Some Syrian Migrants Refusing To Work In Germany Posing A Problem For The State Regarding Supporting The Refugees

Angel Merkel
 

This is a follow up to the Judiciary Report article "The European Union Must Address Immigration Imbalances Threatening Select Member Nations Economic Future And Stability." A new report in the British newspaper the Express revealed, "German asylum seekers refuse to work insisting 'We are Merkel's GUESTS.'" 

This poses a problem for Germany, as some Syrian migrants were allowed in, while others stormed the borders, with estimates revealing 750,000 have poured into their borders. While I’m certainly not xenophobic, having been an immigrant (from Jamaica) and I do sympathize with the migrants, in the aforementioned article months ago, I posed the practical, reasonable question, as a head of state and government, how do you reasonably care for an influx of 750,000 plus people, find them work (though they do not speak the language), food, shelter and clothing, without it completely walloping and overwhelming your system. It was and is mind-boggling. 

Now the problem has arisen regarding some migrants not wanting to work, referring to themselves as "Merkel's guests" and seeking to get benefits instead (and this was bound to happen, as able bodied immigrants from a number of nations went to Britain - who recently voted to leave the EU - and opted to go on benefits rather than working in the United Kingdom). 

   

Berlin, Germany

 

What that means is they expect the state to provide for them. That could financially destroy Germany. It could legitimately cause Germany to financially collapse. Migrants are also turning to crime in Germany, with a number of high profile crimes, from theft to murder, being written about in European newspapers.

The Germans are brilliant and very industrious, but as the site expressed months ago, they are going to have their work cut out for them regarding the massive immigrant influx under what are an unusual set of challenging circumstances. This would pose a massive challenge for any world nation.

I like Merkel. She’s a strong woman, who has accomplished a lot in office. She’s done positive things for Germany. However, this matter with the migrants is a serious issue that could overwhelm her government. A government committee/think tank/regulatory group dedicated to addressing the migrant issue needs to be formed for the sake of Germany and the migrants. I also encourage the Syrian migrants to learn German and cooperate with the government in finding work. Learn to assimilate and make an opportunity at a new life work.

STORY SOURCE

German asylum seekers refuse to work insisting 'We are Merkel's GUESTS'

ASYLUM seekers in Germany are refusing to undertake work to counteract boredom - using Chancellor Angela Merkel’s generous hospitality as an excuse.

 

PUBLISHED: 09:06, Thu, Aug 18, 2016 | UPDATED: 21:09, Thu, Aug 18, 2016 According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country. The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were "guests of Angela Merkel". 

While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work. However officials in the district of Zwickau came up with a plan to help encourage those without employment to get back to work and to help them become more accepted within the local community. In order to do this they created voluntary jobs which included a nominal payment of £18 for 20 hours work.  

But all of the male residents of the local refugee accommodation who initially agreed to get involved in the charitable activities quit after discovering there was a minimum wage £7.30 (€8.50) in Germany. The men had been picked up and offered transportation from their paid-for housing where they are also given food and then dropped home. 

Mayor Pohlers said: "It was subsequently argued by these people that they are guests of Mrs. Merkel and guests do not have to work. "Furthermore, they were of the opinion that there is a minimum wage (€8.50) in Germany, and that this had to be paid by the City Waldenburg." Despite attempts at mediation the asylum seekers refused to return to work. Mayor Pohlers added: "In a specially convened meeting with an interpreter the authorities explained the rules again. "Unfortunately, no agreement could be reached on the continuation of the measure."

http://www.express.co.uk

RELATED ARTICLES

The European Union Must Address Immigration Imbalances Threatening Select Member Nations Economic Future And Stability

200,000 New Homes Being Built In London In Response To Population Boom Needs To Go To Britons Who Really Need It

Scotland Considering Second Referendum To Leave Britain After Brexit Succeeded But Is It A Good Idea

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

The UK Leaders Debate 2015 And Britain’s Future

Britain Votes To Leave The EU

 

Britain's Benefits Part 2

Britain's Benefits

David Cameron Resigns As British Prime Minister, Theresa May Is Appointed The New PM And Boris Johnson Foreign Minister

 
David Cameron and family
 

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, today handed in his resignation. The fallout from the Brexit vote to leave the European Union, which was the opposite of what he campaigned for, resulted in his resignation. Me personally, I would not have resigned. But to each his own. Theresa May, the former Foreign Minister (Home Secretary), is now the Prime Minister of Britain. She is the second female Prime Minister in British history. Two weeks ago, before this rounded out and May was the only one left standing to be the new Prime Minister, I tweeted on Twitter that she reminds me of Margaret Thatcher (see tweet at end of article).

