> There is no inherent right to live in Munich, while there is a natural right to life and a decent subsistence even for those who cannot immediately secure gainful employment.

Why do you believe in one and not the other? I don't see any compelling categorical difference between either of these. The latter just "feels better" because "life and decency" are positively connoted. In both cases, the "right" is that person A has to pay the cost for person B to live a certain way. If you restricted your argument, to, say, a "right" to the bare minimum nutritional supply to survive, that would be categorically different. However, that's not an issue in the EU anyway.

The EU is no unified entity. Fot obvious reasons, any UBI would be adapted to local circumstances. Side note, unemployment benefits are based the last salaries already, as a result they tend to reach the cap more often in places like Munich than the Polish border. Social security is not based on region, any rent subsidies are so. And while there is no right to live in Munich, there the right to live where you want. Or to continue to live in the place you already live, if not necessarily the house or apartment.

Yes, there is a natural right to live where you're at home.