Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
There's only so many 'good jobs' to go around though. And lets be fair the majority don't have 'good jobs'. A point raised above about those in well paid 'soft' jobs having a lot of influence but largely being out of touch with the ordinary worker is true in my opinion.
Brexit-supporting Simon Wolfson says he needs to bring cheap foreign labour in because he can't get staff for his business. He says closing off migration isn't the Brexit he wanted.
Next retail jobs pay minimum wage- and not a penny more.
It's not about "well paid soft jobs", nor is it about being "out of touch". People like Wolfson are all too happy to make huge profits off the back of cheap migrant labour. And if people get angry at the migrants and get angry at the EU then they're not getting angry at Wolfson.
Brexit-supporting Simon Wolfson says he needs to bring cheap foreign labour in because he can't get staff for his business. He says closing off migration isn't the Brexit he wanted.
Next retail jobs pay minimum wage- and not a penny more.
It's not about "well paid soft jobs", nor is it about being "out of touch". People like Wolfson are all too happy to make huge profits off the back of cheap migrant labour. And if people get angry at the migrants and get angry at the EU then they're not getting angry at Wolfson.
The EU haven't behaved unreasonably in any of this. They've just got on with life, without the UK. It's almost as though trade with Europe is more important to the UK than trade with the UK is to Europe. But this too was "Project Fear".
That's a curious way to describe an organisation that continues to exploit Northern Ireland's position in the UK for their own ends, to harm the UK, regardless of the efforts the UK has made to keep the peace there.
I wish the Brexitists would hurry up and get to the buyer's remorse stage, then we can start to fix their mess. Until then, I think it does need to remain the elephant in the room.
Extraordinarily arrogant, and likely deliberately insulting? Another characteristic of the eminently dislikeable Remainiac campaign. If it came to being a true real disaster, there could be no real regret as the people who should have been putting their efforts into making this country successful (rather than abusing their positions to undermine it) would be suffering along wth us. In fact maybe finding a way and impetus to have a proper clear out is just what the country really needs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So you want slave labour that will work for pennies and send the money home. How enlightened.
The influx of ridiculously cheap labour might benefit you, but no one else. Including the growing number of NEETs who in times gone by would have entered the workforce via these routes until they were displaced.
I'm unsure what you mean by "source" and I'm unsure what you expect to be provided. I suspect you're simply using a standard derailment tactic. I note that you don't put forward your own hypothesis as to why people voted Brexit, perhaps you should?
Repeated studies have shown that Brexit voters, by demographic, were from poorer socio-economic groups, worked in lower-skill jobs, and had fewer formal qualifications. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation carried out research which showed a direct link between the deprivation level of an area and the support for Leave.
This report provides unprecedented insight into the dynamics of the 2016 vote to leave the EU, showing how a lack of opportunity across the country led to Brexit.
www.jrf.org.uk
Immigration is the other big factor. I think- but cannot prove- most anti-immigrant opinion is economic in nature: "taking our jobs/houses/schools". The alternative, of course, is that anti-immigrant opinion is racist or xenophobic, and I simply don't think it is.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm unsure what you mean by "source" and I'm unsure what you expect to be provided. I suspect you're simply using a standard derailment tactic. I note that you don't put forward your own hypothesis as to why people voted Brexit, perhaps you should?
Repeated studies have shown that Brexit voters, by demographic, were from poorer socio-economic groups, worked in lower-skill jobs, and had fewer formal qualifications. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation carried out research which showed a direct link between the deprivation level of an area and the support for Leave.
When you categorically state and insist you know why most people voted Leave, asking for your source that proves this fact is obvious and easy to provide if you have one. You are entitled to your hypothesis, but not to present it as a fact.
I know what people tell me about why they voted the way they did. I don't care to share their thoughts with you, I'm certain they wouldn't care to either. Your attitude to their choice is arrogant, superior and unpleasant.
Your correlation of demographic data with what you assume this tells you about what people deal with and think as they are voting, with nothing else to support your assumptions, is therefore (very) limited by your own understanding. It's also prejudice.
That's a curious way to describe an organisation that continues to exploit Northern Ireland's position in the UK for their own ends, to harm the UK, regardless of the efforts the UK has made to keep the peace there.
If the UK wishes to be outside of the EU customs area then there will be a customs border. That will either be in the Irish Sea or it will be on the land border. The UK agreed for it to be in the Irish Sea and then proceeded to renege on their promise.
Brexit-supporting Simon Wolfson says he needs to bring cheap foreign labour in because he can't get staff for his business. He says closing off migration isn't the Brexit he wanted.
Next retail jobs pay minimum wage- and not a penny more.
