You were their "Look guv we got proper accounts an everyting" diversion technique then.

Like any business where cash is involved there are opportunities for evasion/avoidance a small perk for the high levels of risk.

High levels of risk?

Taking cash from people before you wash their car in a former petrol station that the owner cannot lease out to anyone else other than another petrol retailer who won't touch it with a bargepole and for which he doesn't have the huge finance needed to dig up the tanks and convert it back into a brownfield site which is then of low development value - that sort of high risk ?

Outlay is low rent (you've got the owner over a barrel), your water rates, some buckets, sponges and wash leathers, an old wringer from a junk shop and one of those advertising things that you blow air into and a 20 foot high balloon man jumps around in the breeze (they can be rented and if you're lucky you'll have done a runner before they come for the next months installment) - find yourself a handful of cash-in-hand Latvians and plot your route over the back fence when HMRC arrive - sorted.

They will have to pay rent the kind of guys they will be renting will not be going legal if you don't pay!! If we have rain for two weeks turnover will disappear. Most sites are waiting to be sold - you could build up your business only to told you need to move on? There is competition out there you are not the only car wash in business. Sales aren't great - how many cars can you realistically do in an hour, let's face it Monday to Friday you will not be doing that many cars. Like any business it has it challenges.

Well it's the fifth of January and I haven't spotted a Bulgarian yet.
Mind you to be fair I've only been in Bulgaria for three days.

Funny though especially for Wail & Depress readers

Government masterstoke: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nefit.html

Government masterstoke: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nefit.html

Quote ="Dally"Government masterstoke: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nefit.html'" The Polish Foreign Minister has a point and it illustrates again the way that our government make up policy as they go along seemingly without stopping to check if its feasible or even legal. Unfortunately for Cameron his opponents in the EU are far too clever for him and his big-gob-politics.

Quote ="Dally"Government masterstoke: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nefit.html'" The Polish Foreign Minister has a point and it illustrates again the way that our government make up policy as they go along seemingly without stopping to check if its feasible or even legal. Unfortunately for Cameron his opponents in the EU are far too clever for him and his big-gob-politics.

What a crazy system, and I can see why the Polish Minister is all in favour of it. We subsidise Polish kids with 4 times the benefit that they would get from their own Polish Government!

Easily sorted Dave, you are not going to get any of the newer EU members to agree with you, so simply pay out benefit at the same rate they would get in their home countries.

And if the EU doesn't like it.....

Wouldn't the kids then be brought here and take up school places, costing the UK much more?

That could happen, but I think the additional problems with finding Family sized accommodation, and the associated outlay is why they are still back in Poland. I'm sure the 4 fold increase in their benefits would have been a financial facter in any decision for the breadwinner to move here on his own. Remove the extra, and it may well be not worth it, and we could see a reverse migration.

You missed Jerry's "feasible and legal" comment I take it? Do you work at Conservative Central Office?

Last time I looked we have to follow the rule of law, and Cameron should be fighting within the EU to change the law if he doesn't like it, not unilaterally taking his ball home. EU law, like other law, isn't pick and choose.

Of course if he does decide he doesn't like it and takes us out of the EU, I wonder if the 2.2million Brits living in other EU countries would be kicked out and rock up back here claiming housing and other benefits. That WOULD be interesting.

Wages here are way higher here than in Poland so I doubt you'd see much reverse migration until that changed. Working in a supermarket gives about 10 times the pay as many well qualified people get in Poland. However homesick people are the figures make it very difficult for them to go home.

As there have been enough recorded instances of other European countries selectively applying EU dictates, I don't see why we shouldn't either. Pay the benefits at the local rate, and invite the Powers that be to take their best shot!

Oh, and incidentally, as nothing is written in stone, you do not have to blindly obey any Law. Bad Law can sometimes be only changed by challenging it.......but you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

Your hypothetical assessment raised a smile, as the Bold Dave is never going to take us out of Europe. I suspect though, that we would be well in credit accepting 2.2 million ex pats back, whilst loosing all those who came in the other direction over the last 40 years or so.

Controversial stuff Chris!

At least we agree on the underlining! Stamping your feet and saying it isn't fair a la Cameron is not the way to behave or get things done. We would all be served better by our governments engaging with the EU and changing things from within. At the moment, everyone is in the EU tent and Cameron is getting wet.

It is for many EC countries when they don't like it. British meat exports to France anyone?

Among the jerking knees and entrenched positions, the question of who is allowed in your country must, as a matter of common sense, remain ultimately in the power of each sovereign country. They may not wish to admit it, but precisely NONE would allow totally unfettered, unlimited immigration from other member states. The combined population of the EU is maybe half a billion and if all the lot of them one day decided to excercise their right of free movement and set off for (say) Germany, that country would very simply and absolutely not permit it to happen.

