Expulsions of Roma in Europe (France, Italy etc)

[Johnny Canuck3]

That would be because going on benefits instead of working for little more is not a good way to increase your future earning potential. Because - like I said - people do not, generally, choose to live below the poverty level.

I agree but my point is that minimum wage can be below the poverty level. But when faced with the choice of poverty on benefits, and poverty working, a lot of people will continue to work, because they think it's wrong to accept benefits when they don't really need them.

 

[ymu]

I agree but my point is that minimum wage can be below the poverty level. But when faced with the choice of poverty on benefits, and poverty working, a lot of people will continue to work, because they think it's wrong to accept benefits when they don't really need them.

And my point is that your point proves mine. People work for shit wages because they expect their wage to increase with their skills and experience. Choosing benefits instead guarantees shit wages with no opportunity to improve pay prospects for the future. It's got nothing to do with a moral choice and everything to do with wanting to earn a decent wage at some point. Because - like I said - few people want to live below the poverty level.

Benefits are a "lifestyle choice" for a tiny proportion of claimants. IIRC a study into this identified about 100,000 long-term "work-avoiders" out of 2.5 million unemployed (in the UK). Given that we are at least 2 million jobs short of full employment, and that full employment will never be possible in a capitalist economy, there really isn't any point worrying about these people. AFAIC, they're doing the rest of us a favour by not taking up jobs that other people want and need.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The fact that tax rates are too high. I hope a Conservative government can reduce the tax burden over the next term

Rather than merely claiming something as a fact, how about you substantiate your claim.
Or, you could just admit that it's your opinion, devoid of anything meriting substantiation.

 

[DotCommunist]

I wonder when the hatred of the roma was first fostered- I know those who hold property ownership as sacrosanct must have started it. Let the roma roam, settle, move on as they will. You do not sell the ground the people walk upon, as crazy horse said.

 

[Ground Elder]

1505 first record of Roma in UK. 1530 first anti-Gypsy law passed banning Gypsies from entering UK and deporting any already here.,

 

[Fuchs66]

Thought I'd look a bit more into the actual stand of things as far as EU legislation and the rights of EU citizens seeing as people are stating the right of EU citizens to move within the EU. Actually if you look at it the legislation refers to the "free movement of workers".

All from here:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summar...market/free_movement_of_workers/l33152_en.htm

The 3 month cut off date was certainly the case when I moved to Germany in the early 90s

For stays of less than three months, the only requirement on Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.

So that bit is basically the same.

Right of residence for more than six months

The right of residence for more than six months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:

•either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);
•or 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. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;
•or be following vocational training as a student and 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;
•or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories.

So basically a stay longer than 6 months carries an obligation to work or being able to support yourself to a certain standard (I know this may be open to debate but I think the health insurance bit is key).

Now not knowing the details of each and every deportation case in France (or elsewhere) I couldn't comment in detail, and my gut feeling is that it's a particularly nasty bit of populistic politics being carried out against a particular minority, I would say however that it does look like it is within the EU legal framework.

E2A there are of course these 2 little snippets:

Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Under no circumstances may an expulsion decision be taken on economic grounds. Measures affecting freedom of movement and residence must comply with the proportionality principle and be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Such conduct must represent a sufficiently serious and present threat which affects the fundamental interests of the state.

Member States may adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred by this Directive in the case of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.

Both open to interpretation

I wonder when the hatred of the roma was first fostered- I know those who hold property ownership as sacrosanct must have started it. Let the roma roam, settle, move on as they will. You do not sell the ground the people walk upon, as crazy horse said.

I definitely think there is a deserving case here for an exception to be made to EU migration laws.

 

[butchersapron]

Make your mind up. It's legal or it requires an exception. Go on, pick one.

 

[Fuchs66]

Make your mind up. It's legal or it requires an exception. Go on, pick one.

One is the situation as it now stands from the EU site, the other is my opinion. What is there to pick?

 

[butchersapron]

It's unclear (to me) if you're saying the explusions should be allowed as an exception, or that they should be stopped as an exception.

This is the point of reddy and other high ups. The expulsions clashes with the fundamental higher laws of the EU. There's no way around it. Barroso tired to bury it after his meeting with sarkozy. But it's illegal. They're trying to 'create facts on the ground' like ex-yugoslavia' before any legally enforced halt.

 

[Fuchs66]

It's unclear (to me) if you're saying the explusions are an exception, or that they should be stopped as an exception.

This is the point of reddy and other high ups. The expulsions clashes with the fundamental higher laws of the EU. There's no way around it. Barroso tired to bury it after his meeting with sarkozy. But it's illegal. They're trying to 'create facts on the ground' like ex-yugoslavia' before any legally enforced halt.

