Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seriously? You know that that 8m is made up of students, disabled, sick, carers etc.

So more costs on employers and the government are going to pitch in? IS that going to come from the promised NHS budget?

how many students, disabled, sick and carers do you think are in that 8 million ?

what is it you want, all theyre doing is putting people who can work and don't into training and not allowing unskilled migrants in , its nowhere near the 'anti poor racist tyrade' you make it out to be.

if you think a skills wall is racist then it says more about what you think of migrants than the british government.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

how many students, disabled, sick and carers do you think are in that 8 million ?

what is it you want, all theyre doing is putting people who can work and don't into training and not allowing unskilled migrants in , its nowhere near the 'anti poor racist tyrade' you make it out to be.

if you think a skills wall is racist then it says more about what you think of migrants than the british government.

I want you to actually have something other than a headline to base your opinion.

I never mentioned the word racist. Why did you bring it up?

It a poor attempt to move the conversation away from your inability to actually provide any backup to your position by trying to turn the debate into a snowflake contest.

Why do you think this policy, as it was stated today, is a good thing? All the evidence says that immigration is a net positive to a country, particularly the UK.

CelticRambler

Eric Cartman wrote: »

since when.... unskilled migrants are net detractors from economies.

It depends on where they come from. Unskilled EU migrants are/were net contributors, but they've been told to feck off back to the Continent so that the UK can import more unskilled migrants from outside the EU - the ones that cost the UK more.

Only now it seems that they're not welcome either, and the UK wants to try to bully businesses into taking on the type of worker who has a proven track record of not wanting - or not being able - to do the kind of work that's on offer.

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

I want you to actually have something other than a headline to base your opinion.

I never mentioned the word racist. Why did you bring it up?

It a poor attempt to move the conversation away from your inability to actually provide any backup to your position by trying to turn the debate into a snowflake contest.

Why do you think this policy, as it was stated today, is a good thing? All the evidence says that immigration is a net positive to a country, particularly the UK.

what evidence, this evidence is never presented. And i don't mean a morning star / guardian article or a figure that lumps in EU and non EU migrants together, I know britain isnt in the EU but when you take the eastern europeans out of migration labour stats they very very quickly fall into the 'detractor' side.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Name calling isn't a substitute for an argument however.

Neither is misrepresenting posts.

theological wrote: »

The funding model for care going forward is the can that is kicked down the road. Again and again and again. I agree it needs to be dealt with irrespective of its unpopularity.

But it won't and this will make it both harder and more expensive.

theological wrote: »

If the government's plans go through firms like it are going to have to become better at training British workers. In the original article Patel claims that there are 8 million economically inactive people between 16 and 64. I'd be interested to know the source of that, but if true there's definitely workers to be used.

I agree broadly speaking that post-Brexit it should not be easier to hire someone outside of Britain than someone in the country. Companies wishing to participate in the British economy should be willing to hire and train British workers.

The UK government's apprenticeship programme is brilliant from what I have seen of it. If your salary bill is over £3mn you need to either spend 0.5% of your salary bill on an apprenticeship programme. It means that the big companies are also playing a part and providing a different pathway into work.

There's much more that can be done here.

British workers evidently do not want various jobs that many immigrants take. You can increase salaries to offset this but this means passing the expense onto the consumer. There's only so much people will be willing to pay for their Pret lattes.

Regarding the 8 million:

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1230083882931847169?s=20

CelticRambler

Eric Cartman wrote: »

what evidence, this evidence is never presented.

Loads of it was presented in the earlier Brexit threads (real facts and figures). If you can't be bothered to look for it there, neither can I ...

Eric Cartman

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/bulletins/youngpeoplenotineducationemploymentortrainingneet/february2019

There were 788,000 young people (aged 16 to 24 years) in the UK who were not in education, employment or training (NEET); this number increased by 31,000 from July to September 2018 but was down 5,000 when compared with October to December 2017.
The percentage of all young people in the UK who were NEET was 11.3%; the proportion was up 0.5 percentage points from July to September 2018 and up 0.1 percentage points from October to December 2017.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/economicinactivity/datasets/economicinactivitybyreasonseasonallyadjustedinac01sa

22% of economically impacted people want a job
77% of economically active do not want to work
also as a note the economic inactivity rate only includes the unemployed if they admit they don't want to work and students also counts those on jobcentre courses required to maintain your benefits...


https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ukandnonukpeopleinthelabourmarket/february2020

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Neither is misrepresenting posts.

But it won't and this will make it both harder and more expensive.

British workers evidently do not want various jobs that many immigrants take. You can increase salaries to offset this but this means passing the expense onto the consumer. There's only so much people will be willing to pay for their Pret lattes.

Regarding the 8 million:

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1230083882931847169?s=20

You do realise that there is a Britain outside of London?

Yes Pret will have to train British workers first in the same way that other firms like Greggs don't seem to have much difficulty with.

Another downside of freedom of movement is that it has made employers lazy about recruitment because it meant that you could take EU workers first rather than making the effort to train domestic staff first.

I'm actually slightly softer on this issue than Patel, I think there probably should be a visa for low skilled workers, but recruitment efforts should start with domestic staff. This is similar to migration approaches in other countries outside of the EU.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

You do realise that there is a Britain outside of London?

You do realise that I never said Britain's borders were coterminous with those of London?

theological wrote: »

Yes Pret will have to train British workers first in the same way that other firms like Greggs don't seem to have much difficulty with.

Another downside of freedom of movement is that it has made employers lazy about recruitment because it meant that you could take EU workers first rather than making the effort to train domestic staff first.

I'm actually slightly softer on this issue than Patel, I think there probably should be a visa for low skilled workers, but recruitment efforts should start with domestic staff. This is similar to migration approaches in other countries outside of the EU.

