THE RECENT EU court ruling stopping migrants claiming out of work benefit is not the breakthrough it is claimed to be.
The decision only affects the jobless, and does nothing to alter the much bigger entitlement of migrants claiming ‘in work’ benefit, called Tax Credit.
Benefit Britain pays out vast sums of in-work benefit, not just to migrants, but to much of our own low-waged, hiding the fact that benefits received exceed the amount paid in tax by the people who receive them – so much for the benefits of EU immigration.
Tax Credit serves as a ‘subsidy’ for the employer to price down wages, that affects us all.
This credit is even handed out to migrants selling a certain magazine on the streets under the guise of them being ‘self employed’ to top up their meagre income with taxpayers’ money.
The growth in low pay jobs explains why, even with more jobs, tax revenue is declining. Our economy is propped up by low-paid jobs, heavily reliant on cheap, unskilled, migrant labour, paying little or no tax, lured from poor countries as ‘benefit tourists’.
A living wage, not a basic minimum wage, would reduce in work benefits, by the increase in tax revenue and National Insurance.
But for EU migrants, only by exiting the EU can this be achieved, because EU law dictates that migrants must access the same benefits as Britons, no matter what the EU court rules.
Brian Johnston, Burmantofts
We won the war then gave up
Having been bombed by Hitler’s Luftwaffe in 1941, I have always sustained an alert interest in German activities and affairs.
While we may have won the war in 1945, it seems to me that we have progressively surrendered the peace – or so recent developments appear to suggest.
Since the chattering classes discovered Aldi and Lidl, the media have given these two Teutonic “discount” supermarkets free rein in terms of publicity.
Personally, I feel the limited choice of unfamiliar brands and fresh foods is unappealing.
Each year, Leeds council support, promote and subsidise the German Market in the centre of Leeds’s shopping area to the disadvantage of local traders, while coach firms ship thousands of UK tourists to German Christmas markets.
Similarly, the UK press in particular is guilty of pandering to the German motor car industry, with glowing non-stop reviews of the glamour brands like Audi, Porsche, Mercedes and BMW.
Even the remnants of our own indigenous car industry – Mini, Bentley, Rolls Royce – are directed from the Rhineland.
The latest indignity is the Mrs Merkel/Euro diktat that our coal industry must be closed on environmental grounds, with a monstrous German factory (Siemens) installed on Humberside to produce thousands of inefficient UK subsidised North Sea wind turbines.
Curiously, in Germany turbines are being abandoned and the sinking of 12 new coalmines has been approved.
Finally, Mr Cameron’s very recent proposals for limitations on unfettered immigration into Britain were unceremoniously squashed by Mrs Merkel, who has for years supported barriers against would-be Turkish/Middle Eastern immigrants.
One way and another, over the past 70 years Germany seems to have achieved the financial, economic and effective political domination of Europe far beyond the wildest aspirations of the Fuhrer and his Nazi “master race”.
Or am I just a sad old patriotic soldier?
Vernon Wood, Leeds
Everyone loves a bit of Corrie!
I’m sure others will write in with the same thing, but you have Liz Goodwill writing in to complain about someone’s attitude about mental illness (Your Views, December 3).
I’m not going to get involved in that debate, but merely draw attention to her statement about not watching Coronation Street since Ena Sharples was in it, even though she then cites Steve McDonald.
Er, Ena last appeared in 1980. Steve first appeared in 1999. How else would she know of him unless she watched it?
I detect a big fib here!
Come on people, own up! Everyone watches a bit of Corrie!
David Watson, Meanwood
Politicians are privileged few
Having read Jayne Dawson’s description of Nigel Farage (YEP, November 26), one might think that the man had done her some personal injury!
While some of the comments are probably close to the truth she, by her own admission has not met him.
So the question is, is Jayne a paid-up member of the Labour party, hoping to give Labour a pre-election boost?
If she bothered to check she would find that a lot of the Labour front bench also came from privileged backgrounds.
What Nigel Farage gives people is hope of change.
Roger Hick, Garforth
Bat on through terrible tragedy
Having watched the funeral of young Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes, and listened to talk of how dangerous the sport can be, I took a look at the 1930s England tour of Australia, captained by Douglas Jardine.
England employed a tactic known as “leg theory” – an attempt to intimidate the Australian batsmen by bowling head-height deliveries aimed at the leg stump.
The majority of the fielders were positioned on the leg side.
The aim was to stifle the brilliance of the legendary Don Bradman.
The Aussies were battered and England won the series 4-1. It seemed to be a case of get out or be knocked out.
England’s approach nearly caused a diplomatic incident and the tour was in danger of been called off.
No crash helmets here. Just baggy greens and bravery.
I also remember seeing in the YEP a photograph of England and Yorkshire batsman Brian Close after a session batting against the West Indies fast bowling duo of Wes Hall and Charlie Griffiths. Two of the fastest and fiercest of all time.
Brian was covered in bruises. The stitches of the ball could be clearly seen.
Having played at an amateur level more years ago than I care to remember, I firmly believe that a short fast delivery is part of a fast bowler’s armoury.
Has batting technique not evolved since those early years, when batsmen had less protection?
Tragedies happen throughout life, and it is often a case of wrong place, wrong time.
Have you noticed that whenever we have a storm, some poor soul always dies from a falling tree?
Rest in peace Phillip Hughes and God bless.
Leslie Pye, Leeds
Letter was astonishing
I read with astonishment the letter from Jack Smith (Your Views, December 2), regarding the tragic death of cricketer Phillip Hughes.
I don’t know if he re-read his letter before he sent it, if he did and he still thinks it is right, then I suggest that he gets himself a good solicitor.
Regarding the batsman, he says that the ball was “aimed” at him at speed.
He then says, and I quote: “This act was completely deliberate, not in any way accidental but totally deliberate.”
By his words, Jack Smith is saying that he believes that the bowler deliberately attempted to harm the batsman.
By a deliberate action was this murder, manslaughter or causing death by grievous bodily harm?
Roger Brookes, Armley