I agree 100% agree Catharine. I had no intention of offending anybody.
First of all Paul I do not agree that my comment was "tired, untrue, insulting and snide" nor boarish (sic). Secondly, you weren't even at the dinner, you just turned up later and decided to be insulted. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
My agreement came viz the rudeness John which as you know (being an old lag on SFN!) isn't tolerated. I was merely reassuring Paul (as a relative newbie) that no, it isn't tolerated.
Whether or not the cliche in question IS rude and WAS used rudely, I have no idea right now without trawling back through all the conversation in question, and no, not going to do that boys - sorry - but we're installing a fence, I am supposed to be on holiday and I have a load of work to do !
So lets move on please people? Thanks! xx
I don't see why one's membership should be put at risk Catharine for posting a " stupid old cliché about "those who can, do"" which one would have no hesitation in mentioning over dinner. In fact I rather find's Paul's umbrage rather over the top. Personally I think he should lighten up but I suppose it takes all sorts.
Hi Paul
Absolutely agree and yes, it does / did...!
Best wishes
C&J
I never said that EU law had been amended, only that the UK regulations have been amended to take account of the "Stewart" judgement. The next move is up to the EU. If they believe the UK is in breach they will hold them to account, but as yet the new regulation stands.
The documents offer two classic cases of utter bureaucratic tosh cooked up by over paid and over pensioned so called civil servants. Laughably Section 8.1 says that no formal consultation has been undertaken, Section 8.3 claims that many "customers" have criticised WFP payments being made to those in "warmer" climates" and Section 8.4 claims that only one dataset (presumably on climate comparisons) was available. Hahaha. "Damned Lies" by the political class and their lackies who are not man enough to admit their flaws. Totally agree with John Scully and the army of others who have criticised the wanton duplicity.
I agree the logic behind the decision is flawed. I only explained how the DWP "justified" the decision...This government in particular has been very active in changing regulations to suit their purpose.
John Locke, as a Professor of International Law you really must quote things correctly. The UK has amended only the UK Regulations concerning this aspect of social security, because IDS was 'furious' at the Stewart Judgment. The EU Regulations have not been amended by Stewart, and remain the 'Supreme' Law affecting UK citizens living elsewhere within the EEA.
The UK has breached EU Regulations in bringing forward the Statutory Instrument 3270. Yes, the UK change, which incidentally has been enacted without any debate and without any vote by the UK Parliament, will remove the 2015/2016 payment from 93,000 households living in six countries and one overseas territory. In the case of France by using a 'temperature test' which is total fiction!
Having read your two links John I have no doubt that the criteria used to defining France as a warm country is flawed. That’s the bottom line and that’s what people here are annoyed about.
Can I just point out to anyone following this thread, that one of the reasons James and I started SFN was because we were sick and tired of the complete and utter nastiness on some other sites.
We are NOT going to tolerate cyberbullying. Neither do we wish to police the site. We've never done so previously and have no plans to start now. Both we, and our admins have better things to do.
If anyone makes comments that are perceived to be snide, personal, hostile or inflammatory by ourselves, the admin team or indeed, the wider SFN community, they will have their membership revoked.
Thank you.
The regulations have been amended to take account of the "Stewart" judgement these will come into force September 2015 so affect the 2015/16 payment
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3270/pdfs/uksi_20143270_en.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3270/pdfs/uksiem_20143270_en.pdf
Well done Roger! Over and out!
John Locke, Fine, you may be a Professor of International Law, but are you really ‘au fait’ with the following:
And, at the same time with the Judgments of the CJEU which have given rise to the so-called ‘temperature test’, namely Newton (C-356/89) and Stewart (C-503/09).
Because if you are, then you will not mind me quoting Stewart:
82 In the case in the main proceedings, it is common ground that Ms Stewart has, in her capacity as a citizen of the Union, exercised her freedom to move and to stay in a Member State other than her Member State of origin.
83 Inasmuch as a citizen of the Union must be granted, in all Member States, the same treatment in law as that accorded to nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation, it would be incompatible with the right to freedom of movement were citizens to receive, in the Member State of which they are nationals, treatment less favourable than that which they would enjoy if they had not availed themselves of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement (D’Hoop, paragraph 30, and Pusa, paragraph 18).
84 Those opportunities could not be fully effective if a national of a Member State could be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles placed in the way of his freedom to move and to stay in another Member State by national legislation penalising the fact that he has used them (see, to that effect, D’Hoop, paragraph 31; Pusa, paragraph 19; Tas‑Hagen and Tas, paragraph 30; and Case C‑221/07 Zablocka‑Weyhermüller [2008] ECR I‑9029, paragraph 34; and Rüffler, paragraph 65).
85 Legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes acquisition of the right to short-term incapacity benefit in youth subject to a condition of past presence is likely, by its very nature, to deter claimants such as the appellant from exercising their right to freedom of movement and residence by leaving the Member State of which they are nationals to take up residence in another Member State. Indeed, while claimants who have not made use of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement and residence can easily satisfy the abovementioned condition that is not the case for claimants who have taken advantage of them. It is actually very probable that the latter, because they have taken up residence in another Member State, do not satisfy that condition.
86 Such national legislation, which disadvantages some nationals of a Member State simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in another Member State, amounts to a restriction on the freedoms conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU on every citizen of the Union (see D’Hoop, paragraph 35; Pusa, paragraph 20; De Cuyper, paragraph 39; and Rüffler, paragraph 73).
87 Such a restriction can be justified, under EU law, only if it is based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and is proportionate to the legitimate objective of the national provisions (see De Cuyper, paragraph 40; Tas-Hagen and Tas, paragraph 33; Zablocka-Weyhermüller, paragraph 37; and Rüffler, paragraph 74).
88 The United Kingdom Government submits in that regard that there are objective justifications permitting acquisition of the right to short-term incapacity benefit in youth to be made subject to a condition of past presence in the competent Member State. It submits that the national legislation is intended to guarantee, first, the existence of a continuous effective link between that Member State and the recipient of the benefit and, second, the financial balance of the national social security system.
89 The Court has already held that it is legitimate for the national legislature to wish to ensure that there is a genuine link between a claimant to a benefit and the competent Member State (see, to that effect, D’Hoop, paragraph 38, and Case C‑138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I‑2703, paragraph 67), as well as to guarantee the financial balance of a national social security system (see, to that effect, Kohll, paragraph 41, and Petersen, paragraph 57).
I am English, my wife is Irish, and we both have a genuine link to the UK, we are both in receipt of a UK Pension. In France we can no longer claim WFP - if we move to Ireland we can claim it again, or if we move to one of the ‘hotter’ regions of Italy, we can claim it again! Five regions of Italy have ‘hotter’ average winter temperatures than every region of France. That’s discrimination by any standards!
OK
David - we would appreciate it if you would 'drop the attitude' which seems to have been pervading your posts recently.
FYI - and for anyone else who is interested - I PERSONALLY check out every new members email address / application and ID and whilst our system is not 100% infallible, I can assure you that it is pretty effective. And I googled John's email when he signed up and found him to be an member of a professional legal forum.
If anyone else should have any doubts about any particular members, we would appreciate it if you could contact James, myself or an admin rather than making inferences. Thank you.
Hooray for the Apple Pie Party, as long as it's Bio obviously. For somebody too focussed on policy she certainly made a Horlicks of it!
The Green Party manifesto sseems a bit airy fairy tho' Jo !
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/fair-economy.html
"End austerity" ? you're 'avin a larf !
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/better-transport.html
"10% reduction in train prices" and "promote walking and cycling.." I can't wait.......
et al.
Perhaps he would like to tell us of which Faculty he is a member?