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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
