Young Britons could lose the right to claim some benefits for four years

Isn't the point being missed here?
Cameron wanted other EU citizens to be unable to claim benefits for 4 years. The EU says that Brits are also EU citizens, so it will apply to them as well. Cameron wants British citizens to be treated more favourably than other EU citizens.

Yes. I expect most EU countries would like to favour their own citizens too if they could get away with it!

It is strange how in this instance the young of England (and Wales, Scotland and NI) are classed as EU citizens but when it comes to English students going to Scottish Universities they are not and have to pay the full fees unlike the Other EU students! Just one of life's anomalies.
I am sure that there could be some other way of doing this - something like being resident in the country for the qualifying number of years - or being Educated there.
In Wales the Assembly pay some of the University fees for Welsh students - the qualifications for this reduction are to have a permanent Welsh address, and been educated in Wales - fair enough - when they did not have these qualifications in place the Welsh universities were inundated with applications from the rest of the UK and one year they did have to give all students the grant. There is usually some way round a problem if there is a will to find it.

Very true!

Bez

A valid point you raised.

Education is devolved in EU member states, and within the UK.
My son's Danish partner took a degree here but was given a grant from Denmark, which was more than the grant here at the time. It was also for four years full time.

The solution is to go back to grants paid for through taxation so the whole of the UK is the same. Just what Jeremy Corbyn is saying.

He does seem to want to go back in time, doesn't he? Turn back the clock to the pre-Blair days, wipe out any progress that's been made since...

In that case we leave it the mess that Bez talks about, unfair to the English. I'm sure you will not mind that, though.

Just out of interest why does it bother you Ana? You are obviously never going to vote for him or for a party lead by him.

It doesn't bother me at all, Gracesgran, whatever made you think it did?

And I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'unfair to the English. I'm sure you will not mind that, though.' durhamjen, which I presume was aimed at me?

I thought Bez made a perfectly fair point.

Why turn it into a comment that shifts from the point into them and us, anti English , other than of course to try and deflect from a perfectly acceptable comment by twisting the content.

The point raised in the post was there appears to be occasions when the EU 'turns a blind eye to'. The EU 'selectively does not persue' . The EU ' does not want to get involved in' some scenarios involving member states.

It was a valid comment to make given the consensus by so many the 'idea' will be non negotiable / illegal/ against EU rules for the British Government to implement.

I think I said; education is devolved in the EU and also within the UK.

If we want more devolved powers from the EU why should they harmonise the financing of education?
All parts of the EU and the UK can decide how they pay for education within their own countries. The anomalies are within the UK, because the government only wants rich people to be educated at universities. They are now trying to remove the cap from university fees. Did they promise that at the election? Can't remember.

The EU can ask for harmonisation, but the UK can ignore it anyway. The EU does not turn a blind eye to educational funding. It is devolved like lots of other areas.

It doesn't bother me at all, Gracesgran, whatever made you think it did?

I think it's probably because whatever subject we discuss you bring it in. What we are discussing now is a policy the Conservative government are talking about bringing in because, having tried to kid those who would believe the nonsense about DC getting changes to the treaties in the EU they now are forced to admit they will not be able to get that and so are clutching at whatever straws they can.

As has been explained, this may affect a small number who are not in work but, once again, the most people effected will be working people. Not only that but young working people who are prepared to take any job at low wages in order to get started in life. That, in this thread, is more relevant than the Labour Party leadership election. The people suggesting this are Conservative. The people who will bring it in are Conservative. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that you agree with what they are doing or that you don't but you do love to take threads of topic. What are you afraid of - democracy? If it is not fear why do you keep trying to bring the leadership election into every discussions about what is in the news? There is a perfectly good thread to discuss this.

So have I got this right according to your posts DJ.

England and Wales could elect to charge students from say Spain, Germany £20.000 per year for their course, whilst students from England and Wales pay £9.000. because education is devolved to national/sovereign countries in the EU .

I thought students from the EU could not be charged a different fee.

I think it's probably because whatever subject we discuss you bring it in.

Bring what in?

The mention of Corbyn was not raised by Ana !

I am not sure what is exactly proposed. But if it means that young people should be paid for taking good quality further training rather than just go on benefits- then I agree.

Bez, I am not sure what this has to do with people not being able to claim benefits until they have paid in for four years but certainly, if they bring that in, those who do go to University will be disadvantaged in as much as if you leave at 18 and go straight into a job you will be 22 when you have served your four years whereas those who go to University will then have to wait until they are 26 unless they have worked full-time while studying.

All this would not be so bad if there truly was an improvement in the jobs market but, in the last four years, 40 per cent of new jobs have been in self-employment. Many of these will be very low earning and many will fail. We also see UK unemployment going up 1.85 million in the April to June period, a rise of 25,000 on the previous quarter. This is the first time in two years that there have been two consecutive rises in the number of people out of work and really you have to doubt whether we have anything like a stable jobs market. Cameron is prepared to inflict more hardship on those who have to work for their poverty and those who cannot avoid unemployment.

That would be good granjura but sadly that is not what the Conservatives are proposing.

Gracesgran

Can I ask where you obtained the figure of 40% of the new labour force over the last 4 years is self employed. That's an extremely high figure.

Not arguing I thought it was 15%. Either way is being self employed a bad thing in your opinion or have I misinterpreted your comment.

Here POGS (You can probably find more if you search.)

I have heard it on the news broadcasts too so I think the figures have been released recently. I am not surprised. Many unemployed have been pointed in this direction - to get them off the statistics perhaps? Also many less scrupulous employers have encouraged employees to become self-employed, possibly illegally as they are only employed by one company who dictate their work times, etc.

You will notice, if you scroll down the article, that it also says "One of the most troubling findings about self-employed workers in the last couple of years has been the fall in their average earnings. IPPR research shows that a typical self-employed worker in the UK earns just over half the amount a typical employee earns. This has slid from around three quarters in 2007."

This and zero hours contracts is the scandal of the so called "jobs factory of Europe" as capitalist DC likes to call it.

Just seen your last comment POGS. No, being self-employed is not wrong per se in my opinion. I have been both employed and self-employed.

gracesgran all I was saying was that it does not have to be simply age which qualifies people for benefits etc. but if they wish to cut the benefits being paid to immigrants immediately a different qualifying criteria could be introduced - I used the way a grant is given to Welsh students in Welsh universities as an example - not every student going to a Welsh university gets a grant from the Welsh Assembly. Similarly there could be qualifying status for people gaining benefits. - such as time spent living in UK - or how long contributions to the system the child or parents have made - all sorts of ways not trying to disadvantage any young people at all - and after studying for four years one would hope they would be employed fairly quickly and start to see the benefits of the Education they had and degrees etc they had worked hard for!

Grants are not the same as benefits.
UK residents are EU residents as far as benefits are concerned. That is the whole point of the thread. Cameron wanted EU citizens to be treated differently, but they cannot as long as the UK is part of the EU.

DJ

So what is the answer to my question re university fees , interested to know.