No open door for India's tech workers in any UK trade deal The notion that a trade deal between the UK and India might see a flood of cheap tech workers heading to Britain appears to have been scuppered. The British government is prepared to consider temporary visas for skilled workers, but that's as far as it goes. Last year, Home Secretary Suella Braverman caused controversy by …
It will not take long to transform UK to India, since population of India is 21x of UK. Besides what's wrong with working online/WFH from India for UK instead of immigration? Covid has proved it works. Just tax it well with some incentives.
It is disappointing that with all the talented workforce India is not modernizing itself instead of sending the talent abroad. Is life in India that bad? Same applies to Pakistan with its young population.
Now that on-device AI chatbots will become a commodity in a couple of years, every young person will have access to a personal tutor in any scientific field, lets hope this will finally drag the countries out of poverty and desperation. Hopefully the political systems will change too.
"one of the major sticking points believed to be India's expectation of easier access to the UK for many more of its skilled workers"
Speaking as a former UK-based employee of an Indian-based outsourcer, what, pray, are these so-called "skilled workers" that India has? Or does it mean the "let's throw ten people at the job in the hope that one of them kind of knows what to kind of do" attitude that was so prevalent?
I'm guessing that is sarcasm.
But indeed the whole problem is Brexit, or more precisely the "free movement" that was used to rile gammons about EU workers taking their jobs so it had to end.
And now we are short of care staff, NHS workers, fruit pickers, HGV drivers, etc, as many EU folks decided to head home than live in the home office 'hostile environment' and my oh my we found many who voted for that are unable or unwilling to fill those posts at market rates, while moaning about costs and not wanting to pay farmers, etc, more.
Of course we have an imploding Tory party that can't see beyond Brexit goals, and a feeble Labour party that is afraid of the 'red wall' losses if they speak up.
Not sarcasm. British Indian communities voted for Brexit because they were told by conmen conservatives that the Eu made it hard for Indians to come to Britain while letting in all those Poles but once we controlled our own immigration that would change.
It's almost as if an unregulated spew of frequently contradictory lies from Brexiteers telling different people whatever they wanted to hear made for "promises" that were never, ever going to be delivered upon.
It's almost as if that was fucking obvious at the time.
The Vote Leave campaign group put out leaflets that very clearly claimed just this:
https://www.ft.com/content/94adcefa-1dd5-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15
"The official Out campaign is drawing up leaflets aimed at Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu speakers arguing that a British exit from the EU would help to stem the flow of Eastern Europeans into the UK — allowing more incomers from Commonwealth countries to take their place. "
If you're arguing for ethnic/national favouritism towards certain people just because they come from the same family background as yourself- as it seems you are- then OP has an entirely legitimate point.
You seem to take it as written that these Indian co-workers or family members have a right to have it made easier to enter the UK. I'll excuse the latter bias to some extent- everyone wants life to be easier for those close to them- but otherwise, who says so?
The fact that you aren't making similar arguments in favour of those from other countries or trying to explain *why* Britain should let more Indians in from its point of view makes it perfectly legitimate to question your biases and loyalties.
make it perfectly legitimate to question your biases and loyalties
Oh. Suggesting easy visas for travel allows you to question my loyalty as a Brit? **** off.
Conflating easy visa travel with "hordes of [insert group of your choice] at the gate". A classic gammon enraging narrative. And to be fair: It works very well indeed.
> Suggesting easy visas for travel for the one, particular favoured ethnic group that I happen to belong to
FTFY. Funny how easy it is to miss the fundamental criticism when your only defence depends upon entirely missing it.
> Conflating easy visa travel with "hordes of [insert group of your choice] at the gate".
Very cheap and dirty attempt to smear by associating me with phrases and words that are nothing like what I said.
And remember, you were the one who argued that a [group of your choice] should be allowed easily into the UK while apparently not extending that argument to everyone else.
Why was that?
> gammon
I didn't vote Leave. How about you?
How odd that it's only now- *after* you've lost the argument and need a distraction- that you've suddenly decided to nitpick use of the word "ethnic" in a manner that suggests you're going to use it as an excuse to trip me up.
Hmm.
> Yes, all us ethnics eh? Devious indeed. One big homogeneous entity.
Still trying to shove words into my mouth to distract from your shameless favouritism?
I know dualling has been banned, I think the anonymous cowards need to meet at dawn to satisfy their honour!
Dualling hasn't been banned; you can still play dual play split screen games so people could meet to satisfy their honour in Goldeneye, Perfect Dark or whatever people are playing split screen versus games these days.
Duelling has been banned though, so you couldn't go out for breakfast for two, pistols and then coffee for one.
>And I'd pit my Britishness against yours any day of the week, pal.
I take it that you have allowed your daughter to be brought up "British" and thus wear the clothes she wishes to wear, go to university and to marry whomsoever she wishes...
PS. I am the grandson of immigrants. I have no interest in the country/society my grandparents left, but then they left that society in circa 1900.