You've dodged my point. Do British workers want to be carers and baristas?

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You do realise that I never said Britain's borders were coterminous with those of London?



You've dodged my point. Do British workers want to be carers and baristas?

Low end jobs are not about what you want to do, its about your duty to do a job to sustain yourself and your family, choosing to work is not an option you get to make unless you can support yourself with other money not from the state safety net.

First Up

Eric Cartman wrote:

what evidence, this evidence is never presented. And i don't mean a morning star / guardian article or a figure that lumps in EU and non EU migrants together, I know britain isnt in the EU but when you take the eastern europeans out of migration labour stats they very very quickly fall into the 'detractor' side.

The UK's Migration Advisory Committee has produced lots of evidence. Have a look at it.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You do realise that I never said Britain's borders were coterminous with those of London?

When you are talking about Pret lattes you give that impression. Apologies.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've dodged my point. Do British workers want to be carers and baristas?

Plenty do and plenty are actually. The first opportunity for more in a post-Brexit environment should be given to them first also like how it is in other non-EU countries.

Eric Cartman

First Up wrote: »

The UK's Migration Advisory Committee has produced lots of evidence. Have a look at it.

if you look above youll see ive posted a load from the office of national statistics and it doesnt look good for non EU immigrants...

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

When you are talking about Pret lattes you give that impression. Apologies.

It was just an example, nothing more.

theological wrote: »

Plenty do and plenty are actually. The first opportunity for more in a post-Brexit environment should be given to them first also like how it is in other non-EU countries.

Do they? One would expect to see more of them if this were the case.

weisses

Lets see how Johnson will get all the people on the dole into low skilled employment ....

Give it a couple of months ...Then the whinge starts that all the good jobs are taken up by educated foreigners

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It was just an example, nothing more.

Do they? One would expect to see more of them if this were the case.

We must be living in different parallel worlds if you think there's somehow a lack of British people working in the caring profession.

It might be information to you to know that there aren't a lot of Pret stores outside of London.

Now - more seriously. Will it be an adjustment from moving from the presumption of taking EU labour without question? Yes. Will this be a bad thing? Probably not if it is done correctly. I think having no unskilled visa at all is probably a bit too strong though.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if you look above youll see ive posted a load from the office of national statistics and it doesnt look good for non EU immigrants...

Which the UK had full control over and Brexit was never needed to control it.

The statistics show that EU immigration was a positive, so why go to all this trouble to deal with a problem that doesn't even exist.

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which the UK had full control over and Brexit was never needed to control it.

The statistics show that EU immigration was a positive, so why go to all this trouble to deal with a problem that doesn't even exist.

slow down those goalposts, almost took my arm off they moved so fast.

could britain have done this exact policy while in the EU ?

weisses

Leroy42 wrote: »

The statistics show that EU immigration was a positive, so why go to all this trouble to deal with a problem that doesn't even exist.

Because somehow they had a deluded idea that they needed their country back

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

slow down those goalposts, almost took my arm off they moved so fast.

could britain have done this exact policy while in the EU ?

Question should be if it was needed RE eu migration

theological

Eric Cartman wrote: »

slow down those goalposts, almost took my arm off they moved so fast.

could britain have done this exact policy while in the EU ?

It's worth pointing out that EU migration is different to non-EU migration also.

Leroy42 knows that all non-EU visas are time limited and salary bounded. There is no unskilled visa for non-EU immigration. There is a salary cap at £30k which will be reduced to £25k.

This means that non-EU citizens tend to go home after their visas run out if they are not needed to stay on in the UK after finishing. The same is not true of EU migration which is unconditional on salary and not time bounded.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

slow down those goalposts, almost took my arm off they moved so fast.

could britain have done this exact policy while in the EU ?

No. There was no need to. Just as they don't need to do it now. And they could have done more to deal with EU immigration as well, Belgium only allow 3 months without a job for instance.

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Question should be if it was needed RE eu migration

I dont think anyone has ever had an issue with genuine EU migrants. Brexit and this policy are about establishing a skills wall to keep out the hoards of non eu migrants and transient migrants who have EU asylum.

to clarify I think brexit was a dumb idea mis sold to the people, but this immigration policy being adopted by the whole EU could have tipped the balance of that vote back, theres no doubt that inaction on problematic non eu immigration played a significant role on brexit.

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont think anyone has ever had an issue with genuine EU migrants. Brexit and this policy are about establishing a skills wall to keep out the hoards of non eu migrants and transient migrants who have EU asylum.

Tell that to the British

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/eu-nationals-feeling-unwelcome-in-the-uk/

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Tell that to the British

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/eu-nationals-feeling-unwelcome-in-the-uk/

well then thats another bad decision by them but sure that immigration policy should improve things.

First Up

Eric Cartman wrote:

I dont think anyone has ever had an issue with genuine EU migrants. Brexit and this policy are about establishing a skills wall to keep out the hoards of non eu migrants and transient migrants who have EU asylum.

Unless they have an EU passport they were always subject to UK immigration controls, same as non - EU immigrants were - and are.

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

to clarify I think brexit was a dumb idea mis sold to the people, but this immigration policy being adopted by the whole EU could have tipped the balance of that vote back, theres no doubt that inaction on problematic non eu immigration played a significant role on brexit.

It was a cluster**** .... to put it mildly

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

It was a cluster**** .... to put it mildly

and if they pull it off youll have a few other countries repeating it to try avoid the scourge of non EU migrants flooding countries.

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well then thats another bad decision by them but sure that immigration policy should improve things.

If you get people on the dole who are able to work off their lazy arses

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

If you get people on the dole who are able to work off their lazy arses

thats part of the governments plan,

step 1 : stop importing more people who do nothing
step 2 : get your current do nothings to do something.