   
Theresa May and husband Philip May
 

May has appointed former London mayor, Boris Johnson, the new Foreign Minister. Whether you agree with May's political views, it is best that political parties in Britain work together for the good of the country.  Cameron's primary mistake was the joint press conference with President Barack Obama, who basically threatened the British public stating do what I say in this vote or I will financially punish Britain by pushing the nation "to the back of the queue" in trade deals. It was an odious comment to make and was ill-received. 

 
David Cameron's tearful daughter
 

People behind the leave campaign in Britain credit Obama with getting the vote through to leave the European Union, which is the exact opposite of what the president demanded the British people do. Obama repeatedly abused the "special relationship" between Britain and America, in conduct other modern American presidents simply did not do. An international visit from Obama has proven political poison to several world heads of state, who ended up leaving shortly after or being voted out. Hence the Politico article "Politico: How The World Fell Out Of Love With Obama."

 
The Camerons leaving 10 Downing Street for the last time
 

I am not of the belief Britain has cause to panic over Brexit. If you needlessly give off fear and panic, people will pick up on that and act accordingly regarding investments and trade. I know London quite well. I also know some of the home counties in England. Britain is a stable, civil place with a lot going for it. There are many financial opportunities available in Britain, which is a large, prosperous nation with a strong economy. London, the nation's centerpiece, is a beautiful, bustling city that is a center of commerce and entertainment for many all over the world. 

 

 
My tweet two weeks ago regarding Theresa May reminding me of Britain's first female prime minister Margaret Thatcher
 

Hold your heads up and be determined in your resolve to succeed and grow as a nation. Stop apologizing for being British in trying to fit in more with Europe. And for the record, there's nothing wrong with European, it is great as well. Each nation should be unreservedly proud of their country. There's nothing wrong with being proud of where you come from. 

RELATED ARTICLES

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

President Barack Obama Caught Spying On World Leaders Again

Politico: How The World Fell Out Of Love With Obama

The UK Leaders Debate 2015 And Britain’s Future 

 

World Leaders Blaming Obama For Brexit

 

Britain Expands Business Ties With China 

The European Union Must Address Immigration Imbalances Threatening Select Member Nations Economic Future And Stability

 

European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium

 

The European Union is going through a transition period, as Britain recently voted to leave the EU. Without Britain's vast contribution of 350 million British pounds per month (19 billion British pounds per year) and other benefits, which could go in the next two years if the British government completes the process, the European Union will be working with significantly less money and resources. Hence the immense anger last week from select politicians in the European Union. However, it is better to be civil, as the British people have spoken and this is their democratic vote. Britain has been a great partner in the European Union and trade can continue that is beneficial to both parties.

The European Union must not be inflexible, which is what drove millions of British voters away. Concerns were not be heard regarding massive migration from other parts of the European Union and the strain and constraints it has placed on Britain. The United Kingdom’s massive population boom courtesy of immigration overwhelmed the system. Uneven levels of immigration became a massive problem, which sparked the success of the leave vote. As a recommendation to avoid any nation in the European Union buckling or outright collapsing due to this issue, the freedom of movement law needs to be revisited and revised.

The majority of the European Union traffic poured into Britain, namely London, England and overwhelmed their systems. Transportation, schools, hospitals and benefits offices became overwhelmed by the influx of millions of new permanent residents, many of whom are now receiving generous financial benefits and housing, as they came to Britain below the poverty line. Sensing the problem that was brewing, in 2009 the Judiciary Report published the article "Britain's Benefits" and a follow up entitled "Britain's Benefits Part 2" to recommend the benefits system be revised.  

 

London, England (UK)

 

In America immigrants must wait for years before obtaining benefits and still have to meet certain stringent criteria (one must be sick or disabled). Food stamps and modest cash assistance is only granted to healthy people who are well below the poverty line and with children. The majority of these changes were implemented under former U.S. President, Bill Clinton, to ensure people coming to America seek to work, not indefinitely live on benefits.

Last year, the British government attempted to negotiate a rule that would require immigrants live in Britain for 4-years before receiving benefits. This would ensure those coming to Britain intend to work and pay their way, rather than take financial and housing benefits from the state indefinitely. However, negotiations on the matter fell through.

If Britain proceeds with invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to depart the European Union, a process that will take an estimated 2-years, Britain is going to get another massive influx as a last ditch attempt to enter the country from the EU. Then, upon Britain's completion of the process of leaving the European Union, immigration traffic will largely switch to Germany and France, two other sizeable economies in the EU. Germany and France are wealthy nations. Immigrants tend to migrate to nations that are the most economically prosperous and popular.

