Merkel to ban migrants from getting benefits

[woodbine]

When have I said I'm in favour of "all this immigration to the UK"? This may take some time..........

You always set yourself against anyone on here who tries to educate you about the obvious dangers of islam. So it seems that as you have a major problem accepting our viewpoints, or the view of anyone who is anti islam, for you, it is a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

 

[noseall]

That Merkel is banning EU migrants from benefits for five years ?

Almost correct.
They (the Germans) are proposing bringing in laws that prohibit migrants claiming benefits that enter the country without a job or have not contributed to the economy.
"The planned law would stop new EU arrivals from claiming money if they do not have a job or have not acquired rights to the payments in a previous job."
If they have acquired rights then they will get benefits. And it is at the proposal stage and has not been voted upon, yet.

 

[noseall]

You always set yourself against anyone on here who tries to educate you about the obvious dangers of islam.

No RWR on this forum has educated me.

So it seems that as you have a major problem

I have no problem.

for you, it is a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Gotcha.

 

[Himaginn]

You are not alone. The RWR often make the same mistake. Just because you present an argument that discredits or ridicules their point of view, they automatically assume that you must be in favour of the opposing argument.

The RWR don't understand the concept of pluralism.

Here's a simple definition for them:

a situation in which people of different social classes, religions, races, etc., are together in a society but continue to have their different traditions and interests

For instance, you and I might agree that racism is abominable, but we might disagree over Cameron's tax affairs.
John, and I might agree over the Brexit idea, but we might disagree over Nuclear disarmament.
Gasbag and I might agree over the use of the 'ignore' function, but we might disagree over how to use it, or whether it's being used!
Elfi and I might agree over.......erm, .....erm....well there might be something.........if he wasn't so vague.
Flightymam and I might agree, if she'd could ever say what she believes in. As it is, she's so shifty, it's like she's got ants in her pants, forever shifting over everything. She just disagrees over anything and everything without actually saying what she does believe in!
Woodbine and I might agree that Trump is a lying misogynistic racist, but while I despise him for it, Woodbine thinks he's the best!

 

[blightymam]

The RWR don't understand the concept of pluralism.

Here's a simple definition for them:

For instance, you and I might agree that racism is abominable, but we might disagree over Cameron's tax affairs.
John, and I might agree over the Brexit idea, but we might disagree over Nuclear disarmament.
Gasbag and I might agree over the use of the 'ignore' function, but we might disagree over how to use it, or whether it's being used!
Elfi and I might agree over.......erm, .....erm....well there might be something.........if he wasn't so vague.
Flightymam and I might agree, if she'd could ever say what she believes in. As it is, she's so shifty, it's like she's got ants in her pants, forever shifting over everything. She just disagrees over anything and everything without actually saying what she does believe in!
Woodbine and I might agree that Trump is a lying misogynistic racist, but while I despise him for it, Woodbine thinks he's the best!

You getting confused yet again Himmy. I disagree with you not everything. I disagree with you because you say stupid things and have huge difficulty understanding racism, what people write for starters.

 

[Himaginn]

Almost correct.
They (the Germans) are proposing bringing in laws that prohibit migrants claiming benefits that enter the country without a job or have not contributed to the economy.
"The planned law would stop new EU arrivals from claiming money if they do not have a job or have not acquired rights to the payments in a previous job."
If they have acquired rights then they will get benefits. And it is at the proposal stage and has not been voted upon, yet.

It doesn't only apply to migrants:

http://archysde.com/hartz-iv-proposed-law-promotes-forced-retirement-and-one-euro-jobs/
It applies to all unemployed in Germany.
That's the main difference. This proposal does not target only migrants. Cameron's emergency brake on benefits only targeted migrants.
Germany's rules on unemployment pay have been far stricter than UK's since the introduction of the Hatz IV system in 2005. It's only payable for 12 months anyway, then it's subsistence benefits. It's been tweaked a few times since.

It's only that the Mail misrepresented the proposed changes as targeting migrants. Of course the RWR picked it up as Germany opposing migration and Merkel changing tack.

NB. the one-euro jobs refers to the state paying one euro more per hour to those in low paid jobs to bring their wages up to a minimum wage. Similar to UK's tax breaks for low paid.

 

[woodbine]

No one has educated me.

Corrected that for you.

