to them from other banks in the system.

The EU needs to setup an equivalent system to the ‘banks clearing’ but on a country by country basis - The EU Country Clearing System.

Once this EU Country Clearing System has been created it would then be a simple matter for Benefit payments to be reclaimed by one country from the claimants country of origin directly.

This would ensure that migrants claiming benefits are not an undue burden on their country of residence which would be reimbursed by the claimants country of origin

References

Now EU orders Britain -Let migrants claim benefits as soon as they arrive in the UK

Let all European migrants claim benefits insists Brussels

E-mail | Post RSS Permalink | Comments(0)

This is a difficult area to address without the emotive language and strong feelings that inevitably result in any suggestions of change

Nevertheless, change must occur because the country simply does not have the resources to sustain an open ended funding requirement

There are a number of components that make up the demands on welfare

• Migration
• Asylum Seekers
• Jobless

Migration

Nearly every country in the world encourages the 'right kind' of migration and prohibits foreign nationals with nothing to offer. Potentially they contribute little to the country and are regarded as a drain on the available resources.

Nevertheless, the EU has an 'open door' policy that allows free movement of national between countries. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it ignores the disparity between average salaries in the different countries. The result of this disparity is a massive population polarisation to regions that offer the best opportunities, or best welfare benefits

Therefore the question has to be - 'what attracts such large numbers of foreign nationals to the UK' ? Could it be the welfare system as a whole and more specifically benefit hand-outs on arrival and free access to institutions such as the NHS ?

Asylum Seekers

Surely the underlying concept behind asylum is that those in fear of their lives are given shelter in the first 'safe haven' country they encounter?

Any other approach, such a choosing a country in which to apply for asylum, results in a lifestyle choice, which arguably, cannot be the ethos behind the process of asylum

With this in mind why does the UK become the country of choice for many asylum seekers, once again is it because of the benefits system and what can be extracted from the State?

Jobless

A lot of this area revolves around a perceived 'quality of life' and not attaching any stigma to those unfortunate enough to be without employment

However, it has never really been explained to the public at large why luxuries such as Sky television, top of the range mobile phones (iPhones) etc. form part of a basic lifestyle; especially if funded by the taxpayer

Also what about other areas such as smoking and alcohol? Bearing in mind that the State recognises the harmful effects of smoking and subsequent pressure on the NHS, it does seem rather incongrous that the taxpayer is funding these past times instead of encouraging people to stop smoking; especially with the prohibitive costs involved

Possible Partial Solution

Clearly the aspect that makes the UK attractive to foreign nationals is the Welfare System and all it's components

Therefore why not render it unattractive to those entering the country until they have been here 5 years.

By unnatractive is meant - ineligible for any State Welfare whatsoever for the initial period of 5 years and then potentially limited to what has been paid into the system by way of National Insurance, Tax etc.

E-mail | Post RSS Permalink | Comments(0)

08 October 2012

Child Poverty Action Group's Chief Executive, Alison Garnham - CPAG Press Release

'.. With this abhorrent proposal, the Chancellor is saying that some children will be marked out from birth as second class citizens with their lives worth less than others ..'

'.. The Chancellor is utterly wrong to claim that families out of work are better off having more children. If a family without work has another child, the shortfall relative to a family’s minimum need increases and parents must make even more sacrifices to meet their children’s needs. But working families do better because on top of wages they can get in-work benefits like tax credits and housing benefit ..'

This is an inherently flawed Press Release ..... all it does is ignore the obvious in favour of providing emotive language and more unlimited financial support. At what point do the families concerned try to help themselves with fewer children and endeavouring to avoid generational benefit dependency?

Lets address the statement '.. some children will be marked out from birth as second class citizens with their lives worth less than others ..' The only difference here is that other sectors of the community decide not to have further children in the first place (because they may not be able to support them) rather that producing children and then holding the community to ransom with comments such as this one from CPAG.

The important missing word here is 'choice' and with this in mind why do some of those on benefits produce more children that other sectors of the community? If this is not the case then the CPAG comments have no basis because there would be nothing to defend!

JRF (Joseph Rowntree) Foundation - Child Poverty In Large Families (3/4 or more children) recognises the greater incidence of poverty in larger families but rather than addressing the root cause tries to ameliorate the situation by concentrating on the tax situation instead of encouraging smaller families for those on benefits.

The real question is surely - why are these organisation refusing to address the difficult issues?

'.. However, in 2004/5, 50 per cent of children in 4+-child families were poor compared with only 23 per cent in one-child families ..'

'.. Helping large families at the expense of small families may lead to an increase in child poverty overall, because of the relative numbers of children in the different-sized families ..'

Furthermore, there does not seem to be anything about 'social responsibility' or the 'affordability' of having families larger than ones income can sustain; which the rest of the community must take into account.

Having looked at CPAG's web site and accompanying information there do not seem to be any suggested solutions put forward by CPAG themselves on how to address these difficult issues; other than demanding a infinite amount of resources to be channelled into the problem.

Is the solution really simply a financial one? What about encouraging smaller families or is 'restraint' a dirty word that none of these organisations wishes to address?

E-mail | Post RSS Permalink | Comments(0)