Paris, France 

 

To further illustrate the fact the Judiciary Report was correct in its aforementioned 2009 articles on benefits, in April of 2016, the German government began proposing and pushing for new rules regarding limiting immigrants access to receiving benefits upon landing in their nation (see external article excerpt below under STORY SOURCE for further information). It is not that one is being xenophobic. It's simple mathematics. The average nation cannot afford to give millions of immigrants financial and housing benefits indefinitely (many can't give said financial assistance on a short term basis either). It could bankrupt any country.

To compound issues for Germany, it is estimated they took in nearly 1,000,000 migrants last year from places like Syria. No disrespect to Syria, but once again, how will Germany pay for housing, feeding and clothing a record number of migrants and find said non-German speaking masses steady employment (it is easier to find employment in a nation if you speak the national language).
Which brings me back to my point, the immigration levels in the European Union are untenable. It needs to be evenly distributed among the 28 member nations, meaning each country has a quota of how many immigrants it will take per year. One or two nations can't take the bulk of the traffic. That's lopsided and the proverbial boat that is the EU will sink.

Berlin, Germany

For years millions in Europe poured out into Britain, namely London, England, a glamorous and wealth westernized city (and who can blame them, it's a great place to live). However, the European Union must be practical. No nation in this world can reasonably take that type of influx, year after year, many of whom are people who required financial and housing benefits, without damaging their economic structure. France and Germany are now in for the same influx Britain sustained from the EU and it is going to wreak economic havoc on them.

I love and respect France and Germany and don't want them to buckle under the financial pressure. I don't want the EU to collapse at all, but it is in a financially precarious place. Spain, a beautiful country, is having problems with a massive number of foreclosures, creating economic difficulties and stagnation. Greece, another beautiful country, is experiencing significant financial trouble and is seeking billions of dollars in bailout money.

The European Union must reform. Some of the rules need to change to strengthen the entire EU. You can't have key players in the European Union taking a financial walloping, as they are the back bone of the enterprise. If the key pillars crumble, the entire financial structure of the European Union will give way and collapse. Immigration must be handled in a more orderly fashion with even distribution. Proper budgetary constraints must be placed on nations in danger of collapsing, also accompanied by a regular assessment plan issued and implemented on how to get them out of said financial hole.

 

STORY SOURCE 

 

EU migration to Germany 'hits record high'

 
July 2, 2016 - Germany has proposed new legislation to limit EU migrants' access to welfare payments. Immigration to Germany from other European Union countries hit a new record of over 685,000 people last year, led by Romanians, Poles and Bulgarians, Die Welt daily said Saturday, citing official figures.

A total of 685,485 EU citizens arrived in Germany in 2015 while 303,036 left for a net increase of 382,449, the paper reported, saying it had access to data from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). Germany's economic success and relatively low unemployment has drawn people from the EU's poorer members in search of work and better lives.

Romanians topped the list of new arrivals in Germany last year with nearly 175,000, followed by Poles with almost 150,000 and Bulgarians with just over 70,000, Die Welt said.

Promises to limit immigration from other EU states played a key role in the campaign for Britain's membership referendum, which delivered a shock victory last week for the "leave" camp. In April, Germany tabled a proposed law to drastically limit EU migrants' access to welfare payments. Die Welt said a total of 4.1 million EU citizens currently live in Germany.
 

Berlin, Germany 

 

https://www.yahoo.com

 

RELATED ARTICLES 

 

200,000 New Homes Being Built In London In Response To Population Boom Needs To Go To Britons Who Really Need It 

 

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit 

 

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London 

 

The UK Leaders Debate 2015 And Britain’s Future 

 

Britain's Benefits Part 2 

 

Britain's Benefits

Scotland Considering Second Referendum To Leave Britain After Brexit Succeeded But Is It A Good Idea

 

Nicola Sturgeon

In 2014 Scotland held a vote on whether to leave Britain. The Scottish people voted to remain with Britain. Last month, there was a vote conduct by Britain on whether to remain in the European Union. It resulted in a majority of Britons voting to depart the European Union. Last week, Scottish politician, Nicola Sturgeon, began expressing the view that Scotland wishes to remain in the European Union and may table a second referendum to begin a vote on leaving Britain.

Sturgeon went to the European Parliament last week, expressing this view, as 62% of the Scottish voters cast their ballot in favor of remaining in the European Union. However, Sturgeon was met with negative news from the European Union's political leaders. Spain and France revealed they would not negotiate with Scotland to remain in the Union, as they are apart of Britain. They also made clear Scotland would have to go through the lengthy process of reapplying to the European Union as an independent sovereign nation (not apart of Britain) which would have many requirements under a lengthy legislative process. Spain is also discouraging Scotland leaving Britain, not wanting its own nation to fracture, in reference to Catalonia.