 

[transam]

The German government (merkel) is trying to come across as toughening up on this migrant / benefit fiasco

After all she is facing a general election in the new year

That hopeless (?) French President is also facing an election as well


The Italians will pretty much do what ever they are told by the Franco/ German (they always have) alliance as they require a bail out

 

[Himaginn]

The German government (merkel) is trying to come across as toughening up on this migrant / benefit fiasco

It's only the non_German speaking people that assumes that, led on by the misrepresentation of the Mail, and it's followers such as gasbag.

 

[Judy in the sky]

Cameron's emergency brake on benefits only targeted migrants.

And what was so wrong with that ? You'd like to see migrants claiming thousands in benefits right from when they enter the UK? (without contributing anything whatsoever into the system?) Do you think it's right and fair for a family to come here from Eastern Europe and demand a house, benefits and everything else for free? Just how long should we continue to pay for the people who move here just for the benefits?

 

[gasbanni]

And what was so wrong with that ? You'd like to see migrants claiming thousands in benefits right from when they enter the UK? (without contributing anything whatsoever into the system?) Do you think it's right and fair for a family to come here from Eastern Europe and demand a house, benefits and everything else for free? Just how long should we continue to pay for the people who move here just for the benefits?

I avoid discussions at work where possible as I sometimes represent companies, but I ask how people voted and their reasons why although giving no indication of my own view, on Friday I was talking to a bricklayer who was working on a large new estate some private houses others owned by the council or housing associations. He'd voted out when I asked why this is what he told me, I had no reason to disbelieve him as I've personal experiance of a similar situation. .......

On this new estate all housing association or council, tenanted properties have a grassed front lawn and two sheds for the back garden.
He said nearly all the houses with the front lawns were tenanted by eastern European girls with a couple of kids, he said they didn't seem to be married as he saw no men folk about but he added the rider that they could leave very early in the morning so that's why he didn't see them.
He also said he was working on a new estate and a chap was fitting electric meters to the new houses and he remarked that he'd be back in two months to change all the meters, so this chap asked why he replied to fit free vend meters for asylum seekers as they don't have to pay for gas or electric.

The above and other reasons are why this particular cap voted out.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think people should condemn the immigrants for claiming benefits.

We should really be angry and incredulous at the idiot people who make the rules.



Why was Choudary (and recently one of his cohorts as well) allowed to live on benefits.
Surely he was fit enough to work.
The same applies to home-grown scum.

 

[Judy in the sky]

Home grown scum ?? Ahh would this be the kids leaving education with very little chance of gaining employment , simply because there are fewer job opportunities available for young people? Anyone notice the lack of investment in young school leavers in recent years? Very few apprenticeships these days. Why the lack of apprenticeships? Could it be due to the amount of cheap foreign labour? (or is that statement deemed racist and offensive?)

 

[wobs]

I avoid discussions at work where possible as I sometimes represent companies, but I ask how people voted and their reasons why although giving no indication of my own view, on Friday I was talking to a bricklayer who was working on a large new estate some private houses others owned by the council or housing associations. He'd voted out when I asked why this is what he told me, I had no reason to disbelieve him as I've personal experiance of a similar situation. .......

On this new estate all housing association or council, tenanted properties have a grassed front lawn and two sheds for the back garden.
He said nearly all the houses with the front lawns were tenanted by eastern European girls with a couple of kids, he said they didn't seem to be married as he saw no men folk about but he added the rider that they could leave very early in the morning so that's why he didn't see them.
He also said he was working on a new estate and a chap was fitting electric meters to the new houses and he remarked that he'd be back in two months to change all the meters, so this chap asked why he replied to fit free vend meters for asylum seekers as they don't have to pay for gas or electric.

The above and other reasons are why this particular cap voted out.

Fine, but its a wrong reason. The UK could have implemented perfectly legal measures to limit EU immigration, but didn't:
https://brexit853.wordpress.com/201...-to-control-eu-freedom-of-movement-directive/

So we are looking at economic suicide for what? The wrong reasons.

 

[JohnD]

this chap asked why he replied to fit free vend meters for asylum seekers as they don't have to pay for gas or electric.

That's nothing, I heard some drunken retired plumber outside the pub ranting that all refugees get a free ten-bedroom house and a BMW, and a thousand pounds a week.

It's sure to be true, he's a plumber, right?

He's like the old bloke who said although over 48% of the voters voted to stay in the EU, he's never met one of them.