Imagine the headlines if France and Spain installed a 1000€ annual accès fee to health care for UK pensioners. Totally justified because they consume more healthcare than they have paid for or will pay in.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
their healthcare bill is paid for by UK government now and will be after brexit.
On the principle of local levy for immigrant/migrant workers, I think the EU could do well looking into this closely.
Think of it as a 'prélèvement de solidarité'.
On the principle of local levy for immigrant/migrant workers, I think the EU could do well looking into this closely.
Think of it as a 'prélèvement de solidarité'.
It doesn't fit with the " Libre circulation des peuples" now does it?
yes, it does.
The levy will be paid by the employers.
The workers will still retain freedom to look for and accept work in any member country.
The levy will be paid by the employers.
The workers will still retain freedom to look for and accept work in any member country.
Just when one thought it was safe and free from antagonistic interruption to resume reporting and discussion of the biggest peacetime event in the last half-century to concern the peoples of Europe, the troll reappears with its usual non-constructive criticisms of some frequent contributors.
The 7 pages over 3 days respite from its drivel was welcome but if it spent any of its time away in contemplation, it certainly hasn't learned anything about 'Brexit', about people, about forums or about manners.
I really thought we had seen the back of it but perhaps the villagers decided they didn't want their non-Ecycling, missing person back and if that is the case, who can blame them?
Tom
can we call it what it is... its not a levy... its a fine.
Its a £1000 fine for choosing, or having to choose a worker from a certain area because the skills aren't available locally. So whose fault is that? Local government, local education, local people? I'm pretty certain its not the employers fault. Although granted they might be incentivised to help educate local people if they are being fined like this. However personally if the choice was between candidate a) who was first choice, but I had to pay a £1000.00 fine, or candidate b) who wasn't as good by was £1000 cheaper, I know I'd pay the £1000.00. Its considerably less than paying a recruitment consultants fees.
Its a nonsense idea..
What next... anyone employed in Yorkshire who isn't from Yorkshire will be fined??
and what about all the companies owned and run by non UK nationals in this country, are they going to fine us for every UK employee they have to take on?
The purpose of free movement is unqualfied, it doesn't come with a price as you propose.
- Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
- Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
Spain has a great NHS but it is hugely expensive, reflected in high travel insurance premiums. It pains me to say this but some of our ex-pat community, particularly the 'snowbirds' who spend 6 months in cheap winter rental accommodation really do take the proverbial when they are in Spain.
Not all of those who choose to spend their winters in Spain are of retirement age and many would not qualify for a free flu jab in the UK. Although one can pay for a flu jab anyway in both Spain and the UK, some seem to think they are entitled to turn up at a clinic in Spain and demand their annual flu jab when they arrive in early October. Others forego operations for which they are on a waiting list in the UK so that they can have the procedure in Spain.
Regardless, this is the situation with reciprocal health care according to the occasionally fact-based journalism of the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/38534958?utm_content=bufferd6869&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Tom
Not all of those who choose to spend their winters in Spain are of retirement age and many would not qualify for a free flu jab in the UK. Although one can pay for a flu jab anyway in both Spain and the UK, some seem to think they are entitled to turn up at a clinic in Spain and demand their annual flu jab when they arrive in early October. Others forego operations for which they are on a waiting list in the UK so that they can have the procedure in Spain.
Regardless, this is the situation with reciprocal health care according to the occasionally fact-based journalism of the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/38534958?utm_content=bufferd6869&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Tom
Last edited:
Tom, the healthcare bills for Britons in the EU is borne by UK government. The local providers do not lose out on this.
OG, taxation is far from being an evil, even on cases like this, where clearly one group of people seems to be discriminated against. Successive governments reduce taxes to the rich, that comprise most employers (find me a really poor employer farmer) with predictable consequences.
Taxing employers who benefit from having cheaper labour makes sense to me. This can only happen after brexit or by a decision of the EU commission.
The current membership benefits clearly Britons living abroad, working and retired, while people who live and work in rural England seem to be worse off because of EU immigrant workers.
OG, taxation is far from being an evil, even on cases like this, where clearly one group of people seems to be discriminated against. Successive governments reduce taxes to the rich, that comprise most employers (find me a really poor employer farmer) with predictable consequences.
Taxing employers who benefit from having cheaper labour makes sense to me. This can only happen after brexit or by a decision of the EU commission.