Sorry if my post was unclear, what I meant was that while the expulsions may be technically legal at the moment there is a case (when considering the traditional Roma lifestyle) for making an exception

 

[butchersapron]

That thing you linkd to is outdated bollocks btw, i thought it must be due to the heading it was under.

 

[Streathamite]

Tax minimisation is legal - it's done by those who do actually pay tax - in contrast to those that don't.

it may be according to the letter of the law - but it is 100% against the spirit of it, and it's a practice that usually involves very rich tightwads sending whole armies of acountants crawling over every last bit of tax-related law to see how much they could get away with by playing legalistic hardball.
Just like offshore finance - and both equally inaceptable, morally, as they are the marks of people who would do anything to avoid paying ANY tax, given half a chance.

 

[ymu]

Tax avoidance (minimisation) is legal, artificial tax avoidance is not. eg Vodafone using a subsidiary in Luxembourg to pay mimimal UK tax is legal; Vodafone setting up a subsidiary in Luxembourg solely for the purposes of minimising UK tax is not legal.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Because - like I said - few people want to live below the poverty level. .

When I was in my twenties, I knew a number of people who chose benefits over work. Some of them were men who had a girlfriend they sponged off while collecting. Some were petty criminals. Some were prostitutes etc. In other words, they didn't just live off the benefits, but had some other marginal source of income to boost their cash-on-hand.

 

[Streathamite]

the millions of self-employed in this country employ an accountant who will advise them how to pay a little less tax - that is tax minimisation - it is legal. I bet not many say - 'hold on I'll pay more, dont worry your services are not required'

except only the truly wealthy could get enough from avoidance to afford the sort of really shit-hot accountant who makes then exercise worthwhile. REAl hardcore avoidance requires a mastery of some staggeringly intricate tax rules.

 

[likesfish]

for all the noise its very ineffective. policy. If your not working or have enough cash to support yourself your not going to be welcome in any EU country.
wibberling about the right to be a nomad in an industrialised country is just that wibble that lifestyles gone about as relative as being a hunter gatherer in surrey not going to happen.

 

[chilango]

for all the noise its very ineffective. policy. If your not working or have enough cash to support yourself your not going to be welcome in any EU country.
wibberling about the right to be a nomad in an industrialised country is just that wibble that lifestyles gone about as relative as being a hunter gatherer in surrey not going to happen.

Could you fit any more bollocks into so few words?

 

[ymu]

When I was in my twenties, I knew a number of people who chose benefits over work. Some of them were men who had a girlfriend they sponged off while collecting. Some were petty criminals. Some were prostitutes etc. In other words, they didn't just live off the benefits, but had some other marginal source of income to boost their cash-on-hand.

Are you trying to say that everyone on benefits is a criminal or a low-life? If not, what are you trying to say?

 

[gunneradt]

it may be according to the letter of the law - but it is 100% against the spirit of it, and it's a practice that usually involves very rich tightwads sending whole armies of acountants crawling over every last bit of tax-related law to see how much they could get away with by playing legalistic hardball.
Just like offshore finance - and both equally inaceptable, morally, as they are the marks of people who would do anything to avoid paying ANY tax, given half a chance.

I suspect the Government is happy with the amounts of tax that Vodafone currently pays. I don't know the background to this but I suspect that Vodafone has other options.

I dont employ a whole team hoever - just a one mand band

 

[butchersapron]

likefish/gunner- do you think people don't know what you are?

 

[Fuchs66]

That thing you linkd to is outdated bollocks btw, i thought it must be due to the heading it was under.

No it isn't it's a summary of:

European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States

which is the current EU legislation regarding movement within the EU. Full text is here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF

and further information regarding internal migration in the EU is here:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/socialeurope/free-movement-labour-eu-27/article-129648#

Of course the expulsions would appear to go against Articles 21 and 22 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:0403:EN:PDF

 

[butchersapron]

It is, you're quite right. I was wrong.

 

[likesfish]

comes down to are the roama being unreasonable.
not sure begging and cash in hand employment don't count as an unreasonable burden.
its taking the piss big time

 

[elbows]

Even if you think it is taking the piss, its small time not big time. It does not place a burden on society of such magnitude that the consequences are dire for the whole system. Unlike some of the piss taking by the powerful.

 

[likesfish]

trouble is its very obvious and gets everyobdy annoyed and is easy to understand.
maybe scokarczy is making the calculation talk tough look like your doing something rather than ignore the problem and wait for popular action the national front to have ago.
which really won't legal process and a ticket home.

 

[TAE]

I think part of the problem is that they move around. That way many different people get annoyed, rather than just a few people getting very annoyed. Hence they are unfairly targetted.