Like you really care about NHS workers, fruit pickers, HGV drivers etc, in fact all have had ther wages artifically supressed by the jobs market being flooded with cheap EU labour.
Even your salary is being supressed.
I suppose its okay since your child is not a fruit picker..
Hello day-old single-issue handle. This must be the high-wage non-EU labour you're referring to:
Revealed: Indonesian workers on UK farm ‘at risk of debt bondage’
‘I’m ashamed’: working in UK leaves fruit pickers from Indonesia in debt
I'm sure someone once said brexiters were not the sharpest tools in the box.
For example, my father voted for brexit because 'we won the war.' He knew absolutely nowt about the EU, other than it was, of course, shit. Shortly after he died. Thanks dad.
And the spanish argricultural industry is run off the backs of illegal migrant labour living in plastic townships.
Those fruit pickers that your are so fond of weren't even paid the Uk minimum wage, the food producers used a romanian agency that pays the workers at the local Romanian rate and shipped them into the uk. But you knew that.
The cheap EU labour has gone for a few years now. The supposedly artificially suppressed wages in the sectors you mention have not gone up. Explain. Perhaps you've noticed NHS workers (and others) have been forced to strike to get pay rises that try to match the cost of living.
Perhaps you've noticed NHS workers (and others) have been forced to strike to get pay rises that try to match the cost of living.
Perhaps we have issues with NHS, schools and pretty much everything because our population has increased faster than the services? Perhaps cost of living has increased due to the demand for housing, due to the population increasing faster than the housing stock. And every illegal immigrant is entitled to free housing, healthcare, education. And of course our cost of living increase is largely down to our insane energy policy, which means the NHS hires sustainability consultants rather than medical ones.
Pay rises just means inflation goes up, reducing inflation means we need a government that actively tries to reduce the cost of living, not increase it. I still think the best way is to introduce performance related pay for government. So they're paid on an -RPI basis. Then when RPI is negative and costs fall, they get a pay rise. Otherwise inflation is the inevitable result of indexing the price of essentials, like energy. Keeping prices high just guarantees higher margins and profits.
our population has increased faster than the services?
Easy solution if it has... spend the increased taxes collected from the larger working population on increased services.
And every illegal immigrant is entitled to free housing, healthcare, education.
Really? I thought they were entitled to the hostile environment which denies those services and deportation.
Easy solution if it has... spend the increased taxes collected from the larger working population on increased services.
That assumes the population is working, and paying taxes. Plus there's an added challenge with migrant workers sending money offshore to families rather than spending it here, and paying VAT on stuff. Which is fair enough for the migrants. But then if the families accompany the migrant to the UK, it places more strain on services.
Really? I thought they were entitled to the hostile environment which denies those services and deportation.
Nope, we have lawyers preventing that. We have many people trying desperately to escape the hostile environment of the EU, and especially France after all.
But that's a different kind of migration. It gets a bit more complicated with India thanks to misguided map drawing and moral obligations. But the general idea is skilled migrants can support themselves, contribute to the economy and support any dependents, providing there's reciprocity. But this is also a challenge for India because of the good'ol brain drain, and the NHS (and private medicine like GPs) poaching Indian medical professionals to come work in the UK. Especially when thanks to India's booming economy, living in London can be cheaper than living in Mumbai. Then on the business side, India is extremely protective of it's market and discourages foreign companies who want to play the usual cheap labour/lax regulation and siphon the profits out game. Which again is reasonable given the way India's resources have been exploited in the past.
That assumes the population is working, and paying taxes. Plus there's an added challenge with migrant workers sending money offshore to families rather than spending it here.
* First, nearly one in five are over 65, with the proportion growing every year. And it is well know that NHS care for the elderly is far more expensive than for younger people. With fewer and fewer workers how is this sustainable?
* Second, public services should be paid for through taxation, not borrowing. The problem we have is everyone wants everyone else to pay more tax. We all should, but the richer can pay more. Of course they don't, because taxes on dividends and capital gains, for instance, are lower than other income. Funny that.
* Third, imagine you have gone out to the Middle East, and found a wonderful job that paid shed loads. How would you feel if you couldn't send any of that money back to the UK? This argument about sending money 'offshore' is just racism.
* ...
>* Second, public services should be paid for through taxation, not borrowing. The problem we have is everyone wants everyone else to pay more tax. We all should, but the richer can pay more. Of course they don't, because taxes on dividends and capital gains, for instance, are lower than other income. Funny that.
All government expenditure is paid through borrowing. Taxation is the process used to influence spending decisions (sugar tax, higher tax on polluting vehicles, etc) and control inflation through "destroying" the money that the government creates through borrowing. But you are right, the government don't want to increase the tax that they - and their donors - pay.
You're assuming all of them are paying taxes and/or nett contributors to the system, so an immigrant on minimum wage with a spouse and more than 1 kid will make no nett contribution to the system and will in fact take out more than they contribute.
They will also tie up housing, healthcare, education etc.