It's not about "well paid soft jobs", nor is it about being "out of touch". People like Wolfson are all too happy to make huge profits off the back of cheap migrant labour. And if people get angry at the migrants and get angry at the EU then they're not getting angry at Wolfson.
Well he's also part of the problem. I'm angry with him alright. Maybe if his ethos was not about paying the bare minimum whilst expecting the maximum from his shop floor staff things may be better for everyone. You also need to remember, even those from Eastern Europe were walking away from those kinds of job long before the brexit vote. They had cottoned on that minimum UK wage may translate to a very decent earner back home. However take your living costs out of the equation and it's not a very good deal. They were becoming aware of this.
If the UK wishes to be outside of the EU customs area then there will be a customs border. That will either be in the Irish Sea or it will be on the land border. The UK agreed for it to be in the Irish Sea and then proceeded to renege on their promise.
You couldn't support the UK if you tried could you?
The stupid May agreement effectively conceded N Ireland to the EU, and was entirely a product of Remainers. Both in its form, its weakness and unbalanced nature and by its necessity (where lawfare and aggressive campaigning was being used to thwart democracy).
The UK has a unilateral sovereign right to withdraw. But in fact the episode I'm talking about was the EU's attempt to unilaterally cancel the agreement as an act of economic aggression when it didn't get what it wanted with its mishandled covid vaccine procurement...
Bet you hoped we'd forgotten all about that. You clearly had.
On the matter of the customs border, and the "need" for one. In fact, the UK and ROI have a CTA agreement that predates the EEC. The UK would be perfectly entitled to have no such customs borders at all, and live with uncontrolled cross-border trade as a fact of life. As many countries around the world do. This would have put the problem solely on the ROI, who would have to square that with their bosses' demands, and make some awkward choices (comply and erect their own one way border and lose the UK CTA, ignore their EU bosses, or also leave the EU).
The UK hasn't done that, instead has tried to prioritise political stability on the island. But I expect to you our country is still the unreasonable party...
Rubbish! People voted to leave because they wanted an end to freedom of movement, or because they wanted to remove EU bureaucracy, or because they wanted to return powers to Westminster, or because they wanted trade rebalanced to favour the rest of the World outside the EU. Those were the things that the Leave campaign in 2016 was focusing on. No-one was saying, let's leave the EU because we want to make trade more difficult. That was just an unfortunate unwanted but unavoidable consequence of getting the other things that people did want.
I think it is unrealistic- to put it politely- to expect an organisation to give you all the benefits of membership without accepting any of the obligations.
If you cancel your gym membership they don't let you in for free. If you cancel Sky then Rupert doesn't let you watch the F1 for nowt.
The EU haven't behaved unreasonably in any of this. They've just got on with life, without the UK. It's almost as though trade with Europe is more important to the UK than trade with the UK is to Europe. But this too was "Project Fear".
Sure, and you may note that I didn't say the EU was unreasonable. The EU had their red lines, and a big one was essentially, no single market membership without freedom of movement. The UK also had its red lines, one of which was, insisting on an end to freedom of movement. Both sides had perfectly good reasons for having those red lines. But the only possible result consistent with everyone's red lines was the UK leaving the single market, which is therefore what happened.
If there are no jobs to fill, they won't be able to settle, as FOM rules stated that an EU country could deport EU citizens from other member states after 3 months if they were not contributing to the economy (i.e. not working), unless they were not a burden on state support/social security. When it comes to immigration generally the way to cut it is to take away the demand, and that means to stop growing the economy ad infinitum.
"To get A I'm prepared to do B" is, ultimately, a choice for B.
But getting back to the Labour Party, I do think that accepting the Brexit situation and trying to make the best of it is the best course politically. I'd dearly love to wind the clock back to 2016 and get a different result. But that battle is done.
87 As regards the limitations and conditions resulting from the provisions of secondary legislation, Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364 provides that Member States can require of the nationals of a Member State who wish to enjoy the right to reside within their territory that they themselves and the members of their families be covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence.
So rather than a simple test of being employed, you have to check whether a person can support themselves and presumably keep checking if circumstances change.
I don’t know what other EU countries do, but the UK doesn’t appear to have much of a system for doing those sorts of checks. I suspect it would be seen as grossly invasive if they tried. I recall there was much surprise from some people applying for Settled Status that they were supposed to show they had previously had private health insurance to cover the period when initially moving to the UK.
A Home Office policy to deport rough sleepers from countries in the European Economic Area (EEA) has been ruled unlawful by the high court after a challenge brought on behalf of two Polish men and a Latvian.
Since 2016 the Home Office has designated rough sleeping as an abuse of EU free movement rights in its administrative removal policy.