The European Union wanted Britain to remain, as it contributes 350 million British pounds per month (19 billion British pounds per year), added to the region's military might, has taken in millions of immigrants from the 28 member collective of nations (EU), given them free health care, jobs and benefits to those unable to financially support themselves. 

  

Edinburgh, Scotland

Though it is a pleasant nation with a healthy GDP, the view in the EU is that Scotland does not have the financial ability to give the European Union the type of money Britain has contributed every month, which is why the initial reaction among some member states has been to reject Sturgeon's attempts at joining the EU on behalf of her nation. In fact, according to a report in the Telegraph newspaper, Britain has been giving Scotland 7 billion British pounds every year in subsidies to help the nation.

The two nations also share extensive historical ties. I do respect Britain (that includes Scotland) and the European Union, it is my humble view Scotland is best with Britain. Respectfully I state, Scotland, be careful of going out there on your own, as you may end up realizing it was not the best arrangement for you, as your nation will be required to give more financially than you may end up receiving in trade, which equals debt.

STORY SOURCE

Nicola Sturgeon's hopes of keeping Scotland in EU hit by Francois Hollande and Spanish PM Rajoy
29 June 2016 • 3:07pm - Nicola Sturgeon’s hopes of negotiating a deal to keep Scotland in the EU has suffered a major setback after Francois Hollande ruled out talks and the Spanish Prime Minister said it has to leave with the rest of the United Kingdom. Mariano Rajoy told a news conference following the European Council meeting in Brussels that the Scottish Government “does not have the competence” to negotiate with the European Union. He concluded: “If the United Kingdom leaves... Scotland leaves too.”

He was echoed by Mr Hollande, the French President, who insisted the EU will make no advance deal with Scotland. He said: "The negotiations will be conducted with the United Kingdom, not with a part of the United Kingdom.” During a chastening visit to Brussels yesterday for Ms Sturgeon, Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, also made clear that neither he nor European Council president Donald Tusk would “interfere in the British process” by negotiating with Scotland.

A series of other member states, including Germany, also said they would not get involved in “internal” British politics. Mr Rajoy’s uncompromising stance appears to make a second independence referendum more likely, as Ms Sturgeon has said that she will propose one if that is the “best or only way to protect Scotland’s place in the EU.”

But his statement also suggests that a separate Scotland would start life outside the EU and have to negotiate entry, a process that could take years and involve adoption of the euro, a hard border with England and tight public spending controls. The First Minister put a brave face on the interventions, saying Spain’s views represented a “starting position” and she was still “optimistic” about reaching an agreement after Scots voted by a margin of 62 per cent to 38 per cent last week for Remain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

There was no vote for Scotland to stay in the EU and Nicola Sturgeon should get involved in team UK, says MSP

2 days ago - SCOTS didn’t vote for Scotland to stay in the EU, a Conservative MSP has said. Adam Tomkins, Conservative MSP for Glasgow, said there is no separate Scottish negotiating position and as such he said Nicola Sturgeon should get involved in the UK negotiating team taking the country out of the EU.

He said the First Minister’s “talents” would be best deployed under a UK effort. Prof Tomkins, elected in May to Holyrood, is a leading constitutional academic who campaigned for a remain vote but he wants a UK team to get the best for Scotland. He said: “Scotland did not vote to remain in the EU, Scotland voted for the United Kingdom to remain in the EU.

“There’s no mandate here for any interpretation that the people of Scotland decided that Scotland must be a member state in its own right. “So I think words matter and we need to be clear.” The new MSP said that he supports David Cameron’s call for a “team UK” in negotiations with all the Prime Minister the three devolved administrations and the London Mayor taking key roles... 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk 

RELATED ARTICLES

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

Britain's Benefits Part 2

Britain's Benefits

Donald Trump Using Brexit In Political Campaign To Plead His Case For The U.S. Presidency But It's Not The Same Thing

Donald Trump
 

U.S. presidential candidate, Donald Trump, used the Brexit victory, regarding Britain voting to leave the European Union (EU) as a platform to state he has international political credibility (but within hours proclaimed Brussels a country, when it is a city in Belgium). Trump has been stating he wants something similar for America and has voiced the same online and during political rallies. Trump used the Brexit win to bash U.S. President, Barack Obama and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, both of whom publicly opposed Britain leaving the European Union, in the lead up to the vote.  

However, it's not the same thing. Brexit is not the same as Trump's political platform of banning Muslims from America and isolating Mexico. Britain has no rule excluding immigrants from any nation and the United Kingdom has more Muslims citizens than America. Brexit was about massive immigration from European Union states and the strain it created on the NHS (Nation Health System), overcrowding in schools, lack of affordable homes in London, as well as billions of pounds being paid out in cash and housing benefits to the influx of people who came to the country without financial support. Britons began struggling to get jobs and housing, then watched as their tax dollars went to people who had just landed in the country from other parts of the EU. 