How many new handles? That's one bitter xenophobe working overtime.
Even a most cursory Google search shows this:
2021 - Impact of Immigration on UK Economy
2018 - The Fiscal Impact of Immigration on the UK
2014 - The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK
What are the downsides that are mentioned? A government reluctant to plan ahead and match infrastructure provision to population. You can insert the "careful mate, that foreigner wants your cookie" cartoon here.
the economic case for largescale immigration as we have witnessed over the last 25 years is at best marginal.
You appear to be assuming that everybody in the economy is impacted equally, and everybody is interested in the overall benefit to the economy and the overall detriment rather than the effect of the policy on them.
The practical reality is that any policy (including high levels of immigration) have benefits and detriments to different people. For instance, if you started buying a house 25 years ago then the average house that you bought for £65,475 is now worth £305,731 as a result of housing supply not increasing as fast as demand, and by economic fundamentals the price rose.
The generation since then have had to deal with the property prices exploding as a result of the immigration, while their wages have also fell as a result of additional labour supply rigging the market in favour of the older generations who quite liked the idea of cheap staff in hospitality, building etc as that's a benefit to them, while they didn't face any of the detriments from competition like lower wages, having passed the early point in their careers, and ladders like "training" and "career progression" were pulled up behind them as they are required to retain staff, and who cares about that if there is a permenant surplus of desperate labour willing to work for tuppence? On top of that, that same generation who bought their house in the late 90's had to pay basically no interest for the last decade of their mortgage.
The fundamental problem which we've now well and truly got with the economy is that almost everybody over 50 is relatively very well off, and those under 50 are reduced to grinding poverty by being expected to pay house prices that are 4.6x higher than 20 years ago on basically the same wages, while paying higher prices for electricity and gas, higher costs to travel to work and higher costs for food, while also paying for their own personal development to be suitable for anything beyond basic labour. Which of course suits the older generations as they can help their kids out, because they are well off. Assuming they only had a couple of kids so the money is reasonably concentrated.
The stark reality is that the only people with any significant disposable income in the economy are the over 50's, and that's going to mean very bad things for the economy since a lack of customers is likely to mean impending unemployment.
>You appear to be assuming that everybody in the economy is impacted equally
Err? no.
>"For instance, if you started buying a house 25 years ago then the average house that you bought for £65,475 is now worth £305,731"
An example of assuming everybody is impacted equally... It is still possible to buy a house for under £30k, however, whether you would want to live in those areas...
Similar applies to all those "immigration is (economically) good" reports, dig into the data and you will find the data that skews the figures. For many this is the period 2006~2010 where there were many French and German nationals working in London's financial services sector, their incomes (and thus economic contribution) were so large (yes the financial crisis might have been happening, but the banks were paying out huge bonuses - mostly earnt pre-crash).
Similarly, we can dismiss all those reports who specifically note that workers from EU countries paid more in taxes than they got in benefits. The EU granted freedom of movement of workers (not benefit claimants), as noted above the main destination for highly paid EU nationals was the City of London's financial sector - not a sector known for paying wages that need to be topped up by benefits...
Hence why I said the economic case was at best marginal.
So, from personal experience, people coming to UK as refugees seeking asylum are legally not allowed to work while their claims are considered. During this time they are housed by the Home Office and given small weekly allowance for food and clothes. Only after they have Leave to Remain are they allowed to work.
Only after they have Leave to Remain are they allowed to work
Not entirely true - they are allowed to work after two years - irrespective of whether they have LTR or not (it can take 3-4 years for the review process). Also, the allowance they get varies according to their accomodation - in a hotel it's really small (all meals are provided) whereas those in a shared or individual house have a larger allowance so that they can buy food and the like.
"Perhaps we have issues with NHS, schools and pretty much everything because our population has increased faster than the services? Perhaps cost of living has increased due to the demand for housing, due to the population increasing faster than the housing stock."
You're looking at an issue which has a lot of dimensions to it. Population is increasing partly because we're living longer, something which I personally can only approve of. It's the ageing end of the population which has increased demand for NHS services.
Increased demand for housing stock is partly due to more people living singly, either not forming relationships or those relationships breaking up so there are more but smaller households.
The increased number of singletons, and the smaller family sizes for those having children means that the birth rate has been low for some time and is now actually below replacement rate so that there are fewer locally-born recruits to provide services - including staffing the NHS and it certainly hasn't helped that we haven't been training enough staff for the NHS for years.
You're just about wrong on everything here.
The cost of living has almost nothing to do with the size of the population or its growth rate. The rises in interest rates (and therefore mortgages) is a direct consequence of government policy. The madness of Trussonomics (that mercifully short-lived government's policy) made the cost of living crisis worse. We're still dealing with the legacy of that macroeconomic lunacy. Energy prices have rocketed, partly because of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but also because government policy pegs the price of electricity to wholesale gas price on international markets. Housing costs are going through the roof (excuse the pun) because it's government policy to build fewer houses than meets demand. Food prices have gone up because of increased energy costs, worse exchange rates, higher transport/import duties as well as Brexit. These factors are largely a result of government policy failures too.
