Nul points: PM May's post-Brexit EU immigration options After a summer of vagueness, prime minister Theresa May is starting to define Brexit, with controlling immigration at the top of her list. That is likely to mean ending the freedom of European nationals* to work in Britain on the same basis as the locals – which will have a major impact on the many British IT employers who draw …
This post has been deleted by its author
It is already possible within the EU to require someone to have the means to support themselves. When I first worked in another EU country I could either provide proof of a job or that I had savings of over 8K (could have bee slightly more or less, I can't remember).
I checked on an EU website and this is quite normal and is supposed to be a way of preventing "benefit tourism".
Strange that our government never seems to have looked at doing this......
This post has been deleted by its author
one of those odd things, Vote Leave and Remain had no right to make policy promises about anything at all as they weren't running for government. Which has made reading things about the governments various plans very odd when saying "Vote Leave Promised" so? They weren't running for government and aren't in power so literally nothing any of them said mattered except the "suggestion to leave or remain" bit and the "facts" they both made up.
Vote Leave et al make all sorts of noises when the things they hoped for look like disappearing. "Traitor" and "backsliding" being two words I've seen thrown about.
Though that seems to apply only to the major outcomes of not-in-EU and less-foreigners and not the other things they promised suggested might happen (eg investment in NHS)
Since a significant percentage of brexiters think we've already left the EU, why don't we just leave them to think it's happened and not actually do it? They'll be happy, and those of us who didn't want to leave will be happy too.
As most migration involved non EU people anyway, if any of them show concern that there are still brown people or funny accents in their neighbourhood, we can explain that they came from the British Empire Mark 2 - one of the benefits of the post-EU world, which should be a source of pride and joy for them.
Finally, to prove brexit has happened, we can pass a law to force supermarkets to accept oddly-shaped vegetables, and change bottled beer to be sold in pint bottles.
Theresa, you can pay me the consultancy fee later!
@ smartypants
Yet another idiot trying to suggest that anyone who voted Brexit was a foaming at the mouth racist with an IQ in the single digits. That's as stupid as saying all remain voters are foaming at the mouth Brit-haters who can't wait for our culture to be obliterated and replaced with a Brave New EU World.
A lot is said in the media about not forgetting the 48% who voted to remain. Well I think it's about time that 48% started to make the effort to understand the majority 52% in this country instead of condemning them. Set aside your prejudice and bigotry for once and listen.
A lot is said in the media about not forgetting the 48% who voted to remain. Well I think it's about time that 48% started to make the effort to understand the majority 52% in this country instead of condemning them. Set aside your prejudice and bigotry for once and listen.
Broadly a little more than 1/3 voted to leave 1/3 voted to remain and little less than 1/3 did not vote. I think prejudice and bigotry is a bit strong to describe people who either regret the vote to leave or think it is important to remain in the EEA but may have voted either way. If the government makes decisions that I do not like, even if it was in their manifesto I have every right to complain about it without being called a bigot or prejudiced.
If we are a democracy it means that we must accept the decisions of the majorty who vote but it also means we accept the right of people to campaign for changes of direction and to express dissatisfaction.
> we left back in June and everything...
Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling? We can't leave until 2 yers after we have activated the leving process, and we haven't done that yet.
And if we want decent leving terms we won't leave until after next years electins in mainland Eurean countries where there' s a risk of extreme right wingers gaining power, becuse invoking it would increase the chance of those people winning and they will all want to show their people that they can screw the eil British )to increase their bote next time round).
"They had no right to be believed either. Not only were Leave believed there still seem to be those who believe them even as evidence to the contrary starts to accumulate."
In the fairness of balance the remain campaign were also believed and still so contrary to the evidence. Poor show for both official campaigns to be honest and a shame for the UK on the world stage.
"And what is this evidence you are talking about since the UK economy is improving faster than most EU countries."
and what evidence do you have for that claim?
