Meddling EU Judges Set Dangerous Precedent

A verdict by EU judges on Tuesday has potentially paved the way for people with no right to live in the UK being handed a free pass to access our welfare system.

Nimco Hassan Ibrahim is now separated from her Danish husband and lives with their four children (of Dutch nationality) on benefits.  Her ex-husband was a migrant worker and was employed in the UK for less than 6 months, before living off incapacity benefit for eight months.  After living at British taxpayers’ expense for a while he was sent packing, but somehow Ms Ibrahim stayed.

I could scarcely believe what I was reading when I first saw this story, initially thinking there must be some justification, some reason that British taxpayers are being told to pick up the bill for this woman who, according to the European Court of Justice itself, has no right to live here.  Seeing the photo in the Daily Mail of her standing proudly next to her large flat screen television will raise many an eyebrow amongst the public, many of whom can’t afford such a massive TV even though they work for a living.  Much less can they afford to fund more benefits claimants like Ms Ibrahim, or pay for the schooling of two of her children through our state system.  Many migrants come to the UK and contribute to society by working in a variety of jobs but she has contributed nothing, so how on earth can she be eligible to take anything back?  The EU's freedom of movement was supposed to be about promoting work, not benefits dependency.   Well, apparently Harrow Council has to give her a house because Tuesday’s verdict says “parents caring for the children of migrant workers, and resident in EU countries are covered under EU rules on freedom of movement - including those who cannot support themselves” – even though the migrant worker in question, her husband, has lost his right to live here.  Although she is clearly taking advantage of the system, the blame also lies at the door of those who’re making the rules.

The EU judges in Luxembourg acknowledged that she has never contributed anything to our economy, that she is a net burden on the system.  Despite this admission they still passed a judgement that not only obligates us financially, but also meddles in how our own (already generous) rules are applied.

Many of you will remember the case of Toorpakai Saiedi, the Afghan mother of seven who was put up in a £12,500 a month mansion back in 2008, paid for by the taxpayer, thanks to rules which forced Ealing Council to sort out accommodation for her.  Hers is one of the dozens of foreign nationals whose stories of clearly excessive state-aid subsistence we've seen in recent years, a worrying trend.  Britain is already a soft touch on benefits and this most recent decision is sending out a clear signal that if people are willing to travel to our country, we’ll support them once they get here no matter what the merits of their case.  A shocking decision by the EU, but then we cannot expect the EU to act in the interests of British taxpayers, can we? 

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience.  More info. Okay