 

Hillary Clinton

Brexit was about white, black and Arab people complaining about overcrowding and fewer jobs being available due to mass migration from the European Union, which is mostly white people. It wasn't a racial matter. However, Trump's campaign took on a racial tone, as he has insulted minorities - Mexicans, Muslims and blacks. Trump also insulted women with outright sexist statements and mocked the disabled, which is wholly unacceptable. That's a broad cross-section of people Trump has offended.

For the life of me I don't know why Trump chose this path. He could have been elected to office being the rich guy promising to turn around America's fortunes. Racism, sexism and xenophobia should not have been apart of his platform, ruining the prestigious name he once enjoyed, which was synonymous with wealth.  

Barack Obama

Democrats are now worried the success of the Brexit vote will give Trump an edge in the election, as it speaks to America's discontent with the economy. The Democrats' problem is compounded by the fact Clinton has experienced many disasters in the area of foreign policy. Proof of this being Benghazi, spying on the entire United Nations and getting caught while doing so, trying to illegally obtain the medical records of former Argentinean President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and the illegal private email server scandal she is currently under criminal investigation for at the FBI.

RELATED ARTICLE

Presidential Poll: Americans Believe Donald Trump Would Handle The Economy Better Than Hillary Clinton

World Leaders Blaming Obama For Brexit

Barack Obama
 

World leaders, political pundits and journalists are blaming President Barack Obama for Brexit. In the April 25, 2016 article "British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit" the Judiciary Report warned that Obama flying to Britain and arrogantly threatening journalists and the British public to vote to remain in the European Union (EU) or else he would take negative action against the United Kingdom, was a bad idea. I don’t know what possessed him to do it. 

If a foreign leader flew into Washington and in a televised address began threatening Americans to vote how he says or he will punish the United States, it would go over horribly and rightly so. As a world leader you can’t go into other people’s countries browbeating and bullying them into doing your will. 

Rumors are rife in European political circles that heads of state and party politicians in the EU are squarely blaming Obama’s arrogance during the aforementioned trip to London, England for the British people voting against remaining in the European Union. Obama needs to stop asking others to do things he would not, because in America there is an appropriate rule that immigrants cannot get benefits for 4-years. During Bill Clinton’s time, he also reformed the welfare system regarding Americans and immigrants, in a way that helped to tame the nation’s finances.

A nation’s finances does not work by magic. Impractical and or excessive spending can cause any nation of the world to collapse. When a nation collapses it is not pretty - it leads to widespread poverty, social unrest and increased crime levels. It is a scenario to be avoided through proper financial, legal and social management. 

One of the biggest, richest and most influential nations in the EU, Germany, did not want to lose Britain from the European Union, as both nations have been paying a massive amount of their taxpayers money to help support the collective of nations. With Britain gone from the EU, Germany will have to do significantly more, as they have the most money and manpower. 

Considering Germany has already taken in 1,000,000 non-German speaking migrants who will need food, clothes, shelter and jobs, as well as the nation giving billions to the European Union, I hope their economy and tax coffers can sustain such a massive commitment. Germany is a strong and industrious country, but they are being stretched to the limit as well. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, publicly stated she is in no rush to usher Britain out of the European Union, referring to the United Kingdom as a partner. Britain and Germany have done great business together. So have Britain and France and Spain, among others. 

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, bent over backwards to accommodate the EU. Britain gave 19 billion pounds per year and allowed millions of immigrants from the European Union into the United Kingdom. However, I do believe he sensed public dissatisfaction in the number of immigrants from the European Union and the issues it created with overcrowding in classrooms, the strain on the NHS and heavy demand on the benefits system. 

Last year I read a report stating Cameron was trying to negotiate a deal with the EU, stipulating immigrants could not apply for financial and housing benefits for four years after coming to Britain (it’s the same rule in America, which is not apart of the EU). The EU (headquartered in Brussels, Belgium) should have approved Cameron’s request if they wanted Britain to remain in the European Union. This was the major sticking point for the British public, Cameron tried to fix it, but the EU did not embrace it. 

British Home Secretary, Theresa May, also tried a last ditch attempt at fixing the issue. Last year May stated on British television that the government would like to implement a rule that stipulates immigrants coming to Britain should have a job lined up and financial means of support. Once again, the EU did not embrace it. 

History has repeatedly shown for centuries that when one is involved in politics, one must listen to and correctly gauge public sentiment. Never ignore public discontent. Look what it turned into for so many world leaders throughout time who refused the will of the people. The European Union lost the British people’s vote for this reason. 

