[Politics] Brexit

[beorhthelm]

just a reminder that The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill was passed by Parliament, 494 to 122. no, it didnt give anymore provision than the referendum to how that will be delivered, and yes the government was forced to ask parliament etc. but its very odd to continue to argue about the role of parliament when it decided to continue with the withdrawal.

 

[A1X]

[TWEET]1006803255870066689[/TWEET]

 

[Baldseagull]

Do Turkeys vote for Christmas?
When you have a massive bureaucratic gravy train to jump aboard and earn enormous salaries for a few hours consultative work, its hardly surprising. Or be made a European Minister and put in the occasional appearance to ensure you claim vast expenses plus a six figure salary for sweet f..a....Its the status quo. It protects and enriches those within it. Many disagree with the idea of a federalist superstate but they are too greedy and self centred and keep their powder dry and play along with the game.
The EU is a comfort blanket for many. They cannot see beyond it. They live in a micro rather than a macro world. They feel Europe is the centre of the Universe and only does them good. They don't stop to think that Brussels has put all its energies into sweeping away barriers to free trade in goods, which is beneficial to manufacturing countries like Germany ( surprise, surprise ) The UK is different. Our strength is in services. We are in surplus in the EU and all over the World in providing services. We are in huge deficit in goods. For as long as we stay in the EU, our trade deficit will just get worse and worse.
Many claim that the result in 2016 was caused by ignorance and bigotry. If there is another referendum, maybe the Leave campaign should just put out a simple poster that says....." Your choice. To stay in a club whose trading rules, amplify our weaknesses and nullify our strengths, at vast cost to this country or leave and seek a better deal. A deal that suits our country better. Your choice. "

Your post, I am sorry to say, shows your ignorance.

 

[Yoda]

There are skilled engineers all over the world. The only trouble is that we are forced to concentrate on recruiting mainly from within the EU. Its called protectionism.

Indeed - thank god Javid has ripped up Rudd's plans and instead will introduce equal immigration rules across the board - no more favourtism to EU citizens. It'll the annoy the EU like hell but tough.

You two should become MP's. You're great at lying to try and make your point.

Immigration from non-EU Countries has almost been on a par (until last year when it overtook) with EU Countries. There is no "Forced to concentrate on recruiting from EU Countries".

 

[CHAPPERS]

You two should become MP's. You're great at lying to try and make your point.

Immigration from non-EU Countries has almost been on a par (until last year when it overtook) with EU Countries. There is no "Forced to concentrate on recruiting from EU Countries".

http://www.cityam.com/287300/britains-economic-growth-being-stifled-visa-red-tape

Political momentum is building to take a fresh look at visa restrictions on international recruitment of skilled people.

The most media coverage has rightly been given to the refusal of 1,500 doctors, which the NHS desperately needs. But the government’s strict attitude to migration is causing problems across business professions and public services.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering has revealed that thousands of highly skilled workers from outside the EU have been refused visas in recent months due to the monthly cap on so-called “Tier 2” visas.

The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request, shows that engineering, technology, IT and medical roles are particularly affected, making up over half of the 6,080 applications refused between December and March.

A third of refusals were in medical-related roles (1,880) and a further quarter in engineering, tech and IT (1,638). The cap continues to be exceeded and over half of applications are now refused each month.

As well as the significant impact on medical and technical roles, large numbers of visas have been refused for professions such as accountants, management consultants, and business analysts, as well as public services, notably teachers.

This is an old policy, but a relatively new problem. David Cameron’s 2010 manifesto promised to put a “cap on migration”. In 2011, the Home Office, under Theresa May, introduced a portfolio of measures including an annual cap on recruitment of non-EU skilled workers, which currently stands at 20,700 per year.

Since then, the situation has become urgent – the cap has been exceeded every month since December 2017, with no sign of demand abating.

Some politicians have called for special exemptions for doctors. Of course, the UK needs a migration system that allows recruitment of the medical specialists it needs. But an exemption for medical roles alone would leave the impact of the cap on businesses and other public services unresolved.

As former home secretary Amber Rudd said in the House of Commons last week, the government must “bear in mind the needs of the private sector and ensure that any solution does not merely put more pressure on the Tier 2 visa cap”.

The solution my organisation favours, along with many others, is to use the Government’s Shortage Occupation List to guide the process, and to exempt roles on this list from the cap, along with PhD-level roles. This would require only a minor change to regulation, and could be implemented swiftly.

There is precedent too, as visas for workers paid more than £159,600 are already excluded.

The upcoming visa rule change expected later this month would be an ideal opportunity to make this reform. This would relieve pressure on the cap and create the headroom for other vital roles to be given due consideration.

Some might balk at an immigration rule change for fear of public reaction. But polls routinely show overwhelming support for continued immigration of skilled workers, particularly scientists and engineers, with consistent approval of over 80 per cent.

It is hard to imagine the frustration of employers and candidates affected by this cap. Employers must recruit in the UK first, and only if there is no suitable candidate found can they turn to the international route. Visa refusals due to the cap block employers at the last hurdle of a long recruitment process.

