EU threaten UK over migrant benefits

Spursex

Alert Team
UK faces European Court over immigrants' benefits

A source close to Iain Duncan Smith said he would see the commission in court

The UK is to be taken to the European Court of Justice over its alleged failure to correctly assess whether EU migrants are entitled to benefits.

Britain is accused of discriminating against those from EU member states who have been living and working in the UK.

It is alleged an extra residency test applied by the UK to see if migrants are eligible to claim breaches EU law.

A source close to Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith told the BBC he would not "cave in" to the commission.

A government spokesman added the test was a "vital and fair tool" to ensure benefits were paid only to people who were legally allowed to live in the UK.

Fight to keep test

The EU has a standard test that is supposed to be applied by countries to determine a migrant's eligibility for welfare payments.

But the British right-to-reside test goes further and restricts access to a number of social security benefits that would otherwise be available to those coming to the UK from another EU member state.

The BBC understands the commission is convinced the UK is breaking EU law and thousands of people may have been unfairly denied benefits as a result.


Introduced in 1994 for any recent arrivals to the UK who claim means-tested benefits, including returning UK nationals
Allowed under EU rules

Looks at length of time in the UK, employment prospects, reasons for coming to the country, and future intentions
Not applied to European Economic Area (EEA) nationals classed as workers or self-employed, nor their families
Refugees and those with exceptional leave remain exempt
Right-to-reside test

Introduced by Labour in 2004 in response to concerns about EU enlargement Places further restrictions on payments including housing benefit, council tax benefit, child tax credit and child benefit
A person has a right-to-reside if they are economically active or able to support themselves and their family

The European Commission believe the right-to-reside discriminates against EU nationals by making it more difficult for them to access social security than for UK nationals

The commission will announce it is taking Britain to the European Court of Justice because of the way it assess whether EU nationals are entitled to benefits.

But a source close to the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told the BBC: "Iain feels very strongly about this and will not be dictated to by the commission.

The source said the minister "will fight to keep" the test.

Refused allowance
In one case it is claimed an EU national who had been working and paying taxes in the UK was refused jobseekers' allowance after she was made redundant.

One UK-based charity - Advice on Individual Rights in Europe - said it had dealt with a number of women who had worked in the UK but were denied income support when they became pregnant.

"British and Irish citizens always pass this so-called right-to-reside test," the charity's legal director Adam Weiss told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Other EU citizens do not always pass that test and as a result they are often refused certain benefits in circumstances when British citizens and Irish citizens would receive them."

The BBC's Matthew Price in Brussels says it is unusual for such cases to be brought before the European Court and that a final judgement could take years.

The case has infuriated some who already believe Brussels interferes too much in UK government policy.

'Specifically excluded'
Peter Lilley was the Conservative minister in charge of social security when the "habitual residence" test, which is allowed under EU law, was introduced in the UK.


Action at the European Court of Justice could take years to complete
He said the European Commission was "creeping" into areas of policy that were "specifically excluded" from European treaties, adding that the move would "strengthen the case for David Cameron to get powers back to this country".

The government recently announced plans for additional curbs on what migrants to the UK should be allowed to access.

The Queen's Speech included a bill to make short-term migrants pay for NHS care, force landlords to check immigration statuses and prevent illegal migrants from obtaining driving licences.
 
Tell 'em to go fuck themselves. If they're so concerned for all our illegal immigrants, they can have them.
 
ahx00 - 30/5/2013 16:07

Galvin's Shinpads - 30/5/2013 15:42

Quick, vote UKIP! :19:

No thanks, I prefer my bigots to, at least, have a facade of policies to hide behind.

Maybe he just wants to avoid what's been happening in Sweden? or may be believes this, but whatever he beleives or what anyone else does, what he has done is cause the topic to finally be allowed to be properly debated:


http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/403531/Left-wing-policies-have-promoted-the-rise-of-barbarism

Leo McKinstry

Leo McKinstry is a British journalist and author
Related Topic: UK

Left-wing policies have promoted the rise of barbarism.