Inflation is not the same as the cost of living. Inflation is caused by having too much money in the economy chasing after too few goods or services. In the UK, that was turbo-charged by the government printing and borrowing staggering amounts of money during the pandemic. And Trusstime. Inflation's got fuck all to do with "indexing to the price of energy". Whatever that means.
Reducing the cost of living has nothing to do with inflation either. The cost of living doesn't necessarily go down when inflation is under control. If you don't have enough money to pay your bills (food. energy, housing, etc) it simply doesn't matter what the inflation rate is. The cost of living is simply too high.
No matter. Just blame all of this shit-show on immigrants. It's much easier than facing up to reality. Or accepting the consequences of self-inflicted wounds of 20+ years of stunningly incompetent government and economic mismanagement.
The cost of living has almost nothing to do with the size of the population or its growth rate. The rises in interest rates (and therefore mortgages) is a direct consequence of government policy.
Uhuh.. So it costs the same to service a population of 60m as it does for 70m? There are no additional costs or demands on schools, hospitals, transportation, housing costs, water or energy suppy etc etc..
Energy prices have rocketed, partly because of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but also because government policy pegs the price of electricity to wholesale gas price on international markets.
So government policy, which being goverment policy, government could correct. But the problem started long before the UK and EU decided to sanction itself. I mean Russia. Insist on 'investing' in 'renewables' which are intermittent, unreliable and expensive. So the UK's wasted something like £200bn doing this so far. Because they're weather dependent, when we get weather systems like we've had for the last couple of weeks, there's no wind. So we had to invest in gas as well to provide backup. So the rush to go 'Green' increased the dependency on gas. Electricity bills have been rising long before we decided to ban ourselves from buying Russian gas (which we didn't anyway) and not exploit our own natural resources for energy security. Energy is an input cost to pretty much everything, so as that's increased in price (not necessarily cost), inflation and the cost of living have increased. An increased population just increases demand, and makes the supply problem worse. There's no incentive to increase supply or reduce prices because that hits profits.
India, you may notice has not wasted much money on 'renewables' because it's smart enough to know that relying on pre-industrial forms of generation is an insane policy that our ancestors dumped at the first opportunity.
Housing costs are going through the roof (excuse the pun) because it's government policy to build fewer houses than meets demand.
The government doesn't build houses.
Food prices have gone up because of increased energy costs, worse exchange rates, higher transport/import duties as well as Brexit
Yes, energy costs have played a big part in making UK produce more expensive. Exchange rates, less so GBP's at $1.27 vs (from memory) $1.18 at Brexit when the world was supposed to end. In theory, the UK no longer has to follow EU agricultural policy, and farmers are still waiting for the bonfire of red tape. Transport costs are in part fuel related as a result of duty and taxs. But we're also now free from EU quotas and can import produce from say, Australia, New Zealand or the Commonwealth in general.. who's economies suffered a lot when we decided to join the 'Common Market'. The government is also in control of it's own import duties and taxes.
Inflation is not the same as the cost of living. Inflation is caused by having too much money in the economy chasing after too few goods or services.
M1 and M2 are aspects, which were not helped by QE and free money. But there are other elements, like wage and price inflation. Or insane policies that price 'renewables' based on the price of gas, because wind and solar use soo much gas as an input cost.. Handy for generating windfall profits though.
Inflation's got fuck all to do with "indexing to the price of energy". Whatever that means.
It means you know nothing about the energy market, or the CfD regime. On the one handy, the 'renewables' lobby tells us their product is getting ever cheaper, on the other, their CfDs are indexed linked. So if they're right, and their costs are really falling, indexed contracts are just easy profits. If they're right, they should accept an RPI or CPI- adjustment to reflect the falling cost and encourage efficiency savings.
No matter. Just blame all of this shit-show on immigrants. It's much easier than facing up to reality.
Nope, I pointed out that they're part of the problem. Skilled workers add value to the economy by doing useful work. Non-workers just cost the economy. Trade was an exclusive (in)competence of the EU, which means trade policy and agreements had to be negotiated between 28 member states with vastly different economies and economic interests. Now, they're bilateral deals between the UK and <whoever>. The UK can negotiate (or try to negotiate) a deal that's best for the UK, not best for Germany, France, Poland etc etc. Any incompetence in those deals will be exclusively the UK's problem.
JE spouting more bollox. As usual.
Ah, an ad hom attack that adds nothing to the conversation. I guess from your name, you believe in magic, whereas I have the bollox to face reality and state a point of view.
So back to magic. If the UK had remained in the EU, how would the government the UK people elected to represent them negotiate a trade deal with India, that benefitted the UK? Same with general foreign policy, or making decisions that are in the UK's interest when they're areas the EU's asserted exclusive (in)competency? Remember the fuss and whining from the EU when we negotiated and got the cough vaccine before the EU managed to do so? Or the deal Ursula von der Crazy negotiated on the entire EU's behalf?
