The irony is, our own long term, homegrown freeloaders want to boot out a group of people are much more likely to be net contributors than they are.

It's their definition of sovereignty. Be able to protect their freeloading

EU citizens already don't have the freedom to stay.

By law, they're supposed to return home if they haven't found work after 3 months
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25134521

QUOTE

"Can EU migrants easily claim benefits when they arrive in another EU country?

No - there are conditions, depending on an individual's circumstances.

They can stay for three months, but to stay longer after that they have to be: in work; or actively seeking work with a genuine chance of being hired; or be able to show they have enough money not to be a burden on public services. Apart from that, evidence of benefit abuse or fraud is grounds to exclude or expel a person."



For confirmation that the BBC isn't just biased/bs'ing...
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyour...FTU_2.1.3.html

QUOTE

"B. Free movement of EU citizens and their family members

2. Directive 2004/38/EC

a. Rights and obligations

For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay."


Regarding in-work benefits.....

Many other EU countries don't have any.

Our government (past and present) has decided that we need in-work benefits (working tax credits, housing and council tax benefit, etc) to top up low wages - rather than just ensuring that any people working eg. 40 hours a week are adequately paid.

The Tories have got a nerve renaming the minimum wage to the national living wage.
I'd like to see any of them surviving on it.

The real living wage is considerably more
http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage


Leaving the EU won't change anything.
The same conditions will still apply afterwards, and to all working immigrants from anywhere in the world.


___________________________________________________


Free movement.... what does it mean exactly....?

The UK allows visa-free travel for 56 non-EU countries, 27 EU countries and 4 EEA/EFTA countries, 87 countries in total
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_p...United_Kingdom

For the non-EU countries, visitors can stay up to 6 months without a visa, but need to apply for a visa to stay longer, and/or to work here.

For EU countries, as already stated, visitors can stay here for up to 3 months without work, but then are supposed to leave if they haven't found work.

The four freedoms of the European Single Market are the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour.
Note the "labour" part.
Whether this is a good or bad thing, it means that workers are entitled to work & live in other EU/EEA countries without a visa....

Rather than just repeat it all, I'll now refer you to my reply in another thread which covers the real reasons for why net migration has gone up from 200k to 335k under the Tories
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...3#post84920023

A lot of this is incorrect. There's a difference between having the right to stay here and the right to access a service and I think you've blured the lines.

In practice the right to access services isn't limited to only those who work as it is extended to, for example, those how might not be working but have children in school, or those who become ill because of the work they've done or even other family members who do work.

The three areas with the highest government spending per head in the UK are London, Scotland and Northern Ireland - the only 3 regions of the U.K that voted remain. The benefits bill in London - particularly housing benefit - is enormous and in some boroughs up to 40 per cent of residents are on housing benefit

I might suggest it's the rest of the U.K which voted leave that is subsidising these areas which backed remain if you look at relative government spending per head!

Falacious. Not all people in London voted remain not all people outside London voted out.

Even on this shallow observation you premise fails. I'm sure further analysis would reveal more falacies.

The rest of the uk subsidising London. I assume this is a joke post.

The rest of the uk subsidising london I assume this is a joke post

No. It's all correct and I haven't blurred the lines at all.


EU law states that citizens can only stay in another member state for longer than 3 months if they (or where dependents are concerned, someone in the family) are working and/or self-sufficient. They do not have a right to stay longer otherwise.

The exception(s) to the rule(s) are a minority of cases. There's always exceptions....

Even child-benefit has ceratin rules for EEA
https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-move-to-uk

The overall welfare bill (especially in-work) has sky-rocketed out of control under the current government, and it's not due to EU migrants...

What else do you think is incorrect? (you said "a lot of")

Nope. An EU citizen has the right to live in any EU for as long as they wish regardless of employment stauts.

British expats who've retired to Spain are excerising they're treaty rights, many are retired and many are clearly residing there for longer than 3 month's.

Yes... Retired... as in... self-sufficient...


To reiterate, I did directly quote the EU's own law from the EU's own website
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyour...FTU_2.1.3.html

And? So what. None of us have a right to guaranteed entry to anywhere.

The lack of understand by some regarding FoM just demonstrates to me that people really were just willing to believe anything a leave supporter would tell them.

In practice that covers everybody. What is a self sufficiency test? Who administrates it and when does it take place?

Is a street begger who sofa surfs self sufficient. If not what's the mechanism for returning him home?

The mechanism is to send them back to their country of origin. Believe it or not even in this country with a lack of government drive to do so, we send EU citizens back.

You really should read up on this if you don't understand, it's far better than trusting anything you read on here.

Show me an example of someone who has been deported due to failing a self sufficiency test?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...Park-Lane.html

However, you are missing the point. The reason people are not sent home has nothing to do with FoM or the EU. It is the government cannot be bothered to enforce the rules.

As usual the EU is blamed for our own government failings.

Your ugly prejudice - Right back at ya

Deleted

The example sounds more like voluntary scheme rather than a deportation.

I'm afraid I disagree with your second paragraph profoundly. The reality is the point not what is meant to happen in theory.

I very much doubt that we deport any EEA citizens (except those that infringe the public policy rules) so I'd be grateful for some information on that. As I was told recently by a lawyer who specialises in immigration it would be pointless returning people from the EEA who did not meet the conditions to exercise their treaty rights as a qualified person because "they could simply return on the next plane".

In practice, we have tightened the rules on benefits for EEA citizens who seek to meet the "qualified person" status as a job seeker but even that is difficult if they manage to work intermittently and seek to claim benefits in between.

Disagree all you want. You've clearly made up your mind based on a lack of information.

As I said, read up on it yourself rather than have to come on here and ask others what rules apply to FoM.

I doubt any government could effectively enforce a self sufficiency rule.

They can only 'return on the next plane' because the uk government do not enforce registration and checks.

Why