The issue of why employers are unable to find suitable candidates for these roles in the UK is an important one. In science and engineering, there is an obstinate problem of lack of diversity of people studying and working in the sector.

This clearly needs addressing, and we must certainly look to develop homegrown skills where there are gaps. However, we must also welcome great people from around the world where they are needed and want to contribute to the UK.

It doesn’t have to be an “either, or” – a creative, innovative, thriving Britain needs both.

The Prime Minister is vocal on her ambition for the UK to be a leader in research and innovation, a central pillar of her modern industrial strategy. This will require both a pragmatic and proportionate migration system, and also a global charm offensive to attract the most talented people to the UK.

A visa change such as this would remove the growing frustrations of employers at a stroke and would send a powerful message to the global talent market.

In the long term, an immigration system for a Global Britain that supports research and innovation should not feature a cap on the international specialists we want to attract.

Refining visa rules in this way would enhance prospects for raising productivity, would support the industrial strategy, and would be welcomed by businesses and the public alike.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You two should become MP's. You're great at lying to try and make your point.

Immigration from non-EU Countries has almost been on a par (until last year when it overtook) with EU Countries. There is no "Forced to concentrate on recruiting from EU Countries".

Where have I said it was forced ? My point was that Rudd's plans were to provide favourable visa conditions to EU residents after exit and Javid isn't going to.

 

[nicko31]

[TWEET]1006803255870066689[/TWEET]

Hard to believe, such a patriot

 

[nicko31]

Again, you misunderstand the role of Parliament. Parliament never signed up to handing over control of whether or how the UK might exit the EU, nor what it might mean if the UK were to stay within the EU. What David Cameron may have uttered has absolutely nothing to do with the role of Parliament. He's just one bloke, and Parliament is Sovereign. I find it extraordinary that so many people see to want to ride roughshod over our long-standing democratic process in pursuit of a dogma that is the strongly held belief of a minority of people in the UK. Parliament was originally established to ensure that a minority - the Monarch - could not enforce his or her rule over the majority. It still has that role today, and the whole of Parliament must now ensure that decisions are taken in the best interests of the UK. The referendum was a signal, never an instruction nor a guidebook as to how or whether the UK exited the EU.

Some on here would prefer we had mob rule instead. The country still owes a debt of gratitude to Gina Miller!!

 

[ManOfSussex]

Where have I said it was forced ? My point was that Rudd's plans were to provide favourable visa conditions to EU residents after exit and Javid isn't going to.

'Favourable visa conditions to EU residents'. Interesting. Is Javid proposing 'Settled Status' being dropped then?

Again, as the white paper on immigration has never been published despite being due last summer as there is still no cabinet agreement on it and arrangements for EU nationals after Brexit, both those already in The UK and not, is still subject to negotiation, with The EU having a standpoint on it and the little matter of UK's citizens arrangements with The EU, as well as those already living and working there still to be resolved, whatever Javid or Rudd were or are reported to be favouring and your preference on it doesn't matter a great deal in the scheme of things.

 

[WATFORD zero]

And I refer you to the Prime Minister's speech, immediately before the referendum:

"So as you take this decision – whether to remain or leave – do think about the hopes and dreams of your children and grandchildren. They know their chances to work, to travel, to build the sort of open and successful society they want to live in, rests on this outcome.And remember: they can’t undo the decision we take.
If we vote out, that’s it. It is irreversible. We will leave Europe – for good
For the next two days, up and down the country…in homes, in pubs, in the staff room at work, on the train on the way home…the conversations will continue: in or out? But on Thursday, those conversations will stop.

There you have it - Parliament voted to let the British people decide. Have to admit, though, that Cameron's final sentence there was way off the mark!

He also said that he would trigger article 50 the day after the election which would mean we are leaving the EU Sunday week. I don't know how to break this to you but

 

[Ernest]

The JOCKOS are SEETHING

 

[Two Professors]

The JOCKOS are SEETHING

Gone to the pub early.Bet they still claim allowances for a full day,though.Shame they don't have to clock in and out.

 

[Two Professors]

A bit of reality starting to dawn on some now.Kopparberg moving production to the UK after Brexit.Perhaps Mercedes should think about it,as well!

 

[WATFORD zero]

And this whole sad state of affairs is still only about us trying to find our way to the negotiating table

 

[Westdene Seagull]

A bit of reality starting to dawn on some now.Kopparberg moving production to the UK after Brexit.Perhaps Mercedes should think about it,as well!

Wetherspoons dumping EU brands in favour of UK ones

 

[nicko31]

Wetherspoons dumping EU brands in favour of UK ones

Desperate

 

[Two Professors]

Desperate

Then leave while you still can.No need to raise your hand

 

[Dorset Seagull]

If you could have predicted the worst shambles over this negotiation it wouldn’t have come close to the reality

 

[Simster]

I think the point is that whilst some industries will move here, others will move away. It's not going to be a case of every single company moving in one direction or the other.

But I just don't see how, faced with a choice of a market of 400m or a market of 60m people, any company selling across Europe (the geographical entity) would choose to build their next shiny new factory in the UK after Brexit.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Desperate

It's not desperate, it's good for UK brands.