Your delusion is off the scale. Since leaving the EU the UK has not negotiated any trade deals that benefit the UK.
Not me guv. I refer m'learned friend to say, this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS
The pact also includes cooperation on advanced cyber mechanisms, artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic, electronic warfare, innovation and information sharing. The pact will focus on military capability, separating it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that also includes New Zealand and Canada.
So a pretty good tech-based trade deal that had the advantage of annoying the French, who'd been annoying Australia for bolloxing up their submarine program. Also has many potential side benefits for Australia via stuff like SMRs or general civil nuclear power. Australia after all produces a fair amount of uranium. Plus it has the potential to reduce the cost of our Astute replacement. But not a deal that could have been done with our Commonwealth partners, because France-
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who told CNN that "one of our member states has been treated in a way that is not acceptable. ... We want to know what happened and why."
Ursula rarely knows what's happening, or why..
And there's no trade deal with India:
.. Yet. I'm also guessing you've never tried doing business in India, because if you had, you'd know the negotiating process tends to take time.
To perform in a tech deal, you need to have industries in that domain.Unfortunately, all of them are now US..
Nope. The UK does still have tech industries, like Rolls Royce, makers of the finest submersible kettles. Or BAE, which ok, is in the US but mainly for procurement reasons. Or there's a bunch of automotive and space industries..
Or for deals in general-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_agreements_of_the_United_Kingdom
Some of those are kinda novated across from the EU days, some are new.
1. This is an agreement about weaponry. It isn't a trade deal. These are when nation states reduce or eliminate tariffs between them, simplify customs arrangements, agree common standards for goods and services, etc. Which is a world away from "cooperation on advanced cyber mechanisms" and a long list of vague or meaningless buzzwords.
2. Snatching a sub contract from the French is all very well. However it'll have a minimal impact on our economy or the balance of payments. We're not going to reboot our economy or fix our horrific and structural balance of payments deficit by flogging a handful of subs to the Aussies.
3. Your references to "the potential to reduce the cost of our Astute replacement" is a desperate, flailing attempt to clutch at straws. Every MoD procurement turns out to be vastly over budget and years/decades late. The Astute replacement - now there's an oxymoron! - will be no different. BTW I'm a middle aged, unfit fat bastard who has the potential to win Olympic gold in the 100 metres. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.
"So government policy, which being goverment policy, government could correct."
A competent government could take a crack at correcting the problems, but this particular government is perfectly happy with nurses going to food banks while lowering the tax burden of the wealthy.
So, no, the current government has no plans to make any changes other than fucking the little guy just that tiny bit harder. Bastards, the lot of them.
> Food prices have gone up because of increased energy costs, worse exchange rates, higher transport/import duties as well as Brexit. These factors are largely a result of government policy failures too.
From the general tone of your post I think it's unintentional, but this seems to imply that the first three factors are independent of Brexit. Brexit was a major factor in the value of the pound dropping, and is surely relevant to the duties as well.
>And every illegal immigrant is entitled to free housing, healthcare, education.
Illegal immigrants, by bloody definition, are illegal and are not entitled to anything. There are an estimated 800,000 - 1.2million illegal immigrants who arrived with a valid visa and we don't know if they actually left. The largest group of these comes from the Indian subcontinent and many live with their families (who are here legally). When these are identified, they are processed for deportation.
What you are doing is conflating illegal immigrants with asylum seekers - who get 1/2 of bugger all until their claim is processed (housing - usually a single room - and £45/week on an Aspen card). Anyone, from any country, has the right to claim asylum at any country that is signed up to the UN Refugee Convention (UK is). So, you could go and claim asylum anywhere if you wanted to. The receiving government has the right to process that claim and accept or reject it. Our government has spent the last 13 years breaking the processing system to manufacture outrage so they can convince people to vote for them to fix something they have deliberately broken.
Needless to say, wrong.
The impact of Brexit on the UK labour market: an early assessment:
By September 2022, there was a significant shortfall of around 460,000 EU-origin workers, partly but not wholly compensated for by an increase of about 130,000 non-EU workers.
The cheap EU labour has gone for a few years now
My recent incarceration^W stay in hospital (courtesy of a pain-spasming old cat and a panic-bite where two canines (upper and lower) went into my let hand thumb joint - 2 stints in hospital, two operations to clean out the joint and enough intravenous antibiotics to float a small rowing boat..) showed me what a fairly mixed environment the nurses were - about 30% Indian subcontinent & Nepal, about 30% African and the other 40% various Europeans (mostly British but also Irish, Spanish and a couple of Germans).
In general it seemed to work - the ward had them paired off so that ones with more limited English were partnered with someone fluent that also spoke their language.
The ones with the best English skills? Undoubtedly those from Zimbabwe and South Africa.
