Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To worry that benefits (WTC, Housing, CB, CT) will be stopped for EU UK residents

320 replies

feellikeahugefailure · 12/07/2016 10:38

It's obvious that EU residents will be allowed to stay, but could they try to limit benefits for these people?

Without these it would be near impossible for many people to afford to have a family, myself included.

OP posts:
Zhabr · 14/07/2016 18:59

OP, I did not the whole thread. I cannot afford to live in Chelsea, for example, so I don't live there. I live independently in the cheaper area. I know lot's of EU citizens from Baltic countries. Many of them work hard, but some are openly abusing the system, claiming all they are entitled to. At the same time, some of them have flats and houses in their home countries, such as Lithuania or Latvia. They rent it out and claim the housing benefit here.

Zhabr · 14/07/2016 19:00

I did not READ the whole thread, sorry

BluePitchFork · 14/07/2016 19:01

claiming all they are entitled to
what's wrong with that?

BillSykesDog · 14/07/2016 19:08

She was told she stood more chance of being housed with a child.

That's correct and still is. Housing is allocated on need and broadly speaking that means having an extra vulnerability -normally either there being a child in the family or having health problems. And because those people (justifiably) go to the front of the queue and housing is limited if you are healthy and childless you were unlikely to be housed in the 90s. Now housing is so short even people with those priorities are often not housed for months.

PersianCatLady · 14/07/2016 19:08

I've paid in for 18 yrs more than plenty of British people on full benefits with no intention of work as they get more in benefits than on minimum wage.

But the people who you are talking about are British citizens who sadly the state has to support. In an ideal world I would prefer it if we were able to force them to do any job they are offered if they cannot find one that suits them after a year. Although these people do receive benefits a lot of them will have had friends and family members over the years that have paid into the system.

I think that you have a disgusting attitude to generalise that you have paid in for 18 years to help lazy Brits, this is our country and you should be far more grateful for what you have got.

It'd be quite interesting to see how much in benefits eu migrants actually receive compared to British citizens. And which percentage are top ups compared to full benefits.

Again do you realise how ungrateful this sounds, do you really think that it is right that you are complaining about different levels of benefits, you should be grateful that EU migrants do have their wages topped up to the same level as British citizens.

HelenaDove · 14/07/2016 19:11

YY Bill The situation now is appalling Sad

fluttershyby · 14/07/2016 19:12

really concerned about the sudden popularity of this narrative opposition between poor Brits and immigrants, not least because a sizeable proportion of non-working Brits are disabled, sick, carets or retirees.

I did not include any of the above in there. This is a totally different issue. My point was why should immigrants not claim what they are entitled to if they have paid into the system for many years.
I don't think it's very fair for the government to happily take their taxes and ni but as soon as they fall on hard times the government washes their hands of them.

chilipepper20 · 14/07/2016 19:13

I couldn't expect to fly into Australia or America and be housed and given benefits, so why should it be different in the UK?

I don't know about Australia, but in Canada and the US, you wouldn't expect it, but neither do their own citizens. So, you wouldn't be asking for anything that citizens don't get.

same here. Why are EU benefits claimants expensive, but british ones not?

Just5minswithDacre · 14/07/2016 19:19

I did not include any of the above in there. This is a totally different issue. My point was why should immigrants not claim what they are entitled to if they have paid into the system for many years.

It's not different. You don't know who is who from the outside. And carers, disabled and OAPs are equally hurt by a 'scrounger bashing' atmosphere.

You will notice by comparing and contrasting my post with Persian's 'you're a guest be grateful for what you get' ** post ( I paraphrase) that your 'point' has niggled representatives of both political wings. It really isn't an argument to win people over with.

chilipepper20 · 14/07/2016 19:19

But the people who you are talking about are British citizens who sadly the state has to support.

no, we don't. We could decide to reduce welfare to working families, and rebalance the housing market.

I think that you have a disgusting attitude to generalise that you have paid in for 18 years to help lazy Brits, this is our country and you should be far more grateful for what you have got.

why is that ungrateful? The poster likely had to go through a proper competitive application procedure and was judged by a british employer to be the right choice. The poster then paid 18 years of taxes to hear many brits who haven't done the same say europeans don't deserve benefits.

Frankly, I don't think it's the european that's being ungrateful here.

fluttershyby · 14/07/2016 19:19

I think that you have a disgusting attitude to generalise that you have paid in for 18 years to help lazy Brits, this is our country and you should be far more grateful for what you have got.

Hm, I don't hear many Brits saying how grateful they are to receive benefits, most are shouting they don't receive enough.
In my home country benefits do get stopped if a healthy person does not take the job which has been offered to them or they don't go to the courses they attend. Plus they pay far more. Why do I not go back then you probably think right now? Because I have British children with a British dad who they love and see regularly. Of course I could go back and deny them their dad but I'm not a total bitch.

HelenaDove · 14/07/2016 19:20

It's not different. You don't know who is who from the outside. And carers, disabled and OAPs are equally hurt by a 'scrounger bashing' atmosphere.

THIS

fluttershyby · 14/07/2016 19:25

Chilli you worded it much better than I did.

chilipepper20 · 14/07/2016 19:28

That's correct and still is. Housing is allocated on need and broadly speaking that means having an extra vulnerability -normally either there being a child in the family or having health problems.

that doesn't include housing benefits, which is available to all who don't earn enough to pay rent in a specific area.