The court ruled that the Home Office’s position was contrary to EU law. It also found the policy was discriminatory and amounted to an unlawful systematic verification of the EEA nationals’ rights to reside.
You would think that being homeless would be pretty clear evidence that someone is not supporting themselves and therefore a slam dunk when it comes to whether they can take advantage of FOM.
Indeed. And as far as I'm aware, the ballot box choice was Leave or Remain. "Hard" or "soft", "Leave-ish but not really" didn't come into it. Everyone who voted Leave voted for a "hard" exit by its very definition.
Rubbish! People voted to leave because they wanted an end to freedom of movement, or because they wanted to remove EU bureaucracy, or because they wanted to return powers to Westminster, or because they wanted trade rebalanced to favour the rest of the World outside the EU. Those were the things that the Leave campaign in 2016 was focusing on. No-one was saying, let's leave the EU because we want to make trade more difficult. That was just an unfortunate unwanted but unavoidable consequence of getting the other things that people did want.
So now there's no freedom of movement those people must be happy right? I mean they wanted immigration to more than double to 500k non Europeans coming here instead right? Right?!
You would think that being homeless would be pretty clear evidence that someone is not supporting themselves and therefore a slam dunk when it comes to whether they can take advantage of FOM.
Note, though, that this was the UK High Court ruling on actions taken by the UK government. So still a UK issue. Also, reading a bit further down the article:
The Home Office launched Operations Adoze and Gopik to remove rough sleepers from the UK even if they were working or had permanent right of residence.
The evidence showed that the initial questioning and verification was part of a blanket policy, which only occurred because, under the terms of the policy, EEA nationals rough sleeping were presumed to be abusing their rights of residence.
That's the reason the policy was deemed to be a violation of their rights - detention on the presumption that they were doing something illegal based on their nationality.
So now there's no freedom of movement those people must be happy right? I mean they wanted immigration to more than double to 500k non Europeans coming here instead right? Right?!
Which questions whether the authorities have acted out of spite? Or of course, whether their grand economic plan still relies on keeping British house prices as high as possible? This achieved by keeping the population levels artificially high and then playing the (valid) environmental card when it comes to building houses.
So now there's no freedom of movement those people must be happy right? I mean they wanted immigration to more than double to 500k non Europeans coming here instead right? Right?!
Oh for Goodness sake! How many times does this red herring keep coming up?
As is very well documented, immigration went up last year because of non-EU migration that had nothing to do with Brexit and would therefore have happened whether or not we left the EU. If we hadn't left the EU then we'd have had that high non-EU migration PLUS in all probability the usual rate of EU migration - which if I recall correctly was typically running at 200-300K /year before Brexit, so we can surmise that without Brexit, net migration last year could plausibly have been something like 700-800K. Brexit therefore allowed us to avoid that.
And by the way, for what it's worth, I don't think net migration of 500K/year is at all sustainable (it would amount to almost a 10% population rise over 10 years - and I can't see any sensible way that you could build homes and infrastructure fast enough to cope, even if the Government was more on the ball about infrastructure. I'd therefore be concerned if it looked like 500K/year was going to continue permanently. However it does like that 500K figure was bumped up by big one-off factors (Ukraine, Hong Kong and the end of Covid) so my suspicion is that that it's likely to fall back to more sustainable levels anyway.
And by the way, for what it's worth, I don't think net migration of 500K/year is at all sustainable (it would amount to almost a 10% population rise over 10 years - and I can't see any sensible way that you could build homes and infrastructure fast enough to cope, even if the Government was more on the ball about infrastructure. I'd therefore be concerned if it looked like 500K/year was going to continue permanently. However it does like that 500K figure was bumped up by big one-off factors (Ukraine, Hong Kong and the end of Covid) so my suspicion is that that it's likely to fall back to more sustainable levels anyway.
In 2021, there were 432,279 Sponsored study visas granted (to both main applicants and their dependants), 89% (203,313) more than the previous year and 52% (147,558) higher than 2019.
This is the highest annual number of Sponsored study visas granted on record with the substantial increase representing both a recovery from lower numbers during the Covid-19 pandemic but also an increase on the pre-pandemic period.
Chinese nationals were the most common nationality granted Sponsored study visas in 2021, with 119,334 visas granted, similar to that seen in 2019 (119,825). This accounted for 28% of the total Sponsored study visas granted, much lower than the peak of 43% granted in the year ending September 2019. COVID-19 restrictions were implemented early in China, from January 2020, and may have disproportionately affected the number of study grants to Chinese students in 2020.
