DS Forums

 
 

FT: UK mobile users face return of steep roaming bills after Brexit


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 18:40
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,541
So is this something you actually experienced and is verifably true, or is this something you read in the Daily Mail? Or is it something you heard down the pub?
It is fact that if you're a single male you're unlikely to be housed by the local authority as they de-prioritise you, why not do some of your own research and you'll see.

Not going to waste hours sitting every every line quoted on the forum and picked at, I explained my general objections, that's my view. People feel free for YOU to research and post your own views and facts.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 18:45
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
It's an utter farce though. The standard government response to any sort of trouble is "let's delay it for several years". I only know this too well, even something as minor as a local road bypass is on its 3rd attempt at getting built, even though it was needed 15-20 years ago.

I fear that "but the trains are bi modes" will just stop any sort of expansion - shortsighted though that'd be. Especially for Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, where the trains are already specifically designed for extended diesel operation. Meanwhile the Welsh govt seems to be able to get the wires to go all the way to Swansea, that doesn't seem to been cut despite the delays and cost overruns. I'd have thought Bristol is far more important than that.

But this is getting really offtopic...
The trains are designed to run in electric power so nobody will want them using diesel longer than necessary. This move helps elsewhere getting electric only trains.

Network Rail just don't have the equipment or specialist staff to do the job as planned. I remember the problems being discussed over a year before the politicians for involved.

Don't worry!
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:47
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
It is fact that if you're a single male you're unlikely to be housed by the local authority as they de-prioritise you, why not do some of your own research and you'll see.

Not going to waste hours sitting every every line quoted on the forum and picked at, I explained my general objections, that's my view. People feel free for YOU to research and post your own views and facts.
That's not how it typically works. If you want to make accusations, back them up.

I split your post into two sections. Not a line by line rebuttal.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:51
jonmorris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
What is sad is that despite paying tax and national insurance in the UK all my life if I was made homeless as a single male and went to the council they would tell he I'm not a priority and I'd be left to homeless shelters or charities.

Yet migrants come here, take private house rental and pay 3 months rent, then stop paying for 3 months whilst the eviction process begins and then by the time they are evicted they take the letter to the council and women and children get housed as a priority even if they've only been in the country for 6 months, they also get all their benefits from then on too. We also bring people over from other counties and give them housing and benefits, we need to get our priorities right and look after our people first and only then if there's money in the pot start looking at other counties needs, housing and benefits.

We struggle with the NHS in winter, the waiting times in A&E were 6 hours at my local hospital at one point, schools, roads etc are all under pressure, yet we've allowed migration of 641,000 people migrate here in 2015 and 631,000 in 2016, in just those 2 years 1.3 million migrated here, if it weren't for such high numbers year after year over the last 5-10 years then surely our systems wouldn't be under such pressure?

I'm all for healthcare workers essential to the NHS coming and needed jobs and even for free movement of labour, not people and I think the system needs to be fairer.

That's not my only issue with it though, I have equally big objections to the EU like scope creep, ever increasing Euro-state, too much silly red tape, lack of democratic control.
All the other problems in a throwaway sentence and loads of paras on immigration.

As ever, it's clear immigration is almost always the only consideration.

Now assuming ending free movement doesn't suddenly make companies up pay so UK residents can afford to take the jobs, I am assuming that the Government will be pressured by big business to retain that, so whatever is said I expect a soft Brexit, Norway style (or similar).

Thus we allow immigration from EU members as normal, but opt out of the law making stuff. Of course businesses will still need to abide by EU law when trading in the EU.

Would you be happy to lose all the red tape but still have EU citizens coming here to live and work?

I suspect many Leave voters are going to wind up very disappointed, even angry, when things are settled in a few years from now.
jonmorris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:54
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,541
People from the EU who haven't contributed to the UK economy or tax system are treated equally to people who have paid into the UK system (or at least after 6 months). We see homeless people in the UK who won't be housed as they are not deemed vulnerable whilst we'll happily take and house refugees, I think that's wrong. I think charity should begin and home, especially by the very people who helped fund the system.