Just5minswithDacre · 14/07/2016 19:30

that doesn't include housing benefits, which is available to all who don't earn enough to pay rent in a specific area.

Chilli she was replying to Helena's anecdote about the 1990s housing office.

JamieVardysParty · 14/07/2016 19:33

I'm of the opinion that the current benefits system is fatally flawed. It has enhanced this sense of entitlement that others should support your choice of lifestyle.

Benefits should only be there as a safety net if people are made redundant, become single parents etc as a short-term support option. They should not be there to support a long-term lifestyle choice of people who only want to work part-time or want to stay at home. Equally they should not support someone who chooses to live outside of their means.

Nobody should be entitled to anything. People should just get the support that they genuinely need, rather than want.

HelenaDove · 14/07/2016 19:46

Jamie in a lot of jobs the extra hours are intermittent and inconsistent which fucks up claims because the system cant keep up with constant changes.

madein1995 · 14/07/2016 19:47

totally agree Jamie .Benefits were designed as a short term safety net and should be that way. If I lose my job, yes I should be supported until I find something else. But i shouldn't be able to then not work for the next 5 years while the government gives Me free money. Benefits should go back to being a short term safety net (or longer for disability etc). They should not be a long term solution. And people who moan at what they get, Its more than the living wage in lots of cases and should provide for needs, not wants. Those people should be thankful we have a welfare state. Go back 100 years and we didn't.

Just5minswithDacre · 14/07/2016 19:59

Benefits should only be there as a safety net if people are made redundant, become single parents etc as a short-term support option. They should not be there to support a long-term lifestyle choice of people who only want to work part-time or want to stay at home. Equally they should not support someone who chooses to live outside of their means.

Come to work with me next week. I'll introduce to some real claimants. I know the type of outliers you see on Channel 5 and the Daily Fail are more fun to get all enjoyably worked up about, but really your ignorance is appalling. You should be so embarrassed.

JamieVardysParty · 14/07/2016 20:00

Hence why it is fatally flawed Helena. Employers need to be held accountable for this - they cannot expect a fully flexible and competent workforce if they will not provide stability and flexibility themselves.

Those unable to work due to disability or long-term caring requirements should have a completely different support system that takes into account their individual needs.

Werkz · 14/07/2016 20:01

I'm EU, my children are British, been living here for 15+ years, working all those years, why should I not be entitled to receive benefits? And before you throw British passport question at me, no, I don't want one, as I would have to give up my nationality.

This is the nature of nationality, I'm afraid. As an EU citizen, you were only allowed to live and work here under a set of treaties signed into law that are now to be revoked. As the citizen of another country, the British state in under no obligation to you unless there are existing arrangements in legislation with your country of nationality, or new arrangements are made and legislation passed. The fact you weren't allowed to vote in a British general election should have tipped you off about this.

Indeed, there's some fairly serious misunderstandings of nationality and sovereignty in this thread.

The only reason why Britain has paid out benefits in the way it has to EU migrants is because of the significant income-based pathway in our welfare system. Britain, under EU-mandated rules, cannot discriminate against EU citizens. It must treat them the same as British citizens, so it has to allow them to claim under income-based rules, which means you can rock up in Britain and just claim without any contribution to the system. This is why Cameron had so much difficulty getting the four-month no-pay period for new EU national claims .... because it wouldn't apply to British nationals and was therefore discriminatory.

Other countries run more actuarial systems that function as state insurance schemes: you have to pay in to get something out, and you have to pay in for a certain period to claim. These function somewhat like our contribution-based pathway, but, over the years, our contribution-based and income-based pathways have fundamentally merged into one thing and the difference is pretty illusory. There is certainly no difference in the value of benefit payout.

Some countries do have an "emergency claim" scheme somewhat like our income-based pathway, but it isn't of the value that British income-based welfare is (including housing benefit, council tax benefit etc), plus there is a lot of pressure to move off the scheme and into work.

The problem here is the British welfare system and the way it has been set up; it does not work in a climate of free movement. We are one of the only countries in Europe where you can claim welfare benefits without having first made a contribution to the scheme. My view is that, had we stayed in the EU, the British welfare system would have had to eventually move to a more European actuarial model and the NHS would have had to place conditions on access to healthcare.

JamieVardysParty · 14/07/2016 20:04

Dacre, you have no idea who I am, my life experience, who I work with or my experience of real-life claimants.

You are right, I am so embarrassed. I'm embarrassed at your assumption and judgment of me.

But please, carry on being holier than thou.

HelenaDove · 14/07/2016 20:05

Jamie you wernt as eager to mention the employers in your earlier post though...........because the default setting is always to blame the claimant/employee.

Werkz · 14/07/2016 20:07

Interestingly, the EU made provisions against "welfare shopping" across Europe. An EU national is not allowed to go to another country and become a burden on that country's social security system.

Why this provision has never been employed to stop people from moving from one EU country to Britain to take advantage of our welfare state, I do not know. If we had done this, we might not have found ourselves in a situation where millions of people voted to leave the EU.

Just5minswithDacre · 14/07/2016 20:08

Come off it Jamie. You said (amongst other things);

Equally they should not support someone who chooses to live outside of their means.

Unless you're about to pull the classic move of equating benefit fraud to benefit receipt, that makes no sense whatsoever. Have you seen benefits rates?

It's just so ridiculous, stupid, ignorant and deluded to talk about benefits helping people to live outside their means I don't know where to start.