>"The cheap EU labour has gone for a few years now. The supposedly artificially suppressed wages in the sectors you mention have not gone up. Explain.The cheap EU labour has gone for a few years now. The supposedly artificially suppressed wages in the sectors you mention have not gone up. Explain."
Too many years of institutionalised conservative thinking. Wage costs were kept down for many years by importing cheap labour, thus low wages in some sectors became the norm.
Cheap labour as you note dries up, first reaction is to increase the workload on remaining staff and only begrudgingly make token payments under duress.
Second reaction is to lobby government to facilitate the restoration of cheap labour imports and moan about how UK residents are lazy and wanting too much money.
After a few years you get to where the UK is now, "ancient" technology and working practises, too few workers and wages way out of line with reality. As the current government are slowly beginning to realise there are no quick fixes, a change in mindset and investment in people over many years (15 years in the case of the recently announced £36 bn NHS investment) is the solution.
Nothing artificial about it at all, for example seasonal jobs have been common for decades, long predating the EU. Ever heard of strawberry dodgers?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-49019716
NHS conditions were poor because of Tory policy / wilful underfunding.
'Even your salary is being supressed' By powerful corporations and Tory policy.
"So you prefer the useless idiots in the EU then.. yet you're still here."
I'm not, ditched the UK as soon as the Brexit farce became reality, worked in Germany and Netherlands so far, and at least their useless idiots get stuff done instead of trying to sell off anything public that's not nailed down, or tax cuts for the rich and dodgy deals for their mates down the pub.
No potholes in the roads in the EU countries I've been to (last time in the UK thought I'd been accidentally flown to one of the more isolated Greek islands on a bad weather day), as well as public transport that works and charges reasonable fares, my last council tax bill FOR THE YEAR was around 300 Euros.
If this is the consequence of having "useless EU idiots", I'll take them any day over the incompetent chinless inbred Eton rejects the UK is seemingly lumbered with!
I suppose thats what happens when you stood idly by and allowed the millions in that availed themselves of everything on offer because it was working for you.
No other Eu country provides a free at point of service healthcare system, how much is your Health insurance per year in your new home?
Of course with so many subscribers any system is going to get overloaded and degraded and if they are taking more out of the system than they contribute then yeah its going to get worse.
And if the EU was so great why are all the boats still coming why have so many from the EU stayed?
Actually selling off of public assets cheaply to corporations is an EU policy called "Market Liberalization", they tried it in Ireland when they tried to privatize the State owned water company but the decent Irish fought back and won it via a referendum.
After the EU is all about the Big Love isnt it. Enjoy your your new age cult.
No other Eu country provides a free at point of service healthcare system, how much is your Health insurance per year in your new home?
Couldn't be more wrong if you tried:
Health Insurance & Healthcare System in Europe
Hint. The text you are looking for in the table is "Mostly free with the exception of small service fees", like the NHS.
they tried it in Ireland when they tried to privatize the State owned water company but the decent Irish fought back and won it via a referendum.
So there you go, an EU country can have state-owned water companies. Also happens in Spain. There are others but I think I've hit my search quota today for trolls.
"how much is your Health insurance per year in your new home?"
Here in France, 70% is free (*) and medical top up covers the rest. My policy was about €25/month but a recentish law change means that I have to take the policy my employer offers, and they cover about 2/3rds of it.
* - major things like cancer are fully covered by the Sécu.
"And if the EU was so great why are all the boats still coming"
Probably because the UK is a bit of a soft touch, not to mention notoriously incompetent. I think the Home Office wants to dump all of them in Rwanda because it's not so important if they lose people when they're in a different country in a different continent.
"why have so many from the EU stayed?"
Probably the same reason I've stayed in France - it's where I've set up my life. This is where I call home now. For them, they probably think of the UK as home.
"Actually selling off of public assets cheaply to corporations is an EU policy"
Yeah. Whatever. Thatcher was doing it before the EU even existed.
"Enjoy your your new age cult."
The EU isn't perfect, far from it. But I'd rather them than the fucking Tories.
No potholes in the roads in the EU countries I've been to
Not been to Italy then? Riding over the Alps from Austia to Italy is a shock in terms of road conditions:
Austia - well tarmaced roads, proper armco to stop you going over the edge if you make a mistake. Good signage.
Italy - poor, uneven, potholed roads, no armco or signage.
I'm the original AC you replied to as opposed to the other AC who's in the EU. Yes, I do prefer the useless idiots in the EU. To answer your question you'll have to say where "here" is, but as I'm also in the EU the answer is probably going to be that I'm not "here".
"We were promised easier/more visa for Indians"...
The Brexiteers knowingly promised all sorts of things that were utter bollocks. Too many gullible/stupid people believed those lies.
As for your complaint about visas for Indians, get in the queue. I'm still waiting for the extra billions the Brexiteers promised for the NHS. IIRC that one was even on the side of a bus. Then there was "the easiest trade deal in history" that hasn't happened yet. Or the promises of pain-free travel between the UK and EU/EEA. Or...