Nigerian nationals saw the largest relative increase in Sponsored Study grants compared with 2019, increasing by 34,816 (+415%) to a record high of 43,200, making them the third largest nationality group this year.
Note, though, that this was the UK High Court ruling on actions taken by the UK government. So still a UK issue. Also, reading a bit further down the article:
That's the reason the policy was deemed to be a violation of their rights - detention on the presumption that they were doing something illegal based on their nationality.
It's a ruling regarding our implementation of EU rules on FOM.
The question asked above was why we apparently weren't applying the rules on FOM to remove people who no longer had entitlement to stay here. I was using these cases to illustrate that there isn't a simple rule that we were failing to enforce.
Oh for Goodness sake! How many times does this red herring keep coming up?
As is very well documented, immigration went up last year because of non-EU migration that had nothing to do with Brexit and would therefore have happened whether or not we left the EU. If we hadn't left the EU then we'd have had that high non-EU migration PLUS in all probability the usual rate of EU migration - which if I recall correctly was typically running at 200-300K /year before Brexit, so we can surmise that without Brexit, net migration last year could plausibly have been something like 700-800K. Brexit therefore allowed us to avoid that.
And by the way, for what it's worth, I don't think net migration of 500K/year is at all sustainable (it would amount to almost a 10% population rise over 10 years - and I can't see any sensible way that you could build homes and infrastructure fast enough to cope, even if the Government was more on the ball about infrastructure. I'd therefore be concerned if it looked like 500K/year was going to continue permanently. However it does like that 500K figure was bumped up by big one-off factors (Ukraine, Hong Kong and the end of Covid) so my suspicion is that that it's likely to fall back to more sustainable levels anyway.
I've always found this attitude slightly strange. It smacks of "either you're with us or against us" type thinking. Is one not allowed to call out what they think are failings in the administration or behaviour of their country and it's government? Does one have to blindly support your country and government whether it is right or wrong in what it does? That seems a rather dangerously narrow definition of "support". I spend a lot of time fighting against government decisions in relation to peoples entitlement to benefits. Does that mean I don't support the UK? I am after all actively arguing against the government.
Surely if you truly support your country you should laud it when it excels and does good for its citizens or the world at large but then point out when it falters and suggest ways for it to improve and develop better in the future?
And what's your source for claiming that most Leave voters voted for Hard Brexit? Many would have wanted a return to the 1973-92 "single market but no EU" days, I suspect, and others just wanted to do the opposite of what Cameron wanted - little realising that by socking it to Cameron they opened up the door to a politics very much more right-wing than that of old Dave and George.
The Leave campaign was frequently accused of lying (on things which are actually subjective), but the continuing, result-denying Remain campaign has been guilty throughout and consistently of abusing its power to propogate preferred views as facts.
Even to the point of "the people never voted for hard Brexit". It's not a lie, because they didn't. But it is a lie because there isn't and never was such a thing as a "soft" Brexit until it was invented by the Remainers. There was only Remain, or Leave on the ballot as choices.
But Hard Brexit was decided unilaterally by the Conservative Party with an arrogant disdain for all of us who did not support Hard Brexit. They could have gone for Soft Brexit as an alternative. It would certainly have been a more appropriate outcome to what was basically a tie with a miniscule lead (13 for 12 against) for leave.
And despite everything, all the fear campaigns of destruction and destitution, the weight of the government campaigning against its own referendum (a complete conflict of interest) plus the tommy-opposite position of Scottish nationalists, people still voted to Leave. Not "kinda stay", or "leave, but keep the door open", or "leave, a bit, but only if it's a soft way out". It was just Leave.
Much is made of it only being a 4% difference (albeit misrepresented above as 2%). But actually up against all that it was a serious rejection of Remaining.
A serious rejection of remaining? 37% of the voting population, with the rest either remain or don't care? 63% of UK adults did not vote for Brexit. Scarcely the "will of the people". Radical changes of this sort should require a large mandate, not slightly less than 4 in 10 of us supporting it. And I suspect of that 37%, around half didn't want a hard Brexit at all. So perhaps (as an estimate, based on 50% of the Leave vote) just 2 in 10 wanted a hard Brexit.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I've always found this attitude slightly strange. It smacks of "either you're with us or against us" type thinking. Is one not allowed to call out what they think are failings in the administration or behaviour of their country and it's government? Does one have to blindly support your country and government whether it is right or wrong in what it does? That seems a rather dangerously narrow definition of "support". I spend a lot of time fighting against government decisions in relation to peoples entitlement to benefits. Does that mean I don't support the UK? I am after all actively arguing against the government.
Surely if you truly support your country you should laud it when it excels and does good for its citizens or the world at large but then point out when it falters and suggest ways for it to improve and develop better in the future?