Manufacturing is up, primarily because its cheap now in real terms to get stuff made in the UK. Which would be great for the UK, if most of the stuff it used was made in the UK, it isn't and won't be after BREXIT.
Meanwhile, interest rates are at an all time low; credit card spending is way up, and the exchange rate for the cable(aka GBP/USD) is still scraping the bottom of the shitter and any UK company that isn't already owned by a US multinational, will be soon or its really not worth much.
Growth from negative to positive can look really great, kinda like Linux install numbers in 2001, or Windows in 1991...
Do you mean the stock market growth post-referendum? Or the jobs growth? Or consumer confidence? Or retail sales? Or manufacturing sector sentiment? Or services sector sentiment? Or commercial property sales? Which accumulating evidence are we talking about here, exactly?
"Vote Leave and Remain had no right to make policy promises about anything at all as they weren't running for government"
Absolutely correct, though the tone of your post seems to suggest that they did make promises, rather than suggestions of what could be done after Brexit. The only promise I recall them making was that after Brexit then we would be in control of our own immigration policy, and that we would not have to send £350m gross to the EU every week, which is entirely true.
Ah the controversial £350m number, personally I think it would have been better to use the ~£200m net figure or whatever it is but then I don't calculate the tax I get taken from me every year by looking at the gross number and removing what I think I get back in public services - and I bet you don't either. And apart from the rebate any money that comes back is spent by the EU, we don't get to choose what it gets used for.
The funny thing is whenever remoaners say the Leave campaign lied this is the only point they ever come up with, whereas on the remain side the list is long (World War 3, housing crash, economic crash, 3 million jobs at risk, no more CLOUT! oh god how will we survive without CLOUT!?)
crash the economy to get rid of all the jobs, a little uptick in xenophobic / hate crime and no-one will want to come here in the first place.
Problem solved.
That was the promise, right?
it's a bit like saving on shoe polish by blowing both your feet off... sure it will work, but do you REALLY want to do it?
People tell me that "much of the Leave campaign was based on immigration" but I have two problems with this: (1) the margin was not hugely in favour of Leave, so even if only 10% of Leave voters were not bothered about freedom of movement a victory for Leave does not imply a victory for restriction of movement; and (2), most importantly IT WAS NOT THE QUESTION which was put to the vote.
If "Brexit means Brexit" can be understood to mean anything useful it must mean that a vote to leave the EU must be translated into leaving the EU. How we leave the EU should now be decided by parliament or further referendums, depending on whether one favours representative or direct democracy. But it seems odd that a vote on one issue should be considered a mandate on another.
IT WAS NOT THE QUESTION which was put to the vote.
- It was, however, one of the 'promises' given by the Leave campaign as one of the reasons to 'take back control'. So you'd have to assume some of the percentage of leave voters either wished for this or along with some of the other 'promises'.
Chances of another referendum are about as likely as most of the Leaves campaigns 'promises' at this point. The government got itself backed into the last one and another is unlikely for another thirty years, excepting maybe in Scotland or N.I.
IT WAS NOT THE QUESTION which was put to the vote.
- It was
The question was whether we should leave the EU or not. Only that. It did not ask what form such leaving should take, or what we should aspire to once we have left.
We do not know what leavers think on either of those issues because we never asked them. We can suggest they want one thing or the other but have no idea of numbers or what represents the will of the electorate as a whole.
And that last point is important. Leavers may have 'won the referendum', but that does not entitle them to dictate how things will be. They may not even be the majority now.
"And that last point is important. Leavers may have 'won the referendum', but that does not entitle them to dictate how things will be."
I wouldn't look at it like that. It was their idea. It should be up to them to make it work - or not. In fact they've been tasked with just that. They should, of course, be given criteria as to what would be acceptable. I agree that their efforts should then be put to a final vote once they're able to confirm they think they can meet the criteria.
"They may not even be the majority now."
I tend to agree with you although I noted an item on the Beeb's news saying that 2/3 of adults are positive about Britan's future post Brexit. However it was an opinion poll so to make sense of that I'd need to know what the questions were.
