Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Germany can deny benefits to jobless EU migrants, court rules

Landmark ruling by European court of justice could threaten UK campaign for freedom of movement reforms



Philip Oltermann in Berlin


The Guardian, Tuesday 11 November 2014 11.09 GMT


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/germany-deny-benefits-welfare-jobless-eu-migrants


The European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled that Germany can refuse welfare benefits to EU migrants if they have never held a job in the country.

In a landmark ruling, the Luxembourg court announced on Tuesday that “economically inactive” migrants from other EU nations can be refused German unemployment benefits under certain conditions.

The case was prompted after Elisabeta Dano, a 25-year-old Romanian woman living in Leipzig, had her application for benefits refused. The local jobcentre argued that there was a lack of evidence to prove that the woman, who has lived in Germany since 2010, had ever actively looked for work.

After an appeal was rejected by a Leipzig social court, the case was transferred to the ECJ.

In its ruling, the ECJ emphasised that while EU migrants had the right of residence in another EU country for up to three months, the country is under no obligation to pay social benefits during that period. If migrants stay for more than three months but less than three years, right of residence is dependent on whether they have sufficient resources to support themselves or their family members.

The eagerly anticipated ruling could be interpreted as a victory, or a blow, for David Cameron. It is a victory in the sense that it supports the British government’s drive to curb benefit abuse by EU migrants. The British, Danish and Irish had voiced strong support for the German position in the dispute.

But it is also a defeat in the sense that the ruling means that these curbs can be achieved within the existing rules. Had the ruling gone the other way, it would have probably triggered a debate about reforming freedom of movement in Germany. Now, British calls for an overhaul of the existing systems are less likely to be heard.

The ruling was welcomed in British pro-European circles. The Liberal Democrat MEP Catherine Bearder said: “Today’s ruling shows that while EU free movement is non-negotiable, it is not an unfettered right. Liberal Democrats are clear that the freedom to live, work and study across the continent should not mean the freedom to claim. Safeguards can and should be put in place to prevent benefit tourism and abuse of the system.”

I think the German ruling is good for Cameron. It shows that the rules are not set in stone and can be altered and interpreted.

The ruling is virtually what the Conservatives have been planning recently.

H.

Please, restart your tablets!

Cameron's only interest is to save his own backside!

Germany can deny benefits to jobless EU migrants, court rules
Landmark ruling by European court of justice could threaten UK campaign for freedom of movement reforms


surely this is one of the major things that uk has been fighting about, so how it could be seen as "threatening UK campaign for freedom of movement reforms" is beyond me ...... at a stroke it removes one of the major gripes about unemployed migrants coming to uk

What was being covered up in during the Thatcher period of the 1980s?

Why?

By Whom?

Where did the records go?

Manuel,

Gripes,

It is one of the reasons being used to inspire griping.

(If there are abuses they should be addressed, I wonder how big the abuses are.)

I think a diversion from addressing the real problems for migration in the first place.

ah well fred, it depends on how philanthropic one wishes to be at a given time

easy to rattle on at length of this one, and on various aspects, we would almost certainly agree .... however, the theory, practice and actuality are likely to many miles apart, for all sorts of reasons

European Arrest Warrant: Last night's Commons farce reveals the disgusting way in which Britain is governed

This administration is in serious trouble for one reason – they fail to see that they did anything wrong






By Douglas Carswell

11:08AM GMT 11 Nov 2014


It was when Government ministers started mouthing insults across the Commons chamber that I knew they were in trouble.


Yesterday’s extraordinary scenes in the House of Commons might not have shed much light on the European Arrest Warrant. But they did reveal some uncomfortable truths about the way we are governed.


Thirteen days ago, the Prime Minister solemnly promised that our elected representatives in the House of Commons that “there will be a vote” over the European Arrest Warrant. He made it clear that this would happen “before the Rochester by election” on 20th November.


Yesterday was the day that this was supposed to happen. It didn’t.


Mr Cameron’s own whips engaged in a straight forward deception – and were brutally caught out.


Since the House of Commons no longer has the power to decide if we sign up to the European Arrest Warrant, whips decided to avoid having such a vote at all. Cunning, eh?