This extreme simple illustration means that in fact there is no such thing as the mythical total freedom of movement, rather, it is just a question of degree; basically countries need to consider how much immigration, from where, of what kind, can be reasonably assimilated without harm to the country's vital interests. So, we have established that there is - MUST be - a [ide facto[/i immigration policy in every state, and, whatever other countries may say, every one would impose controls and restrictions [iat some point[/i.

Syrian refugees are of course non-EU citizens but their fate in attempting to seek sanctuary in the Eu does illustrate the true attitude of EU countries to admitting immigrants in any number. Of the millions of refugees, the whole EU has only offered a total of 15,244 places for temporary or permanent relocation*. (The UK proportion of that btw is Nil). I don't see any reason to think attitudes to mass immigration from within the EU would be much different.

* [url=http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT34/001/2013/en/8a376b76-d031-48a6-9588-ed9aee651d52/act340012013en.pdfAmnesty report on Syrian refugee crisis[/url

I'd hazard a guess that the cost of living is way higher here than in Poland too

Not by anywhere near an equivalent amount - otherwise nobody would come here.

Only last year I got 2 pints of lager (which, was far nicer than any of the lagers you pick up in the uk) and 2 large vodka and cokes for less than £2 in poland. Admittedly, the pub reminded me of something you find in the eastern parts of hull, but still. Good luck getting a pint in the uk for less than £2

Regards

King James

Last night on Question Time Labour's Chuka Umunna let slip that seemingly Labour thinks that the Eu never intended everyone to be able to go wherever or whenever, but just wanted freedom of movement of "workers". Pressed on this he would say he had had recent talks with representatives of other countries and hinted they agreed, pressed further he was cagey but the upshot was that Labour woould argue there should only be free movement of people with a job, leaving one job in one country to take up a post in another. It must follow that in Labour's view a person without a job should not be able to go to another country to look for work. And that if you have a skilled job on one country, you still shouldn't be allowed to move to another to do "low skilled" work. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25678829 It sounded very muddled and almsot makeing up policy as you go along, but what seems clear is Labour is against anyone without a job being able to enter the UK and claim any benefits; and that the only free movement of workers Labour approves of is people moving from one job elsewhere to an equivalent-or-better-skill job here.

Last night on Question Time Labour's Chuka Umunna let slip that seemingly Labour thinks that the Eu never intended everyone to be able to go wherever or whenever, but just wanted freedom of movement of "workers". Pressed on this he would say he had had recent talks with representatives of other countries and hinted they agreed, pressed further he was cagey but the upshot was that Labour woould argue there should only be free movement of people with a job, leaving one job in one country to take up a post in another. It must follow that in Labour's view a person without a job should not be able to go to another country to look for work. And that if you have a skilled job on one country, you still shouldn't be allowed to move to another to do "low skilled" work. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25678829 It sounded very muddled and almsot makeing up policy as you go along, but what seems clear is Labour is against anyone without a job being able to enter the UK and claim any benefits; and that the only free movement of workers Labour approves of is people moving from one job elsewhere to an equivalent-or-better-skill job here.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Last night on Question Time Labour's Chuka Umunna let slip that seemingly Labour thinks that the Eu never intended everyone to be able to go wherever or whenever, but just wanted freedom of movement of "workers". Pressed on this he would say he had had recent talks with representatives of other countries and hinted they agreed, pressed further he was cagey but the upshot was that Labour woould argue there should only be free movement of people with a job, leaving one job in one country to take up a post in another. It must follow that in Labour's view a person without a job should not be able to go to another country to look for work. And that if you have a skilled job on one country, you still shouldn't be allowed to move to another to do "low skilled" work. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25678829 It sounded very muddled and almsot makeing up policy as you go along, but what seems clear is Labour is against anyone without a job being able to enter the UK and claim any benefits; and that the only free movement of workers Labour approves of is people moving from one job elsewhere to an equivalent-or-better-skill job here.'" It certainly is muddled. After all, Chuka's government was a signatory to the 2004 EU Free Movement of Persons Directive, the first clause of which states "Citizenship of the Union confers on every citizen of the Union a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and to the measures adopted to give it effect." Nothing about it just being workers on a "one in, one out" basis. They had the chance to put "workers only" and even in capitals, bold and underlined, but they didn't, presumably as that wasn't what was intended when the document was drafted, discussed and agreed. "Every citizen" is pretty broad and clear in its meaning. His government also introduced the "Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006" which sets out, effectively, how the 2004 Directive will be implemented and describes a "qualified person" (i.e. someone who benefits under EU law and free movement provisions) as including jobseekers. When some of the 2.2m Brits around Europe start coming home on the basis that they also aren't workers in Spain or Germany or France, he might find himself in even more of a muddle. I'm all for someone changing their minds about a policy, but to seemingly state that this was never intended is either, as you kindly put it, muddled, or downright disingenuous. It also shows that while immigration is a hot topic, those making the loudest sounds are the ones who know least about it.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Last night on Question Time Labour's Chuka Umunna let slip that seemingly Labour thinks that the Eu never intended everyone to be able to go wherever or whenever, but just wanted freedom of movement of "workers". Pressed on this he would say he had had recent talks with representatives of other countries and hinted they agreed, pressed further he was cagey but the upshot was that Labour woould argue there should only be free movement of people with a job, leaving one job in one country to take up a post in another. It must follow that in Labour's view a person without a job should not be able to go to another country to look for work. And that if you have a skilled job on one country, you still shouldn't be allowed to move to another to do "low skilled" work. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25678829 It sounded very muddled and almsot makeing up policy as you go along, but what seems clear is Labour is against anyone without a job being able to enter the UK and claim any benefits; and that the only free movement of workers Labour approves of is people moving from one job elsewhere to an equivalent-or-better-skill job here.'" It certainly is muddled. After all, Chuka's government was a signatory to the 2004 EU Free Movement of Persons Directive, the first clause of which states "Citizenship of the Union confers on every citizen of the Union a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and to the measures adopted to give it effect." Nothing about it just being workers on a "one in, one out" basis. They had the chance to put "workers only" and even in capitals, bold and underlined, but they didn't, presumably as that wasn't what was intended when the document was drafted, discussed and agreed. "Every citizen" is pretty broad and clear in its meaning. His government also introduced the "Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006" which sets out, effectively, how the 2004 Directive will be implemented and describes a "qualified person" (i.e. someone who benefits under EU law and free movement provisions) as including jobseekers. When some of the 2.2m Brits around Europe start coming home on the basis that they also aren't workers in Spain or Germany or France, he might find himself in even more of a muddle. I'm all for someone changing their minds about a policy, but to seemingly state that this was never intended is either, as you kindly put it, muddled, or downright disingenuous. It also shows that while immigration is a hot topic, those making the loudest sounds are the ones who know least about it.