"So you'd have to assume some of the percentage of leave voters either wished for this or along with some of the other 'promises'."
Yes, but even if 95% of leave voters wished it, that still means 5% didn't. Add those to the remain votes and it's clear there is no mandate for anything specific other than the literal fact of Brexit itself.
It was interesting to note that after all their promises the leave promoters fucked off at high speed. Some were called back by May to sit on the bloody well paid naughty step where it was in her 'control' but its all looking like they are desperately trying to cultivate some long grass and get a decent pair of boots for when the 'talking to a brick wall' phase is over and done with.
Reasons I have heard are
1) EU not much use for them.
2) Since we are not in Euro nor Shengen why bother.
3) Take back control.
4) Don't know.
5) To annoy relative.
6) Protest vote.
7) Too much immigration.
8) Don't like Cameron.
That is 8 off the top of my head, and all are quite silly.
NOONE SAID TTIP and one idiot looked at me like an alien when I assumed it was why he voted out.
EDIT : I DID NOT PUT BLANK LINES BETWEEN OPTIONS SORT IT ELREG
How we leave should be as we agreed when we joined: Trigger article 50, negotiate a leaving strategy agreement and a continuing relationship agreement with EU representatives for up to two years. When the two years are almost up, either beg for an extension from every member state (requires unanimous agreement for an extension), or admit it was all a stupid mistake and stop trying to leave.
The rest of the EU have watched us glue a bomb to our back, and will not start negotiating until we jump off the ship and start the timer. It is in the interest of every other member state to take their time so we end up having to buy an extension from all of them individually. Article 50 was intended to be a complete disaster for any nation that invokes it.
If the UK decides to forget about its contractual obligations, and makes a plan based on a compromise acceptable to the majority of clueless twits in the house of commons or a 'wisdom of the crowd' series of referendums then no-one is going to take any trade agreement we proposed seriously.
The simplest solution is for our government to do what they do best: argue with each other incessantly about things that do not matter. More Brexits are old than remainers. Wait a few years for people to die, and when the spilt reaches 49/51 we can dump Brexit and find some less dangerous topic for our politicians to argue about. If Brexits really want to leave the EU, their is nothing to stop them getting a boat or plane ticket to whatever non-EU country will take them.
Back in the 80s, I used to hear a lot of "most Tories are old, just wait for them to die off and we'll have perpetual socialist government".
That reasoning doesn't work.
Very likely some "Leave" voters would now switch their votes if they could. But for all we know, there are just as many if not more "Remain" voters who would also switch. We don't really know, short of having another referendum - and even that wouldn't really answer the question, because if you signal the electorate that you're willing to keep on voting until you get the Right Answer, the voters will quickly change their behaviour to send another message right back...
Yes, the Leave campaign was full of shit. But so were the Remainers. Neither one would have lasted ten minutes in a decently-run high school debate club, let alone in Parliament; the only reason they could get away with a tenth of the bollocks they parroted was because the 24 hour media is constitutionally incapable of checking them.
This is a design flaw in modern media. It's a big flaw. And it's going to be the death of democracy if we can't do something about it.
'The rest of the EU have watched us glue a bomb to our back, and will not start negotiating until we jump off the ship and start the timer.'
The strongest negotiating position in that instance would be start the timer .and. stay on the ship.
MAD or good deal is the binary outcome.
> That’s what Fairsail's Adam Hale would like to see...
Doesn't appear to be what they're advertising on the careers section of their website though.