But then Speaker Bercow, doing precisely what a Commons speaker ought to do, made it clear that the Commons had been had. The vote that might follow, said the Speaker, would not be about the European Arrest Warrant. There was uproar. A contemptuous fury was directed at the Government benches by their own side.


More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11222835/European-Arrest-Warrant-Last-nights-Commons-farce-reveals-the-disgusting-way-in-which-Britain-is-governed.html

Does anyone other than Haystack seriously think Dave will be prime minister after the next GE?

Yes, I do ! :-)

It's pretty much nailed on.

I suggest that DB4 that you hold both of Hilary's hand and pop down to the chemist and renew your prescriptions.

.

Of course he will be. He will also be the PM. It may be a coalition, but he will be PM.

Haze.

The liberals would touch his hands and Farage would spit on it.

The public and the party recognise Cameron for what his is, as was shown by a large part of his party being revolted by him in the HP last night.

(Hilary's description of him as a "slime ball" seems accurate.)

Mind I can see how he is acceptable to you.

So what do the intellectuals, if indeed there are any on here, think to the following:

Chris Packham asks Ant and Dec to end 'animal abuse' on 'I'm a Celebrity Get me Out of Here!'

Personally and intellectually speaking, I like this program and find it quite entertaining too(? !!) but I do think Chris has a damn good point.

are the animals being abused the muppets who agree to perform on the show?

Muppets? Skinny your c&p pic skills are required.

Tories to miss immigration targets despite Cameron’s pledge11/11/2014


Immigration fail: When Theresa May tried to get illegal immigrants to “go home” with an ad campaign on vans driving through London, it caused national protest – and this response from the campaigning group Liberty.

Remember when David Cameron pledged to get immigration into the UK down from the hundreds of thousands into the tens of thousands?

He and his party are trying to wipe that from history.

They’ve got a history of doing that with their mistakes. Do you also remember when the Tories’ pre-2010 election pledges were wiped from their websites?

On immigration, Cameron pledged to get it below 100,000 per year – but now his own spokesman describes it as an “objective” and Theresa May, the Home Secretary who was charged with achieving this feat, called it a “comment”.

A comment?

From The Guardian: “Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the home secretary made clear that the government was preparing the ground for a public admission of failure on the migration target.

“Asked to explain the missed target, May said: “When we made that… comment, when we said … we would be aiming to bring the net migration down to the tens of thousands and we wanted to do that within this parliament – yes we were very clear that was what we wanted to do.”

“The cautious remarks by the home secretary, who stumbled slightly as she referred to the net migration target as “that comment”, contrasted with the unequivocal “no ifs, no buts” declaration made by the prime minister in April 2011.”

In fact, it is possible that Cameron’s party should be glad that their plans to limit immigration have failed. Recent figures have reiterated the oft-made point that immigrants contribute more to the UK than they take from it - and the measures that the Tories have introduced backfired badly for universities, where the number of foreign Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics students has plummeted due to the UK’s “unwelcoming” stance.

The government has now announced a push to increase the number of British STEM students, and this is clearly to counter the loss to universities. The cover story is that they want more young women taking up the subjects.

Still, there are arguments that immigrants are taking jobs away from British-born people – and that their presence is pushing down wages.

But Mrs May can’t say that to the other EU member states without seeming racist, so she is calling on them to “reform” one of the fundamental pillars of the Union – freedom of movement – on the grounds that it encourages criminality.

She said: “There is a growing concern across the European Union of the way in which the freedom of movement is now being used.

“We’re seeing it being abused, possibly by criminal gangs who are trafficking human beings, we’re seeing it being abused through sham marriages.”

Why not just admit that freedom of movement is being abused – most clearly because people in the less-advantaged EU countries see it as an opportunity for a better life elsewhere?

It could be argued that the EU made a huge mistake in letting some countries – particularly in eastern Europe – into the Union before they were on a level with the rest of us, economically.

If we’re going to let these countries in, then it seems reasonable that we should protect ourselves from this kind of opportunism by working to bring their standard of living up to the same level as the rest of us before allowing freedom of movement to kick in.

It seems certain that far fewer people would want to immigrate into the UK if it offered no material difference in their quality of life.

Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

What a shame reason has nothing to do with the Conservative Party.

Cameron, May and the rest are going to continue pushing in the wrong direction, ever-harder as each successive plan fails.

Perhaps they are the ones who should be shown the door.