> the contract went to the EU...
With post-CoViD PPE scandal hindsight, it does seem strange that this contract actually went to a company actually capable of delivering...
>And UK industry is in such a shape after Thatcher
The existing UK-based supplier lost because of price. Which suggests the problem isn't Thatcher but that the Conservatives still favour supposedly cheaper overseas businesses to the detriment of UK industry and then complain the welfare budget is too big because the British are lazy and overpaid, whilst awarding themselves a bigger slice of the tax take pot...
As much as I hate to side with the raving lunatics that still seem to think that Britain still rules the world and therefor the UK can do better without the EU, the wording on the bus was "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund the NHS instead".
It's evocative rhetoric but through luck or intention, does not mean that the NHS will get a single penny more.
To me, this means that about the only thing that camp leave didn't lie about was that they never promised to put that £350M/week into the NHS, they just implied it. Very strongly.
This post has been deleted by its author
> We were promised easier/more visa for Indians. This is a slap in the face to British Indians.
The hallmark of the Leave campaign was that people were "promised" lots of different, mutually contradictory things. In short, endless lies telling people what they'd be most likely to believe, aided by the wilful gullibility of people like yourself to selectively hear what you wanted to hear.
Lots of *other* people heard and believed the part about cutting down immigration and voted for Brexit on *that* basis.
(And a lot of your fellow Leave voters were stupid enough to believe it would cut down the number of brown-skinned people- i.e. from primarily non-European countries- coming in.)
All this was clear- and pointed out- to people like you at the time. You didn't want to hear it. Don't expect any sympathy for any perceived betrayal by those conmen now.
> This isn't the Brexit we voted for.
That's not the Brexit you wanted to think you were voting for. But whether or not you want to believe it, that's exactly the Brexit you actually did vote for. One where nothing more was agreed upon beyond the bare question of "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
Nothing planned, no agreed consensus on how it would work if Leave won, not even on whether they wanted a "hard" or "soft" Brexit, nothing. No chance of all those contradictory "promises" being met.
Which was why voting for Brexit as it stood was a fucking stupid idea, whether or not you wanted to leave the EU.
So, you got exactly the pig in a poke you voted for. If you don't like that, tough shit, you've been played, and you screwed it up for the rest of us in the process.
It seems to me most successful countries will bring in immigrants as a 'not quite slave labour' force to do all the shit and low paid jobs the natives don't want to do, freeing natives up to get educated, advance themselves, and make their countries world beating.
But brexiteers want to to give our high-paid and skilled jobs to foreign workers while forcing natives to do the shit jobs no one wants to do.
I was never convinced they were batting on our side.
Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Korea are working hard to entice and increase migrant labour to boost their economies, aware that quality labour at all levels and pay grades, is key to economic survival as Cold War II and deglobalisation progressively destroy growth.
Meanwhile, in late Victorian Britain, keeping Johnny Foreigner out at all costs leaves our imperial masters with three options:
- Workfare - forced labour in return for benefits. Very poor quality labour, inevitably.
- Days out for prisoners (as happened in some slaughterhouses during the pandemic). Like Russia drafting convicts but with more chance of survival.
- Decriminalising slave labour. Ethically tricky nowadays, but maybe with a bit of PR and some cute furry creatures in the ads. Cut your outgoings by selling your least promising child into slavery.
Or they could default to the inevitable and embrace our undeveloped third world future. They have taken us so far down hill, it seems a shame to leave the last mile to Max Headroom and Team Labour.
Well Orkney is throwing off centuries of foreign rule from Edinburgh and wants to take their oil and join Norway so I don't see any problem with Northern-exit to dump the Saxons and rejoin the Scandinavian empire
keeping Wessex and Mercia out
Which gives me a perfect opportunity to post (some of0 my favourite Saxon poem:
Efstað ye fyrdsmenne to þære ea
wyrmscipu wadaþ on infleowende flod
ure leaffule linde ond æscwude spere
eft scoldon we lædon to þæm hrimceald stæð
gedihtað þa scyldburh eaxlgesteallan
ær oþþe æfter ure lar beo cyðen
hie scoldon singan þe we forðferdon
for landum þe þa suna þære seaxe healden
https://www.reddit.com/r/anglosaxon/comments/1raj1i/saxon_war_song_shield_wall_translated_in_modern/
(sadly, yes, Reddit. Copy it before the site dies..)
I think I'd prefer a return to the Danelaw. Slaughtering Lancastrians would be a possibility but the priority would be keeping Wessex and Mercia out.
Come to think of it, it's been a few years since the Cornish marched on London
Kernow Bys Viken!
This country has not been able to feed its own population for almost a century. We are straining our water resources, our housing resources, our land resources, our transportation network, our health service, and everything else you can think of, because the population is already too high. Bringing in even more, when we are not capable of properly serving the people already here, is insanity.