Senior Build/Release Manager Tech Reading, UK
People Manager COBRA Reading, UK
Product Marketing Manager Marketing Reading, UK
Solutions Consultant Sales Reading, UK
Regional Sales Manager UK Sales Reading, UK
Implementation Consultant (UK) Customers for Life Reading, UK
Senior Manual Tester Tech Reading, UK
Senior Developer (Apex, Visualforce, Java) Tech Reading, UK
Product Manager (HCM, Payroll & Benefits) Tech Reading, UK
Software Test Analyst Tech Reading, UK
Senior Developer Tech Reading, UK
IT Support / Salesforce Admin Tech Reading, UK
Recruiter COBRA Reading, UK
The only low/unskilled entry level thing I see there is support, and that might not be, but I can't tell as they haven't filled out the "desired skills and experience" section.
The senior dev job requires a degree apparently, which is somewhat at odds with the "A-level up" idea.
Not really
A shortage of UK people wanting to work for the pittance pay & long hours often offered in IT is more likely.
Bored of seeing jobs asking for nearly every skill set under the sun and (when you factor in expected to work way beyond 40 hours with no overtime ) not offering much more than living wage
Plus the fact that if you're young and actually considering a job in the industry, you'll be well aware that the pen-pushers will want your job moved to India as soon as they can.
Better to get a job as a pen-pusher. You don't have to do anything useful and get paid loads for doing it. And you don't have to take responsibility for any consequences of your actions.
Being in Lithuania would heap extra exigencies on the worker. For example, you'd have to tune in the weather for Luton or Victoria or Valparaiso, Indiana rather than the real (for you) weather in Vilnius. And you'd want to change your name to something less Lithuanian. If your name is Vladas, you'd have to remember to be something English and reassuring to the callers, such as Bada$$.
And oh yeah, my Math degree was never worth more than taxi-driving here in Canada. The only reasons I didn't become a taxi driver were: never learned to drive; lacked the social skills of a typical Math grad. LOL at my own joke.
Yep, you're better off driving a taxi.
No Uber screwed that up too.
I worked in a specialist team for a year, and one of my colleagues was a former Navy cryptographer who was so fed up he was in the process of setting up a business as plumber. I'm toying with that idea too - seriously fed up with the politics of holding down a job when surrounded by idiots who don't do any useful work but are good at gaming the system. The fun part comes when you're all out of people that actually do any work, but that would no longer be my problem.
"not offering much more than living wage"
The reality in most cities is that earning under 35k means that you can't support yourself (living alone) let alone a spouse.
There's a substantial dead zone between "earning enough to not qualify for benefits" and "earning enough to pay rent and all bills without needing benefits" which makes it problematic for those in the lower earning brackets to shoot higher.
One of the more perverse things in this country is that if you get a council house your rent is fixed at a low rate. It really should be income related up to market values. Right now there are definite perks to being unemployed that the never-such of us can't get access to.
Well, those of the 3.5 million that have been here for 5 years by the time we actually leave will have a right to remain anyway and the pensioners have just suffered a 10% cut in their income owing to devaluation, so we might actually end up with both...
Leaving the EU is an economic decision.
As such we should recount the weighted average of the Leave vote percentage and the contribution to the GDP of every constituencies.
(Leave% * GDP(Constituency)) /GDP(UK)
To add insult to injury subtract the GDP created by EU members that may not receive an Visa under the new rules but only in constituencies where Leave% > 50.
"Except he did (even though he says he didn't)"
Farage said, giving examples, "Schools, hospitals, GPs". That doesn't mean giving all the money to the NHS. I'd imagine that starting a (working) medical training facility, which would fulfill all three suggestions, would direct a substantial portion of the dosh to the University of Short Strand, or whatever. You might accuse me of splitting hares, but at least that's better than composting vampires.
Whilst that sounds iniquitous, it's worth bearing in mind this germ of wisdom, as it explains exactly the problem we are in ...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent system of government, but only until such time as the majority of the population realised they can vote themselves the largesse of the public purse".
Go figure.
Yabbut then the rich people, feeling put upon, put more money in Panama, or withdraw from their local trading bloc, lol. Democracy and Capitalism aren't monolithic, they're a battlefield. Except that large chunks of Capitalism have been and are being taken off that field by Free Trade agreements.
