Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION is proposing to overhaul rules on benefits for EU migrants in a bid to quell rising anti-immigration sentiment in Europe after the shock Brexit vote.
The new proposal by European Social Affairs Commissioner Marianne Thyssen comes six months after Britain voted to quit the EU on a wave of anti-migrant anger and allegations of benefit tourism by EU citizens living in Britain.
“We need labour mobility to help restore economic growth and competitiveness. But mobility needs to be based on clear, fair and enforceable rules,” Thyssen said in a statement.
This proposal “safeguards free movement and protects citizens’ rights, while strengthening the tools to address possible abuse,” she added.
Under the proposals from by the Commission, the EU’s executive arm, EU citizens would have to work at least three months in a new bloc country before being able to claim full unemployment benefits.
As the rules now stand, migrants can claim previous work in another EU country when calculating jobless benefits in a new one.
As the Financial Times pointed out yesterday, it is possible for someone to work in Spain for 10 years, move to France and lose their job after a week, and still have their previous years of work taken into account by the French authorities.
Critics say this creates an incentive for so-called benefits tourism.
Also in today’s proposal, workers living in one EU country and crossing daily into another for work will receive unemployment benefits from where they work instead of where they live.
This would impact countries such as Belgium and France whose border residents cross into higher-paying Luxembourg.
Expected earlier this year, the release of the proposals was delayed as to not create a clash during the sensitive Brexit campaign.
Reports said an earlier version included a limit on child benefits that matched the terms of a doomed deal with Britain intended to help then prime minister David Cameron persuade voters to vote Remain in the June referendum.
The package of proposals now goes for discussion to the European Parliament and EU member states.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Poor sleeping on the streets but £50,000 spent on a wedding cake.
Markle’s dress cost more than fire-proof cladding would’ve for Grenfell, but the latter was somehow “too expensive”.
@eastsmer:
So in a country as large a Britain it’s not possible to do two things at the same time?
I know it pi**es off the Republicans among us but the fact is the vast majority of British people would want the fire proof cladding AND the dress to be bought.
@P.J. Nolan:
But two things did not happen at the same time.
@eastsmer:
That’s correct and the reason for that is what this enquiry is all about. My point is your statement is whataboutery of the finest order, one decision had nothing to do with the other.
@P.J. Nolan: “whataboutery” – tell that to the relatives
@P.J. Nolan: the man was making a valid point but of course whataboutery strikes again
@eastsmer: Ridiculous comparison and in reality the Royal family cost their country a lot less than they make for it. As for the wedding I’d imagine what the media paid to cover it more than paid for the event not to mention the influx of tourists for it.
@eastsmer: and your point is?
@eastsmer: the fire happened before the wedding there is no connection between these events, the Royal family have nothing to do with fire safety last time I looked, its the failure of a number of separate organisations. Your comment is just plain stupid.
@eastsmer: Correct. but don’t upset the flagwavers. they just love to be put in their place. it gives them purpose.
Awful just awful. Think of the fear the poor people went through.
I was in Manchester the day before the wedding. Not the slightest interest in it that i could see.
A completely valid and very pertinent comparison of the inequality in the lives of the super rich and the great mass of those who must struggle every day.
Not one perpetrator of the deaths in Grenfell tower has been arrested or charged. Not one.
@PV Nevin: Thank you PV Nevin – that is the comparison that I was trying to make.
I don’t wish to downgrade their ‘royal’ family if that is what floats their boats, however surely priorities can be shifted towards the less well off.
@eastsmer: i agree completely with your comparison. Was it not the arrogance of Kensington council, the regulators, the constructiton company and the materials company towards the poor that led to the massacre?
With regard to the monarchy, I believe the relentless propaganda of the media promotes a lie that there is not mass hatred for all the rich, including the royalty.
@PV Nevin: ___ Nothing’s changed as far as the super rich and the mere mortals are concerned. Basically, people still get what they’re given, usually by people who would never dream of living in those places.
@PV Nevin: Isn’t that why they’re having an inquiry ?
@PV Nevin: the investigation is not over yet so how can anyone be arrested or charged?
Our largest fire tragedy was a single storey nightclub.. The caravans in carrickmines were pretty far from high rise..
30 apt in 16, storey ballymun tower were destroyed with no injury..
It’s standards, vigilance and care that save lives..
And they want to build high rise in Dublin.
@Cranky: Yeah let’s not build any high rise anywhere else now because one went on fire.
@Cranky: whats that got to do with it?
Eco green energy saving insulation is actively encouraged, and you can get grants for installing it ..in reality it is flamable cladding ,
Next time you pass a building being coated in foam blocks look at the ground, pick up a piece of foam (litter will be all over the site) then do your own fire test.. you don’t need a Phd in physics..
Then wonder why we have fire regulations, and fire officers..
I hope they knock the place down and trun it into a monument to all those poor souls.
have your say