As I said above, even ignoring immigration our population has increased because we're living longer but birth rates are falling. That means that the demand for services increases whilst the population supplying those services is shrinking (extending retirement age is unpopular). Household numbers are also increasing because there are more adults living singly.
Whatever your political inclinations those are the demographic trends you have to work with.
What's your solution to balancing those supply and demand factors?
I don't have one. All I can say for certain is that he current policy of trying to paper over the cracks, by constantly increasing the population through immigration, is not sustainable by any rational measure. There are simply not enough resources to support the current population.
Welcome to The Register, newcomer- and thank you for that, the fifth of eleven comments you've posted so far under an account that was only created this morning.
(More specifically, the fifth of eleven comments *all* posted within an hour of the account being set up.)
"At the same time, India is not in favor of the strong investment protection provisions the UK wants as a part of any potential deal. This is to provide UK businesses with assurances of fair and non-discriminatory treatment when operating in India, including access to adequate remedies such as an Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism."
ISDS can be a poison for any state that accepts it if it isn't very carefully worded. I understand the reluctance of a company to invest in a foreign country where the government and courts might screw over the foreign company. But the answer is for the 'host' country to get it's rule-of-law shit together, and any foreign company can simply decide not to invest if it thinks it's too risky. But setting up a system of secret "independent"* courts to adjudicate disputes between local governments and foreign companies is a perversion of sovereignty and rule of law.
*Each treaty is different in the details but many ISDS tribunal arbitrators are from the 'western' legal tradition and take a very broad scope on what a company can legitimately claim. eg there have been cases where a company has successfully sued the host country for tightening envorinmental regulations which damaged the company profits.
The Indian government is pushing many trading partners to allow Indians to freely travel and live in their countries because hundreds of millions of Indians are desperate to get out of that Hell-hole and are pushing their government to make this possible.
Countries like the U.S. can't be pushed around, but a smaller nation like the U.K. might be. Although the Government is currently resisting the push a deteriorating economic situation could alter their stance if India promises better market access.
That's a common misunderstanding in the West. India doesn't consider itself to be in the American camp nor in the Russian (formerly Soviet) camp. They consider themselves to be a camp of their own.
The big mistake the West made was to demand servitude during the Cold War, thereby creating a rift which has lasted three-quarters of a century. Even today the West is demanding servitude from India by demanding trade sanctions against Russia and condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine.
>The big mistake the West made was to demand servitude during the Cold War
Basically said, hello little brown guys, having thrown off your tea drinking foreign masters, welcome your new coffee drinking foreign masters.
When they said no, we magnanimously decided to arm Pakistan and support any of Pakistan 'unofficial freedom fighting' until it became obvious that Pakistan is a basket case and India is our only alternative to China for cheap labour on a massive scale to build iPhones and a large middle class market to buy iPhones
The U.S. Government had the motto: "If you're not for us, then you're against us!" So they thought: "If India doesn't want to play ball, maybe Pakistan (its arch-enemy) will." And they did.
Obviously the West didn't willingly support the Pakistani terrorist organizations, but did so indirectly by giving Pakistan economic and military aid. This was wrong in hindsight, but understandable as the Cold War was raging and because of the misinterpretation of India's stance.
And WTF are "trainee computing teachers entering schools"? Is this another "cars are the future, everybody must be taught automotive engineering" bullshit?
Pupils in schools need to be taught how to ******USE***** computers in the same way that 100 years ago they needed to be taught how to drag a pen across a sheet of paper and make meaningful marks. But should pupils be taught how to reset passwords and change toner cartridges *in* *school* because *some of them* may end up working doing that? Or be taught programming *in* *school* because even fewer may end up employed doing that? As part of the general curriculum? Because we use electricity to light our homes, schools need to teach pupils electrical engineering? Those that are intested in it, and have the aptitude for it, will be learning themseleces outside school, *despite* the school curriculum, not because of anything in it.
Yes they need to be taught programming so that they understand that computers just follow precise instructions, and errors, given by programmers - so when a government proposes some computer system to do XYZ they know to laugh.
And they should be taught where electricity comes from so when idiots say we can replace all powerstations running on XYZ with magic unicorns they also know to laugh.
But you can leave out all that stuff about ox-bow lakes, nobody needs to know that.
>But you can leave out all that stuff about ox-bow lakes, nobody needs to know that.
However, everyone does need to know about the Battle of Agincourt and how the plucky English won against the French. Although, for obvious reasons, there is no need to for the siege of Orléans to be taught.
School children need to be taught that sieges rarely work out for the attackers - if we are going to retake Normandy.
The French should also learn from Crecy and Agincourt to have a plan beyond a disorganized charge at an enemy well equipped with effective projectile weapons (also known as: don't get into an arse kicking contest with a porcupine)
I didn't quite realize that Brexit wasn't the just product of a few faredge nutters but now appears to me, from the preceding posts, that it was likely the product of a number chronic cancers in English society and the ripping apart of poorly formed scars which, if not resolved this time, will disolve the UK and relegate England to NZ status in the national league tables.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