Isn't that exactly the case in countries like Australia, NZ and the USA? No one, skilled or otherwise, can demand a working visa in those countries. A doctor wouldn't be able to go there as a truck driver even if there was a shortage of truck drivers. Doctors can get visa's to be doctors and truck drivers visa's to be truck drivers IF their professions are on a skill shortage list.

In general they don't let anyone in without a job just to look for any old job except students on student working visas. I think you may be able to get enough points to get into NZ if you are in certain professions but don't have a job offer when you apply but you would still be going as someone expected to find a job in these defined professions.

I don't see what is wrong with this if that is what Labour is proposing. If there are labour shortages in low skilled jobs then they would end up on the list of defined skills the UK wanted and people in the rest of the EU could apply.

What am I missing?

You're not missing anything, it would just need the entire principle of freedom of movement within the EU to be torn up and reversed, so that absolutely nobody - not a single person - can come to live/work/look for work here without a visa, As opposed to everybody being free to come any time they like, without restriction of any kind.

The point successive governments have made is that low skilled immigration from outside the EU is not desirable as there are supposedly workers within the EU who can do those jobs. So we only want Indian doctors or American IT specialists, not Chinese street sweepers.

Technically EU immigration isn't immigration due to the free movement principles (and EU nationals aren't subject to immigration rules) so there's nothing to stop low skilled "immigration " from Europe. If Labour are proposing to apply similar rules to EU citizens as to others, it will drive the proverbial coach and horses through the legislation and EU directives. Other EU states could do the same, with implications for EU wide employers.

All of it smacks of tinkering to keep the Mail etc onside. We're heading for disaster when any political party allows the likes of Dacre, Desmond et al to dictate policies.

That may be true but I am not sure what that has got to do with Labour's position. I thought they seemed to be saying we don't want people turning up without a job. Unless I misunderstood if a Bulgarian road sweeper arranged a job sweeping roads in Chester, he could still come.



I am sure it would be a bit of a mindfield legistativley but I don't see why it would prevent say a company like Airbus doing as it does now and recruit across the EU for jobs anywhere in any of its geographic locations.



I am sure that has something (quite alot!) to do with it but opinion polls suggest they are going to have to have a seemingly credible alternative to simplistic blanket bans that does actually set out to limit migration to the UK in some way.

That is the reality of the politics we face at the moment and I don't think taking the high ground and arguing against public opinion on this issue is going to get them elected.

I think things are fine as they are myself and people have been brainwashed against free movement of labour but I don't see how the Labour proposals as I understand them would make a huge difference other than prevent unemployed people coming here on spec.