Let’s be reasonable, millions of people from other parts of the European Union were emptying out into Britain, a nation that received an enormous amount of mass immigration. There should have been rules to assure immigration was done in a more controlled manner, to prevent any EU nation from breaking under the strain of immigration. However, the European Union rejected it.

From 2009 the Judiciary Report sensed public discontent in Britain regarding immigrants coming to the UK and immediately getting sizeable financial and housing benefits ( and ). The Judiciary Report made suggestions on how to reform the benefits system as the issue was turning into a powder keg for Britons, who felt they were being taken advantage of by immigrants. 

David Cameron

Once again, it wasn’t a matter of racism or xenophobia, as many of the immigrants from the European Union are white and many Brits have married them, but Britons losing benefits while seeing immigrants living very comfortably and in some cases lavishly off state money, due to the British government wanting to be hospitable in fulfilling their role in the EU and to political refugees seeking asylum, did a significant amount of political damage to the European Union’s cause. 

At the end of the day, some able bodied people would not work realizing they could just leave other parts of the European Union and plead poverty in Britain, then receive sizeable cash and housing benefits. Meanwhile, Brits born and raised in the United Kingdom, who have been working long hours for years, were not eligible for benefits (as in all countries with a benefits system, it is for the needy). Be honest, how would you feel if that happened in your country. 

Not everyone did this, as there are many French, Polish, German and Middle Eastern corner shops, phone stores, computer stores and clothing businesses I have bought goods and services from in Britain, run by hardworking immigrants, who work from sun up to sun down. However, let’s be honest, there are some immigrants that have been taking advantage of the British benefits system and this is what created the discontent among natives. 

To the Brits on the trains who get up early to go to work in business offices, stores, restaurants and on construction sites, among other places, it pained them that they have been working so hard, only to see immigrants claiming poverty getting generous financial and housing benefits (as seen in the newspapers). Some immigrants needed to understand that benefits are supposed to be within reason and for people who are sick, disabled or truly can’t find work, to stop them from becoming destitute and homeless. 

Newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Mirror among others, began running credible stories showing immigrants who came to Britain and immediately got big benefits to the point they lived in middle class and upper class homes with multiple flat screen televisions, leather furniture, designer clothes and luxury shoes. They took advantage of the system due to their family size. The more family members and children you have in one household, the more benefits you receive and the bigger the property you will be housed in, all underwritten by the taxpayers. 

British homes are very nice and the bigger the house, the more lavish its appointments will be. Local councils had difficulty finding larger homes in more moderately priced areas of London, so big immigrant families ended up housed next to high earning judges and doctors. 

This is why in 2009 the Judiciary Report suggested the government house immigrants in places like the home counties, where there are big homes in nice neighborhoods at lower prices (Britain's Benefits). Surrey, England is nice and affordable. However, some immigrants registered for benefits in London, England, wanting to be in the heart of the fabulous capital and this is where another problem occurred for the government. 

The new rule should be immigrants applying for benefits are automatically housed in the home counties, because large London homes for big families is too expensive for the taxpayers to underwrite in benefits cases. There are many hardworking Britons in the home counties, who live in nice homes and travel to London via train for work or to enjoy the many activities in the capital. It’s workable. At the end of the day, as an immigrant, someone is giving you a chance at a new life. Be understanding, take the opportunity and make the most of it.

HERE ARE A FEW ITEMS FROM SOCIAL NETWORKING REGARDING OBAMA AND BREXIT:

 

STORY SOURCE

 Nigel Farage: Britons voted for Brexit because Obama told them not to
 

June 24, 2016, 12:01 pm - A leading figure in the British push to exit the European Union says President Obama accidentally helped the Brexit cause. Nigel Farage on Friday said Obama's calls for the United Kingdom to stay in the EU caused people to vote to leave. “Threatening people too much insults their intelligence,” the United Kingdom Independence Party head said. 

“A lot of people in Britain said, ‘How dare the American president come here and tell us what to do?’ ” Farage continued on Sirius XM’s “Breitbart News Daily,” citing Obama’s U.K. trip in April. “It backfired. We got an Obama-Brexit bounce, because people do not want foreign leaders telling them how to think and vote.” 

Obama warned Britain against leaving the EU during a visit in April, saying it could hurt potential trade deals with the U.S. “The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue,” he said during an appearance alongside Cameron. “Not because we don’t have a special relationship but because given the heavy lift of any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient.” 

Donald Trump on Friday mocked Obama for being on the losing side in the Brexit vote. “The world doesn’t listen to him,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said during a press conference in Turnberry, Scotland. Trump said he wholeheartedly backed Britain’s decision to leave the EU and once again forge its own path. “You just have to embrace it,” he said. "It’s the will of the people. What happened should have happened, and they’ll be stronger for it.” 