In fact this is one thought I had yesterday, when this conversation was going on.
I'm not into patriotism at all, really, but arguably one measure of patriotism is being proud that your country is a welcoming and inclusive country that gets along with its neighbours.
Personally, I feel not entirely proud to be a UK citizen right now. We were the country of the Beatles, the Stones, Alan Turing and Tim Berners-Lee. We were respected politically and culturally for much of the post-war period right into the 2010s. But now. Who are our most famous figures internationally in the 2020s? Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, I suspect.
We are really not courting a good international image at all with the likes of Boris and Truss as our most visible figures. Our government are, I suspect, seen as the laughing stock of western and central Europe and (now that Trump is gone ) possibly the whole western world.
As I said I am not a patriot in any case, but I do have a little bit of national pride and I want my country to have a good international image. I want the UK to get on well with, and have good relations with, its neighbours.
I find the attitude chilling to be quite honest. Anyone who disagrees with what a country's government does is "unpatriotic" or, as the Daily Mail infamously said in a headline, a "traitor". It's the sort of thing one sees in China or Russia.
I've always found this attitude slightly strange. It smacks of "either you're with us or against us" type thinking. Is one not allowed to call out what they think are failings in the administration or behaviour of their country and it's government? Does one have to blindly support your country and government whether it is right or wrong in what it does? That seems a rather dangerously narrow definition of "support". I spend a lot of time fighting against government decisions in relation to peoples entitlement to benefits. Does that mean I don't support the UK? I am after all actively arguing against the government.
Surely if you truly support your country you should laud it when it excels and does good for its citizens or the world at large but then point out when it falters and suggest ways for it to improve and develop better in the future?
I find the attitude chilling to be quite honest. Anyone who disagrees with what a country's government does is "unpatriotic" or, as the Daily Mail infamously said in a headline, a "traitor". It's the sort of thing one sees in China or Russia.
Arguably being critical of something and wanting it to change for the better is probably more patriotic than accepting the country as it is but knowing that things could be better.
Brexit would not have happened if the EU had stayed a trade organisation and not become political with another layer of elected representatives, civil service. Strasbourg serves no purpose other than create jobs for civil servants that ours in particular miss.
It's a ruling regarding our implementation of EU rules on FOM.
The question asked above was why we apparently weren't applying the rules on FOM to remove people who no longer had entitlement to stay here. I was using these cases to illustrate that there isn't a simple rule that we were failing to enforce.
Probably because when Theresa May was David Cameron's Home Secretary the Tories felt that the benefits of enforcing that regulation didn't justify the cost of doing so, and when central and eastern European countries like Poland and the Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004 the then Labour government chose to adopt an open door policy towards migrants from those countries because they realised that we had a skills shortage in areas such as the construction industry and the care and hospitality sectors. That might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but with hindsight it could and should have been better managed.
Brexit would not have happened if the EU had stayed a trade organisation and not become political with another layer of elected representatives, civil service. Strasbourg serves no purpose other than create jobs for civil servants that ours in particular miss.
I find the attitude chilling to be quite honest. Anyone who disagrees with what a country's government does is "unpatriotic" or, as the Daily Mail infamously said in a headline, a "traitor". It's the sort of thing one sees in China or Russia.
Most people aren't particularly partisan when it comes to politics. You can actually support a party or concept without being totally wedded to it. Sadly those with a lot of influence on SM platforms have created an environment where there is absolute blind support for one side of the coin or another.
I support Wealdstone FC far more passionately than any political movement. However that's not to say I won't question their performances or directorship from time to time.
Most people aren't particularly partisan when it comes to politics. You can actually support a party or concept without being totally wedded to it. Sadly those with a lot of influence on SM platforms have created an environment where there is absolute blind support for one side of the coin or another.
I think social media gives a platform, but I don’t think it has changed things as much as people claim. The disputes of the 80s were long before social media.
For me, I think Brexit was an idiotic decision made by angry people looking for blame in the wrong place, egged on by crooks, grifters, and charlatans.
But if we do end up with the sunny Brexit uplands then I'll be as delighted as anyone, as ultimately I'd just like to be living in a prosperous and well-functioning country.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The UK did. People from the EU could not access the welfare system unless they are working, or treated as working (e.g. they were working, got pregnant, and will return to work). The "right to reside" for benefit entitlement was clearly defined.
The rules referred to meaningful employment, though. So someone in full employment but without a permanent home wouldn't necessarily be in breach of the rules, as the courts found. And it's perfectly possible that a minimum wage job in London would be insufficient to rent somewhere on a long-term basis.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