In answer to Jon, I agree with free movement of LABOUR which is needed and cannot be filled by locally skilled people. I believe that they should have to advertise a post for 4 weeks locally and if they can't fill it they should be able to fill it with a migrant.

I don't want to see people who aren't EU migrants at a disadvantage, somebody from India who can do the job should be equal to somebody from Belgium. I think they should decide each year which industries are in demand and allow migrants to fill those positions where local skills are at a shortage (just like in Australia).

I think the red tape in that government report highlights an issue with the EU, the EU seems to want to get involved in and write reams of paper on everything, often all that does it make it harder for smaller business and enterprises. They also seem to want to expand their remit from a trade partnership to even handling taxation issues (Apple / Ireland) and all sorts of other issues that the EU was never intended to handle.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:50
Cloudane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 867
Yet migrants come here, take private house rental and pay 3 months rent, then stop paying for 3 months whilst the eviction process begins and then by the time they are evicted they take the letter to the council and women and children get housed as a priority even if they've only been in the country for 6 months, they also get all their benefits from then on too. We also bring people over from other counties and give them housing and benefits
Interesting theory. Do you know many who've worked the system to this degree? Any examples?
EEA citizens do have access to JSA after 3 months, but only if they have a genuine likelihood of employment, and only for 3 months before it's stopped unless they can give compelling evidence of a likelihood of employment such as a written job offer. They also cannot claim housing benefit while unemployed.
Once they're working they do have access to benefits if they're eligible, as they're paying their taxes just like anyone else (also they're not considered to be settled unless they meet minimum income rules). So surely they have just as much right to them as anyone else? You could argue a general population problem, but we have a lot of UK nationals breeding like rabbits, maybe they should be treated the same way?

The people from "other countries" by which presumably you mean non-EEA, are not eligible for benefits.

Source: https://fullfact.org/immigration/mig...fare-benefits/

I have been a jobseeker born here and entitled to JSA and genuinely wanting to work, and it was a constant battle to avoid it getting stopped. I struggled for 6 months then was effectively treated as a criminal and put into the equivalent of community service to get some work out of me for the JSA (then got a job out of that) and even then there were the constant threats. Migrants are subject to much stricter scrutiny - I really strongly doubt it's as easy as just waltzing over here and playing the system, and even then I can say from experience that it's made to feel as degrading and undignified as possible.
Cloudane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:12
WelshBluebird
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 720
So where will that money go then? Or will it cease to exist?
It'll be used to:
1 - Prop up the funding in pats of the UK that currently receive more EU money than they contribute (e.g Wales, Cornwall etc).
2 - Prop up the economy in the event of a downturn of any kind.
3 - Bribe large businesses not to do anything to damage the UK (e.g so they keep factories here etc).
4 - Prop up the already fragile public finances (remember despite the Tories obsession about reducing the deficit they have managed to miss all their goals related to it).

What is sad is that despite paying tax and national insurance in the UK all my life if I was made homeless as a single male and went to the council they would tell he I'm not a priority and I'd be left to homeless shelters or charities.

Yet migrants come here, take private house rental and pay 3 months rent, then stop paying for 3 months whilst the eviction process begins and then by the time they are evicted they take the letter to the council and women and children get housed as a priority even if they've only been in the country for 6 months, they also get all their benefits from then on too. We also bring people over from other counties and give them housing and benefits, we need to get our priorities right and look after our people first and only then if there's money in the pot start looking at other counties needs, housing and benefits.

We struggle with the NHS in winter, the waiting times in A&E were 6 hours at my local hospital at one point, schools, roads etc are all under pressure, yet we've allowed migration of 641,000 people migrate here in 2015 and 631,000 in 2016, in just those 2 years 1.3 million migrated here, if it weren't for such high numbers year after year over the last 5-10 years then surely our systems wouldn't be under such pressure?

I'm all for healthcare workers essential to the NHS coming and needed jobs and even for free movement of labour, not people and I think the system needs to be fairer.

That's not my only issue with it though, I have equally big objections to the EU like scope creep, ever increasing Euro-state, too much silly red tape, lack of democratic control.
1 - The issues to do with the NHS and housing have much more to do with government policy than they do with migration.
2 - In terms of red tape, care to give examples? Or you are just parroting the government, failing to realise that what the Tories mean by "getting rid of red tape" is removing protections given to either workers of the vulnerable.