The current membership benefits clearly Britons living abroad, working and retired, while people who live and work in rural England seem to be worse off because of EU immigrant workers.
Last edited:
This...
Free Movement has been proven to not reduce the wages in any profession.
http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/mortgages-bills/lse-says-eu-migrants-have-no-negative-impact-on-uk-wages-11364060552484
is proven to be incorrect. Its a Daily Mail assumtion.
Free Movement has been proven to not reduce the wages in any profession.
http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/mortgages-bills/lse-says-eu-migrants-have-no-negative-impact-on-uk-wages-11364060552484
If you average out regional differences then you lose all the peaks and troughs.
Jobs in rural England are notoriously difficult to get, consequently, more rural constituencies voted for brexit.
In London, immigrants usually boost the economy.
again... that's a daily mail view - not backed up by actual fact.
The reason farmers and others employ migrant workers is because they need to, because locals won't do the jobs. Its not about money.
https://www.ft.com/content/7ceb876c-b58d-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d
if there was loads of local labour prepared to work by currently forced out by the immigrants.. the NFU wouldn't be warning of a labour crisis now would they?
It isn't increasing the tax on the employer that troubles me, it is the fact that if I was applying for a job as an EU citizen, I would have to overcome the financial advantage to the employer that a UK citizen would have.
That whether good or not clearly doesn't comply with the present state of affairs in the EU.
And remarkably now the Government wants to apply this to the rest of the world excluding EU citizens...where is the sense in that?
The answer is most likely that they intend to use it as a bargaining chip and are not seeking a hard Brexit.
I'm sorry to have to disagree with your assertion, 'Woosh' but you are correct only in as far as the general reciprocal health arrangements exist in principle. That is why those of us who travel extensively in Europe carry the EHIC card, (ex E111).
Sadly, in some parts of Spain, heavily populated by the British ex-pat community, many local clinics and hospitals have been known to demand credit card payment details before commencing with medical procedures, ignoring the EHIC.
You may say that's ridiculous; that's out of order, etc but it is a fact that this has happened on many occasions and continues to happen in some areas. You will already know, I have no doubt, that notwithstanding the EHIC arrangements, all the advice is that travellers should take out private travel insurance with health cover to be safe. Sadly, private travel insurance with cover for pre-existing conditions is either not available or only at extortionate premiums particularly for older people.
The Spanish health authorities are entitled to be recompensed for treatment provided to foreign nationals and if they are not being paid, then one can understand why they might adopt such a commercial position. As to whose fault it may be that some hospitals and clinics are not being paid, I haven't a clue but to presume that local providers do not lose out through these arrangements is not necessarily correct.
Tom
There may have been some abuse of our health systems by UK nationals coming as health tourists rather than waiting their turn for your wonderful NHS
My dentists speak fluent Spanish because a majority of their clients cross the border for treatment which they pay in cash. Dental treatment is much more expensive in Spain, I can't afford it here despite being insured!
My dentists speak fluent Spanish because a majority of their clients cross the border for treatment which they pay in cash. Dental treatment is much more expensive in Spain, I can't afford it here despite being insured!
Following market logic, if the locals don't want to do it, then the wages are too low perhaps?
The point is, there are winners and losers. One could say that FOM benefits employers disproportionately - taxing the latter makes sense to me.
The losers are usually those not in employment because they see more competition for publicly funded resources.
OG, your comment:
'I would have to overcome the financial advantage to the employer that a UK citizen would have.'
It is usually the case for most immigrants from outside the EU coming here on a working visa. Why shouldn't it apply to all immigrants?
Often we concentrate on human issues and forget that most employers are (or controlled by) rich individuals who benefited from competition of our two biggest parties on tax cut.
'I would have to overcome the financial advantage to the employer that a UK citizen would have.'
It is usually the case for most immigrants from outside the EU coming here on a working visa. Why shouldn't it apply to all immigrants?
Often we concentrate on human issues and forget that most employers are (or controlled by) rich individuals who benefited from competition of our two biggest parties on tax cut.
There already is an EU law that allows the UK to do this. The UK chooses not to do it! So yet again the "problem" is the UK and not the EU.
We can refuse to give benefits to people not from the UK etc etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-unemployed-eu-migrants-judges-rule
There is a host of things that the UK can do, like also claim back the cost of NHS treatment for non UK, EU patients.