If people spend all their time earning enough money to barely survive, they don't have the leisure to spend time being informed about the political situation, which is the basis for a real democracy.
But I am not confident that there is any country where this kind of democracy exists currently...
Economic decision?
Really?
Not a political or social decision as well?
Only an economic decision if that's all you cared about, which judging by your skewed idea of democracy, it is.
Also, why would the higher earners be the more informed ones getting their "bigger" vote? I know plenty of very intelligent people who do more with their life than just pursue coin and plenty of stupid high earners. I mean el reg has a rich history of commentards complaining about the overpaid idiots they work for.
"Offers like this for EU citizens could even help the negotiations over Brexit: the UK wants some access to the EU single market for the likes of financial services, so in return it could offer EU nationals better access to British jobs".
I have a hard time making sense of this. If we talk about highly qualified people, the big European countries certainly do NOT want those people to work in the UK. They would prefer to see them stay at home, generate business and pay local taxes. There's no unemployment problem there. Does anyone see Germany or France say: "hey, the finance jobs we want to take away from you? You can keep them, and on top we're happy to send you our best qualified people."?
And for low qualification people, well the UK Brexiters don't want them in.
So I don't see a realistic match there.
I have a hard time making sense of this. If we talk about highly qualified people, the big European countries certainly do NOT want those people to work in the UK. They would prefer to see them stay at home, generate business and pay local taxes. There's no unemployment problem there. Does anyone see Germany or France say: "hey, the finance jobs we want to take away from you? You can keep them, and on top we're happy to send you our best qualified people."?
You make a good point there that I had never considered before. Free movement of Services, Goods & People aren't actually all equivalent. If you export Services or Goods to another EU country then you gain money in return. The more you export the better it is for your economy. But exporting people is actually opposite. You lose their skills, and the tax they pay (and the money they spend on goods themselves) goes to the country you exported them to. Which means Free Movement of people is only beneficial to your economy if there's a net plus to your country. So why did we object to so many EU nationals coming over here?
Have I missed something here?
What you missed is the ordinary leave voters don't see any obvious direct benefit to themselves. Indirect benefits are a hard sell, especially if elites are successfully intercepting a lot of it, out of sight out of mind. If migrants stop injecting money into local economies the locals probably won't believe it's a problem, even as the effects kick in.
EU migration made up less than half of the immigration to this country, and we couldn't touch it in terms of controls (freedom of movement).
For the majority of immigrants (non-EU), we had far more in the way of controls and still haven't reduced the figures using the rules and policies currently in force.
As an uninformed observer, I can only conclude that it isn't that easy to reduce the numbers, or that this level of immigration is required to fill this country's demand for skilled and unskilled labour.
I still don't understand how people were swayed by this as an argument - "leave the EU and we'll cut immigration and gain control of our borders, yet we can't use that control effectively, or don't want to"
All that will actually happen is there will be an increase in immigration from outside the EU. People want cheap goods and services, and they also don't want to do low-paid jobs. The only way that can work is to find someone who is willing to do those low-paid jobs so the price that the consumer pays stays low.
"EU migration made up less than half of the immigration to this country, and we couldn't touch it in terms of controls (freedom of movement)."
Indeed, and even when you factor in in non-EU immigration, both sets are dwarfed by internal migration of britons from north to south, chasing jobs.
That said, the real driver of the "housing crisis" which many have pinned their Brexit hopes on is simple population demographics. Even if the population stayed static there would have been a problem simply because of the change in household sizes from 4-6 people down to 1-2.
There's been a lot of dog-whistle politicing and kneejerk legislation over the years but virtually all the jobs and housing issues we're seeing now (including the pensions trainwreck which is slowly unfolding and will result in stupidly high income tax levels within 15 years simply to pay Boomers who didn't bother saving enough) were clearly obvious in the 1980s, yet planners and politicians usually choose to ignore such elephants until they start rampaging.