Farage on Friday said Britain’s exit from the EU could ultimately jeopardize the organization’s existence. “I think we’ve changed not just the future of British history, I’m sure the European Union project itself will come tumbling down. People power can beat the establishment if they try hard enough."...

http://thehill.com

Obama’s credibility takes a beating after Brexit vote

June 24, 2016 | 11:21pm President Obama ate a serving of humble pie Friday after Britain ignored his advice and voted to leave the European Union. “Yesterday’s vote speaks to the ongoing changes and challenges raised by globalization,” Obama said while attending a tech conference in Silicon Valley. 

“The world has shrunk. It is ­interconnected . . . It promises to bring extraordinary benefits, but it also has challenges,” Obama said. One of those challenges is to the president’s credibility, which is taking a beating after he heavily advocated for the Brits to remain in the EU. Conor McCann, a Dublin-based political-affairs analyst, wondered if Obama’s lost Europe. “Obama, with his great status in Europe — if he couldn’t sway it, it’s an indication things have changed,” McCann told Bloomberg News. 

In April, Obama traveled to the UK in part to advocate that it remain in the EU. He even threatened the UK directly, saying it would have to go to the “back of the queue” in trade negotiations with the United States because the EU is so much bigger. On Friday, the president’s language was far more deferential. “Based on our conversation, I’m confident that the UK is committed to an orderly transition out of the EU,” he said...

Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump rubbed salt in the wound on his trip to Scotland. “A lot of people don’t like him,” Trump said of Obama. Trump, who backed the “Leave” campaign, added, “I was actually very surprised that President Obama would’ve come over here and he would’ve been so bold as to tell the people over here what to do.” 

http://nypost.com

German chancellor Angela Merkel is in no hurry to see Britain go Reuters

Jun. 25, 2016, 6:52 PM - Germany (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Saturday for clear-headed negotiations with "close partner" Britain over its departure from the European Union. Foreign ministers of the EU's six founding members had earlier said Britain should leave the bloc as soon as possible after Britons voted on Thursday to quit the 28-member bloc. However, Merkel struck a more conciliatory tone. 

"The negotiations must take place in a businesslike, good climate," Merkel said after a meeting of her conservative party in Hermannswerder, outside Potsdam, to the west of Berlin. "Britain will remain a close partner, with which we are linked economically," she said, adding that there was no hurry for Britain to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty - the first step it must take to set in motion the exit process. 

"It should not take ages, that is true, but I would not fight now for a short time frame," Merkel said, in contrast with the more urgent call by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, who were meeting to the north of the German capital... 

https://www.yahoo.com

RELATED ARTICLES

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

Britain's Benefits Part 2

Britain's Benefits

British Government Employees Need To Quickly Move Forward After Brexit

David Cameron

To reassure Britons and consumers worldwide, the British government needs to move forward quickly after the historic Brexit vote last week, regarding leaving the European Union. Though British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has resigned stating he will leave in October 2016, he is still Britain’s leader until a suitable replacement is appointed. Therefore, Britain is not and has not been without a Prime Minister during this transition period. Britain is not without governance. 

There have been other resignations in the respective Conservative and Labour parties (mainly the latter). Those positions need to be quickly filled, to get back to the business of serving the British people. The government needs to eschew public discord and remember, “Keep calm and carry on.” 

No one in government unhappy with Brexit or anyone else outside of Britain, should act vindictively (*looks at mean spirited, threat issuing Barack "push you to the back of the trade queue" Obama, whom world leaders are blaming for Brexit*), because at the end of the day, the United Kingdom has a large, influential economy and there is money to be made in the country. Britain is still a good place to do business, as the British people are great consumers. Foreign businesses with stores/locations in Britain, such as Nandos, Pret-a-Manger, Nero and Costa (immigrant owned),  among others, are companies making big money in the United Kingdom. 

For others listening to the fear mongering, it would be unwise to pull out of Britain, one of the richest nations in the world, with a population of 60,000,000, all potential consumers for your businesses. Britain has the 5th largest economy in the world. To discount Britain would be an unwise business decision, as there are enormous sums of money that can be made in the United Kingdom. 

In the area of finance, many businesses require financing and would pay interest on loans. Parents need loans for children to go to university. Britons by food, clothes, cars and household goods. It is a very viable, big market. The sports industry is also worth a fortune in Britain.

RELATED ARTICLES

 

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

 

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

 

Britain's Benefits Part 2

 

Britain's Benefits

Britain Votes To Leave The EU

David Cameron

 

Britain has voted to leave the EU. The British people have spoken. The will of the people must be honored. Britain belongs to the British people and they get to decide what they do with it (much like in any other sovereign nation). British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has resigned after backing the failed move to remain in the EU. Cameron stated a new Prime Minister will be selected in October 2016. People online have commented that U.S. President Barack Obama’s trip to Britain a few months ago regarding remaining in the EU, did the movement more harm than good. Britons do not want to be told what to do by Obama or any other leader they did not elect.