I do agree that specifically housing for single males is atrocious, but that is more of a symptom of governments failing to deal with the more wide ranging housing issue that we have in this country.
WelshBluebird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:32
d123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,985
It is fact that if you're a single male you're unlikely to be housed by the local authority as they de-prioritise you, why not do some of your own research and you'll see.
Funny that, my wife's cousin just went through a marriage break up and within about 3 weeks was offered a 1 bed flat by the local council.

Single, white male, really nice place he was offered as well, had to wait an extra week to move in as they installed a new boiler and central heating system for him...
d123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 23:41
david16
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Central Belt
Posts: 12,268
Deporting all EU nationals who have been living and working by legitimately in the UK ever since 1973 (all those still alive that is) back to the continent will not be "righting a number of wrongs of the last 43 years of the UK's membership of the EU" what some Brexiters on these forums suggest.

In fact it will be racism come to the fore.
david16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:41
AJ2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 597

I think the red tape in that government report highlights an issue with the EU, the EU seems to want to get involved in and write reams of paper on everything, often all that does it make it harder for smaller business and enterprises. They also seem to want to expand their remit from a trade partnership to even handling taxation issues (Apple / Ireland) and all sorts of other issues that the EU was never intended to handle.
You think you have a red tape problem now? If we lose single market access and fall to WTO rules, better watch out for that red tape on import and export goods to and from the EU that companies will have to work with, visa travelling, etc
AJ2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 19:50
Thine Wonk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,541
You think you have a red tape problem now? If we lose single market access and fall to WTO rules, better watch out for that red tape on import and export goods to and from the EU that companies will have to work with, visa travelling, etc
Remoaner rubbish as usual, lets look at the facts.

Switzerland isn't an member of the EU yet their passport ranks 4th in the world (higher than the UK) as they have visa free travel to a whopping 172 countries, we only have access to 156.

Switzerland have signed a bill limiting freedom of movement which they have successfully negotiated with the EU, which ensures access to the single market, has quotas and mandates that large companies look for local employees ahead of other EU migrant positions.
Thine Wonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:17
d123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,985
p
Switzerland have signed a bill limiting freedom of movement which they have successfully negotiated with the EU, which ensures access to the single market, has quotas and mandates that large companies look for local employees ahead of other EU migrant positions.
No, they haven't, it's quite apparent that you only get your info from the red tops like the Mail and the Sun...

Swiss climbdown over free movement may deal blow to UK hopes

The Swiss parliament has largely caved in to EU intransigence on free movement in a decision that could deal a blow to British government hopes of being able to both control immigration and retain enhanced single market access after Brexit.

Swiss MPs approved legislation on Wednesday that would promote some local preference in job hires, a compromise they hope will allow vital economic relations with the bloc to be preserved following a 2014 referendum vote to cap EU immigration.

The plan, which the upper house will debate in December, should give Switzerland time to work out a more comprehensive deal with Brussels, which has not budged from its stance that quotas on EU workers would automatically exclude Switzerland from the single market.

Brussels has not shifted on free movement since the populist, Eurosceptic SVP party called for and, against all expectations, won the 2014 referendum, with 50.3% of voters demanding immigration quotas.

Switzerland has since been ejected from the EU’s science research programme, Horizon2020, and the Erasmus student exchange programme.

“We cannot set a precedent on free movement, especially not now, given the UK situation,” said one EU diplomat. “We can’t have caps or quotas or emergency brakes and single market access. The Swiss have taken a decision and it has certain consequences. They will have to find their own way out.”

Despite Juncker’s positive words, there is no firm guarantee that Brussels will accept the Swiss proposal, which is supported by all political parties except the SVP.

The commission has said it will need assurance it does not discriminate against EU workers. It also wants free movement to be part of a new “institutional agreement” between Switzerland and the EU to replace the bilateral accords.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ations-with-eu


Promote preference just means they will advertise nationally first, they can't introduce quotas or restrict free movement or they are kicked out of the single market, no negotiation has made the EU budge on that...
d123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:58
errea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Not leaving the EU (quite yet)
Posts: 295
You clearly (as expected from a Little Englander) are using the UK as synonym for England as Scotland has legislation essentially making homelessness unlawful.

