And how is that different to any British-born freeloader getting as much out of the system as they possibly can? Some Brits work and pay taxes, some migrants work and pay taxes. A skiver is a skiver, regardless of where they come from and the idea that you need to reduce migration in case there's not enough money to pay for British layabouts says more about the failures of domestic UK policy than rules imposed upon the UK by the EU. For example... Yeah, that's so beyond generous it's not funny, but it's not the EU's fault you guys have such a ridiculous implementation of social housing policy. As far as I'm aware, you're obliged to shelter someone if they need it (and the same applies in basically every civilized Western country, so Britain isn't special in that regard). You don't have to put them up in a 100k/year mansion. Damned right they should have capped the amount, but the fact that they were able to (and did) means that it was sloppy domestic policy that was responsible for the waste, not an EU mandate. So, what? You just give people houses and hope for the best? That's an EU rule? If the UK isn't able to successfully integrate new migrants into the community, it's worth bearing in mind that the state has a ridiculous amount of resources at it's disposal and the individual has whatever they arrive with. Which may be basically nothing if they're a refugee. If you're not able to take a virtually blank slate and turn them into a productive, tax paying member of the community, that's more a problem with your own useless politicians not being able to manage the resources - including the human capital - at their disposal than it is with the migrant. This goes for Australia as well. We get the same bullshit excuses for crapping on asylum seekers. Waaa! They can't read! They can't count! They can't speak English! They're taking our jobs! Oh yeah? If an illiterate, innumerate, non-English speaker is a better candidate for a job than you are, they aren't the biggest problem.