Cameron has done good things for Britain, via austerity and proper tax collection, which helped to guide the nation out of the 2008 financial crisis that emanated from Wall Street. Financial cuts were needed and it helped to increase Britain’s fortunes. The pound has lost some of its value due to the vote to leave prevailing, but is still holding. Markets all over the world have lost some of their value as well, in what is a correction to reflect the current vote.

There is no need to panic. Britain will be just fine. The Chinese yuan is relatively low and China is still a prosperous, industrious, wealthy nation. The key to flourishing in the world is producing goods and services people want and need. Britain has many great products and services people want and need. Britain has innovative companies in the area of finances, automotive, food and clothing, among others. The Premier League is also the biggest tourist attraction in Britain bringing in 5 billion pounds annually from visitors.

Britain is one of the oldest countries in the world. It is a very nice place to live. It is peaceful and civil. It is a great country that has survived a lot throughout history. Brexit is just a hiccup. That’s not to insult the EU, as there are many great countries in it as well. I love and admire nations such as France and Spain, among others.

Some believe Britain’s vote to leave the EU was based on discontent regarding immigration levels, which have dramatically surged. With the freedom to move among the EU nations, many Britons complained that the “traffic is moving in one direction” into Britain, creating new costs the British taxpayers had to underwrite. Many members of the British public feared the country would not be able to handle the added long-term financial costs.

Britain has free healthcare via the NHS and cash benefits to those who need it. People were moving into Britain from other parts of the EU and getting free healthcare, financial benefits and council housing. No nation in the EU can afford to indefinitely accommodate the level of traffic Britain received, plus pay 12 billion pounds per year into the Union as well. One nation could not sustain that indefinitely.

No country is perfect. However, I will state this, I know Britain well and I have not found it to be a racist or xenophobic country. There are many interracial marriages in Britain. There are also many marriages in Britain among local Britons and foreigners. On the whole, Brits are very open minded people. They do try to fight racism and xenophobia within the scope of the law, using legislation and court imposed penalties. Therefore, the vote was about a financial concern of many in Britain. Based on comments I have read in the lead up to the vote, I think the biggest gripe of the British people is the sum of money the country has been paying to the EU.

At the end of the day, the British people have the right to determine the future they want for their nation. That’s how democracy works. It is nice to see that though many in the British government wanted to remain in the EU, the vote wasn’t rigged.

The British people need to work together for a great future for Britain. Even if the vote did not go how you wanted it to, you still have a great country worth treasuring and preserving. Therefore, stand together and make things work. Invest in your country and the nation’s future.

RELATED ARTICLES

British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

Britain's Benefits Part 2

Britain's Benefits

200,000 New Homes Being Built In London In Response To Population Boom Needs To Go To Britons Who Really Need It

London
 

Last year, the local government in London, England announced 200,000 new homes will be built, in an effort to ease the massive requests for housing in the city of 10,000,000 people. It's not that London does not have homes, as there are millions of well built properties in the city. However, due to mass immigration over the past several years from the Middle East, Africa and Britain joining the EU (huge influx from Europe) there simply aren't enough homes in London. There's nothing wrong with immigration, as long as it is accompanied by assimilation. 

Many need to realize that everyone can't afford London, as real estate prices have soared over the past decade due to the sizeable increase in immigration and should move to the lovely home counties in England, which is not far from the capital. I've been to Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Oxfordshire, which all look great. 

The government's new pledge to build 200,000 new homes, a promise that is already underway, needs to have sale guidelines. Many foreign investors have been buying up homes in London, England, due to their value. However, locals who have lived in London, England for many years, are citizens who are not rich, should get first option on buying the affordable new homes. 

If the houses end up being bought up by big investors, often in cash sales, they will be flipped for big prices, in events that will not remedy the housing shortage. The homes and any government subsidies granted towards purchase, should be income restricted to ensure hardworking Britons, who aren't wealthy local or foreign investors, get the properties. It would be beneficial to Britons if the affordable housing initiative helps the working class become homeowners, which is a great thing. 

RELATED ARTICLES

British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London

Britain's Benefits Part 2

Britain's Benefits

The European Union Bails Out Greece

Hellenic Parliament in Greece (Photo credit: Michalis Famelis)

The European Union has come to the financial rescue of Greece, for fear the financial collapse of the nation, will affect other countries in the region as well. One trillion in bank loans have been guaranteed, with the proviso, Greece reforms its financial system.