With difference between EU/EEA freedom of movement, compared with say India and Australia, is that is it reciprocal and you are also guaranteed the same rights as locals. Australia previously offered the UK, a freedom of movement type deal, but it was declined (by the UK Goverment).

The EU Commission/ EFTA Surveillance Authority's role is to ensure the proper functioning of the single market - this includes state aid, unfair tax regimes etc.

People from the EU who haven't contributed to the UK economy or tax system are treated equally to people who have paid into the UK system (or at least after 6 months). We see homeless people in the UK who won't be housed as they are not deemed vulnerable whilst we'll happily take and house refugees, I think that's wrong. I think charity should begin and home, especially by the very people who help fund the system.

In answer to Jon, I agree with free movement of LABOUR which is needed and cannot be filled by locally skilled people. I believe that they should have to advertise a post for 4 weeks locally and if they can't fill it they should be able to fill it with a migrant.

I don't want to see people who aren't EU migrants at a disadvantage, somebody from India who can do the job should be equal to somebody from Belgium. I think they should decide each year which industries are in demand and allow migrants to fill those positions where local skills are at a shortage (just like in Australia).

I think the red tape in that government report highlights an issue with the EU, the EU seems to want to get involved in and write reams of paper on everything, often all that does it make it harder for smaller business and enterprises. They also seem to want to expand their remit from a trade partnership to even handling taxation issues (Apple / Ireland) and all sorts of other issues that the EU was never intended to handle.
errea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:02
Yossi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 164
I'm all for free movement of money, goods and jobs, but not people who come with no job and want to milk the UK tax payers. Things are much more generous here than in other poorer EU countries and that's why we've seen 1M come in over the last 4 years.

Lets change free movement to free movement of skilled or needed labour, money and goods. Let's decide for ourselves and make sure we fund universities and public services without the EU net deficit. Lets also have direct democracy.
Well I think I might give you a heart attack but:

Current EU treaties allows for EU member states such as the United Kingdom to restrict residency to those with a job, self-employed, self-sufficient individuals (i.e. pensioners or people with savings) or students with private health care. If they don't meet any of these criteria, the United Kingdom is entitled to reject residency rights, upon which the EU migrant automatically becomes a "tourist". If after 3 months the tourist has not left, the EU member state is entitled to remove them.

EU treaties also allow for transient residency to be removed if the migrant ceases to meet the EU treaty rights for longer then 3 months. In essence that means that if a EU migrant goes unemployed for longer than 3 months the UK has every right to ask them to leave.

Current EU treaties allow for EU member states to restrict welfare and benefits to those who are permanent residents. A EU migrant becomes a permanent resident after they have lived for 5 continuous year in another EU member state exercising EU treaty rights. In practise and for 99% of EU migrants, becoming permanent residents means they have paid taxes for 5 years before qualifying for benefits.

In addition the UK has a permanent opt-out from Schengen which means in essence the United Kingdom has permanent control over its borders, which entitles the government to control who comes and goes.

Given the fact that EU treaties also allows the UK to demand each EU migrant be registered and issued an ID number, you soon realise that your beloved Brexit objectives to control EU migration has been a real possibility for the United Kingdom since 1992 when Maastricht was ratified.

Now I ask you: why has the United Kingdom not implemented all these prerogatives, and instead has demanded that the EU changed its Freedom of Movement policies?

Imagine the astonishment when the EU leaders heard Cameron's demand when neither he or his predecessors moved a finger to implement all those measures currently allowed by EU treaties.
.
Yossi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:25
Yossi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 164

In answer to Jon, I agree with free movement of LABOUR which is needed and cannot be filled by locally skilled people. I believe that they should have to advertise a post for 4 weeks locally and if they can't fill it they should be able to fill it with a migrant.

In essence if the UK adopted all rules the EU allows us to adopt, we would have only free movement of workers, students, and retired people who receive a pension.

But again, the UK has always opted out of these regulations so don't blame me, the EU, or EU migrants, blame your inept politicians.
Yossi is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:15.