"including the pensions trainwreck which is slowly unfolding and will result in stupidly high income tax levels within 15 years simply to pay Boomers who didn't bother saving enough"
You could look at a few other factors there. Such as Brown's changing the taxation of dividends received by pension funds which was quite obviously a form of taxing the future. And such as pumping more and more cash into the economy, lowering interest rates and hence returns on savings hence ensuring that nobody can save enough. "Enough" is moving further and further out of reach..
I think May's plan is to let BoJo and his useless cronies discover that just about everything they promised isn't possible or viable, and eventually the clock will run down and there will be a general election.
The referendum is only advisory to start with and it was a stupid question, no one know what leaving actually means, and by the time there is a new government it may be someone else's problem...
The only fly in the ointment is that Labour is in such chaos that May may be the next PM after the general election, so what she does then is anyone's guess...
As to immigration that's insoluble, industry wants people and industry controls the two big parties. People don't want immigrants (for all sorts of reasons) but people don't really control the government. so the parties will say X to get elected but always do Y.
The bottom line is that the referendum was a stupid idea in the first place, the question was stupid, and the arrogant t*ats in the Tory/Labour Remain teams gave the victory to the lying scum in the Leave campaign... Now we are left with a mess and no sensible way out without either utter ruin or s*it on our face.
I don't like May, but I do wish her well in sorting the mess out, because my livelihood along with a lot of others depends on the outcome.
UKIP are a bunch of racist lying tosspots.
Around the last general election they were being rather stupid locally, spouting out nonsense and assuming their candidate was important because he was related to another UKIP member.
Most of the other candidates were reasonable people and did not get flak (except TUSC).
But UKIP, well they were like the village idiots of the piece (also along with a hard left candidate).
I am posting anonomously simply due to the following line.
I voted Conservative but would not vote UKIP. The votes are not transferable, UKIP is not Conservatives Mk2 no matter what the media portray.
Last general election I thought long and hard about the parties. Green nowhere near my views but excellent candidate@, Libdems were test driving a candidate# and poor campaign, Labour had strong local candidate but poor party leadership* plus I am not keen on some of their policies, TUSC no chance - town idiot, UKIP was the village idiot. Conservatives good candidate with local ties and the nearest policies to me.
@ May not like their policies but they get some good candidates locally.
# Shuffled in at last moment
* His brother was better
"..the arrogant t*ats in the Tory/Labour Remain teams gave the victory to the lying scum in the Leave campaign..."
They could hardly do otherwise given that they (that's both "sides") have been blaming the EU for anything unpalatable for the last 40 years. The alternative was to get up an say "er, no that wasn't the EU, that was us that screwed you over, sorry". Hence the (from this side of the world anyway) very strange remain campaign.
It should be easy via opinion polls to determine if immigration was the factor that swung the last 1% so make it a majority Brexit vote.
I think a poll would confirm that in spades.
May made a loud statement about the next election being no nearer than 2020.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act prevents an earlier election unless the government loses a vote of no confidence... Fudging the immigration issue could well bring that on.
The 1% swing isn't relevant, the question is 'Do the majority of the UK electorate want free movement?' that wasn't the question that was asked If you asked it you would get into the whole nonsense of drafting a 'fair' question. What would it be?
Do you want to stop foreigners coming over here taking our jobs?
All foreigners or just particular ones that aren't do something useful like working in the NHS/finance/your local care home on minimum wage?
Do you want the freedom to travel and work in Europe for you and your children?
Do you want Dr Who do give you a lift and drop you back in the 1950s?
Of course they're going to try and keep the UK on the back foot so to speak, it's just better for their negotiations to try and manipulate the situation, what do you expect from politicians and especially slimy toads like Obama/Putin?
As many world and business leaders in the run up to the vote put their two penn'orth in, this time with sarcasm.