THE fashionable progressive agenda is wrecking our once stable, free society. In the name of tolerance, the craven political establishment has promoted barbarism in our midst. For decades, our rulers have presented mass immigration and multi-culturalism as forces for social advancement.
By: Leo McKinstry
Published: Thu, May 30, 2013


Both-Islamists-and-the-far-Right-have-prospered-thanks-to-Labour Both Islamists and the far-Right have prospered thanks to Labour

But in the aftermath of the Woolwich atrocity, the malign consequences of this strategy are all too clear. Far from bringing harmony and compassion, the politically correct state has achieved the very opposite. The transformation of our social fabric has led to segregation rather than integration, distrust instead of unity, fear in place of freedom.

Multi-cultural diversity might be portrayed as a liberal policy but in practice it has led to discrimination, misogyny and oppression across our urban areas, while encouraging the growth of extremism.

In a speech in 2011 David Cameron proclaimed that “a genuinely liberal country believes in certain values and actively promotes them: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; the rule of law; and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

His rhetoric was laudable but has hardly been matched by the actions of the Government, which has long shown a craven reluctance to uphold the liberal traditions of Britain.

OBSESSED with the ideology of diversity, our political masters have not only allowed the immigration rate to reach more than 500,000 arrivals every single year, but also have refused to demand that newcomers accept the British way of life.

Instead immigrants have been encouraged to cling to their own cultures and customs.

During their 13 years of misrule, Labour was particularly enthusiastic about enforcing this destructive strategy, partly through their instinctive loathing for their own country, which they liked to portray as outdated and racist, and partly through their desire to expand their client army of supporters, given that 80 per cent of immigrants vote Labour.

What is so tragic is that a party of the Left, trumpeting its supposedly liberal credentials, should have pursued a policy that is so fundamentally illiberal. Labour’s fixation with identity politics and mass immigration had led to the import of deeply reactionary, anti-democratic, superstitious tribalism on an epic scale.

There is nothing liberal about what is now happening in many of our inner cities. Tower Hamlets in east London, where white Britons make up just 30 per cent of the population, has seen patrols by Muslim vigilantes who have attacked women for dressing “inappropriately” and put up stickers declaring the area “a gay free zone”.

The same spirit of misogyny can be also be seen in the growing number of sharia courts, which treat women as second-class citizens, and in the gangs of Muslim men in such places as Oxford, Telford and Derby, preying on young white girls. The same collapse of liberal values can be seen in the urban breakdown of democracy.

Fraud perpetrated by ethnic minority “community leaders” and politicians is now rife, helped by lax rules on postal voting introduced by Labour.

At the same time political correctness has fuelled the thuggish far-Right as seen last weekend in the English Defence League marches in Newcastle and London.

Freedom of speech is also in danger, thanks to the constant threat of violence from Islamic extremists at anything they regard as blasphemous.

In this disturbing climate of fear, where publishers can be firebombed and writers subjected to fatwas, self-censorship about Islam is almost universal.

It is the same story with the principle of equality before the law. In the cowardly world of political correctness, double standards are rife. Christians are regularly subjected to institutionalised bullying over the symbols of their belief, yet the state bends over backwards to accommodate other faiths.

Similarly, the state does nothing to stop Muslim extremists such as Anjem Choudary spouting often violent slogans but would not dream of tolerating such hate speech in others.

The destruction of liberalism also works on a deeper level.

Precisely because the multicultural experiment is failing so disastrously, the machinery of the state is now used to enforce the official orthodoxy and suppress dissent.


SO in addition to the
police, who seem now to regard themselves as the upholders of diversity creed, the institutions of government employ vast numbers of equality officers backed up by a panoply of laws and regulations.

“We will shine a light in every workplace,” said Harriet Harman of the 2010 Equality Act, with the fervour of the true zealot.

Just as worrying is the loss of liberty caused by the very extremism that the state has allowed to flourish through its neurotic attachment to multiculturalism.

In the wake of the Woolwich killing, the Government is now talking of yet more security controls, bureaucracy, crackdowns on free speech and even a law that would allow the authorities to monitor all email traffic, texts and phone calls.

Stella Rimmington, former head of MI5, says that such a move is justified because: “We are at war with a hostile enemy.”

What is so outrageous is that the British government deliberately imported this enemy into our country.

Now we are all paying the price for this treacherous folly through the loss of our freedoms.