AS a retort should have brought up the new Nuclear plant to be built at Hinkley point and slip in something like 'Someone proposed Japan and Russia as possible partners but we went for French and Chinese in the end over safety concerns,!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3773725/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Brexit-s-dead-ducks-warned-doom-Union.html
... will inevitably impact other economic freedoms. It will be very difficult EU will accept such visa limitations while offering broad access from UK to EU. And it will be funny when EU countries will start to apply the same rules to UK citizens.
In my particular case, I don't know what's more funny, the inept political class in the UK, the inept political class in Spain (currently seem to be heading for a 3rd set of general elections on Christmas Day but it's possible even they may realise this is unacceptable), or the inept political class in Brussels.
Anyway, this article is out of date as it seems there will now not be a points based system, but something even better, if that's possible. I can't wait to find out what that is.
Funny, because I can remember marches and demonstrations about immigration in the 1960s.
So, frankly, we weren't doing a very good job of dealing with immigration before the EU.
Hang on - that's factual - of no interest to the moronic element of the electorate.
Time to kick out the remainder of Viking,Anglo-Saxon and Norman invaders. The Romans left voluntarily. Then we can think about which pre-Roman inhabitants really belong here.
Or maybe accept its a nation of mongrels after millennia of invasions, some violent, others slow and peaceful.
Thanks for that well formed and thoughtful comment.
We are doing exactly that. 75% of our business is with Europe, we employ EU staff as well as UK staff, we send UK staff from our main offices in London to Paris and Frankfurt to work. Our business needs freedom of movement and we are proud in our European outlook.
However since the vote, there's too much doubt and ambiguity so we've taken the decision to relocate our head office and as many of the staff who wish to come, to Frankfurt. We'll basically swap our offices over so that the UK becomes a small branch office.
It's clear that Teresa May along with Boffo the Clown have no idea what to do with Brexit, apart from saying that "Brexit is Brexit", we don't want the hassle of trying to work out how to integrate our company back into the EU once we leave, so we made the decision to move. We are happy to relocate as many staff who wish to come with us, but some, due to schools etc, have decided they can't make it, we'll pay them off, and hire locally.
The UK loses jobs, NI, tax etc, the Germans gain, we reduce our uncertainty over which legislative regime we operate under which is good for our business. We're sorry to leave the UK, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
We won't be the first, and we won't be the last. We're quite small (< $50M), wait until one of the bigger motor manufacturers decides to move to anywhere in the EU from the UK and listen to the squeals from the voters in Sunderland over their loss of jobs.
Well the Turkeys voted for Xmas, "bonn appetit" or as the Germans would say "gutes essen".
This post has been deleted by its author
Why would a business-friendly government¹ want to reduce immigration? Something doesn't quite add up here.
¹ Pay £2750 and meet someone from the cabinet. Or a mere £1163 if the shadow cabinet is good enough for you.
There's plenty that doesn't add up here.
Doesn't matter how the people voted in the referendum. Doesn't matter what the opinion of the backbench bastards. What matters to the Conservative party is big finance and the NFU. One needs the single market, the other needs cheap labour and agricultural subsidies.
This should be fun.
-A.
What you are all forgetting is our present prime minister was not voted in by the public as such she really does need to read what promises were made and work to the best of them. Next election she could find her self out of power with someone more willing to control the terrorist entering the UK as refugees.
We als do not need her to say Shira law will be good for the UK sincew when has a law that treats females as mammals good for any country or allows non muslims to be slaves and raped?
We also need the law enforced on the number of wives in the UK one is the norm any more you are a bigamist also wives underage illegal.
How much does it cost to train an engineer in the UK ?
When company A wants to import a person because no one with the right skill set is currently resident then they should pay a fee equivalent to the cost of training one resident.
The company gets to use the skills of a trained import immediately and the fee should be used to train a resident so next time they won't need to import one.
I imagine that in terms of the cost of employment, foreign engineers cost roughly the same as a local engineers, the issue is more one of availability.
If an importer of engineers had to pay a years engineering tuition fees for each foreign engineer they employed p/a then in a few years local engineers would become available for any future requirements they may have.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
