Current Affairs EU In or Out

[dublinbluenose]

Ermm :

There's always a tweet with bullshit artists

 

[Barnfred 55]

It's quite clearly been made much harder for EU citizens to move here, but how has it been made easier for non-EU citizens? I thought their criteria was much as it was before.

Are you even aware of what the current criteria is Bruce?. I don't believe that you are given your last couple of posts. I suggest that you read up on it. Also, whilst I've had a look at Patel's new bill I'm not sure how it dovetails in with existing criteria for non EU workers, especially those in tier 1, 4 and 5.

Firstly, and I know you are aware of this, there is currently a restriction on the number of people from outside the EU who we will give work permits to. That restriction will go from the end of this year.

Not withstanding that, people from outside the EU are already benefitting from Brexit. Since the vote in 2016, the number of people from within the EU coming to work in the UK has been reducing, and their places have been taken up by people from outside the EU (mainly within the health sector too!!). In Fact, in 2019 for the first time in about 15 years the influx of workers from outside the EU exceeded those from inside the EU. Also, for 2020, exceptions were made to the rules under tier 5 for 10,000 temporary non EU seasonal workers to be allowed into the UK for work in agriculture, presumably because they authorities thought there may have been a reduction in those coming in from the EU. So already we have seen a big increase in work visas from outside the EU.

On top of this the government has already said that none EU International students will be allowed to remain in the UK to work for a further 2 years post studies. Before this was abolished about 10 year ago, about 50% of International students used to stay on in the UK, so if we get back to those levels that's another potential 80k over the next couple of years.

The new bill probably relates most to tier 2 work permits given to employer sponsored workers. The existing salary level for these is £30k, which is reducing to £25k under the new rules, so even that is better. If it were related to company relocation then the current minimum alary is £48k. Plus, for those being sponsored by government departments, i.e the Health Service, those minimum wage criteria are currently bypassed anyway and they will have the same discretion to continue that under the new rules too.

There are a number of issues I have with the new bill Bruce. I don't believe there should be a minimum salary criteria and there needs to be a proviso that covers temporary seasonal employment, which I'm 100% sure will be implemented at some stage. But the view that people from outside of the EU will not benefit from the new arrangements it just absurd. In fact, as I have pointed out, they already are benefitting.

As regards your Brazilian barista, I'm not sure what point you are making here. There will obviously be the odd exception to the generalisation I made above, but under existing arrangements I wouldnlt have thought Brazilian baristas would have been given a work permit anyway. So the only way they could have been here is if they had somehow got dual citizenship with an EU country.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Cant see why making it hard to come to the UK to work is in any way a good thing if I am honest.

Thought exceptionally I'd add more meat to the bones on this one mate. I don't normally make too many posts in this thread these days. Normally reserve them for when somebody makes a post or links an article which is incorrect and I pull them up on it. Such as Bruce's post with the New Zealand rugby player, and you can see where that has escalated too.

Firstly, I am not opposed to immigration. On the contrary I am all for it as the country has for many years required immigrant workers to help us function. Immigration is a necessity.

When we were members of the EU we had free movement. There was a net influx annually of people into the UK which led to restrictions being put on people coming here to work from outside the EU. You may have views on that, I don't know, but as far as I'm aware, no country in the world allows completely free movement of people, and we are no different.

Coming out of the EU brought an end to free movement, but we, as a country, still need immigration in order that we can function properly. So we need an immigration policy that fits our needs. Will we get one? I don't know. I don't want to see any fixed targets and I don't want to see any financial constraints, I do want to see flexibility and I do want to see fairness.

Whatever immigration policy we end up with, the one thing that can be certain of is that there will be a balancing up of opportunity. Whilst we were in the EU, the majority of our immigration workforce were white European. There was a restriction on people coming in from the rest of the world, which are primarily BAME. That just happened automatically. Now, under the new rules, people from Asia, Africa and the Americas will have the same job opportunities here as those in Europe. Is that a bad thing?. i don't think so. But I've been accused of being racist on here for holding those views.

 

[roydo]

I

Thought exceptionally I'd add more meat to the bones on this one mate. I don't normally make too many posts in this thread these days. Normally reserve them for when somebody makes a post or links an article which is incorrect and I pull them up on it. Such as Bruce's post with the New Zealand rugby player, and you can see where that has escalated too.

Firstly, I am not opposed to immigration. On the contrary I am all for it as the country has for many years required immigrant workers to help us function. Immigration is a necessity.

When we were members of the EU we had free movement. There was a net influx annually of people into the UK which led to restrictions being put on people coming here to work from outside the EU. You may have views on that, I don't know, but as far as I'm aware, no country in the world allows completely free movement of people, and we are no different.

Coming out of the EU brought an end to free movement, but we, as a country, still need immigration in order that we can function properly. So we need an immigration policy that fits our needs. Will we get one? I don't know. I don't want to see any fixed targets and I don't want to see any financial constraints, I do want to see flexibility and I do want to see fairness.

Whatever immigration policy we end up with, the one thing that can be certain of is that there will be a balancing up of opportunity. Whilst we were in the EU, the majority of our immigration workforce were white European. There was a restriction on people coming in from the rest of the world, which are primarily BAME. That just happened automatically. Now, under the new rules, people from Asia, Africa and the Americas will have the same job opportunities here as those in Europe. Is that a bad thing?. i don't think so. But I've been accused of being racist on here for holding those views.

I dont for one second doubt your own personal take on removing freedom leads to more fairness, and opportunities for BAME immigrants/less for white europeans.

But excuse me if I dont for one second remember Farage suggesting Brexit meant more brown people.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Are you even aware of what the current criteria is Bruce?. I don't believe that you are given your last couple of posts. I suggest that you read up on it. Also, whilst I've had a look at Patel's new bill I'm not sure how it dovetails in with existing criteria for non EU workers, especially those in tier 1, 4 and 5.

Firstly, and I know you are aware of this, there is currently a restriction on the number of people from outside the EU who we will give work permits to. That restriction will go from the end of this year.

Not withstanding that, people from outside the EU are already benefitting from Brexit. Since the vote in 2016, the number of people from within the EU coming to work in the UK has been reducing, and their places have been taken up by people from outside the EU (mainly within the health sector too!!). In Fact, in 2019 for the first time in about 15 years the influx of workers from outside the EU exceeded those from inside the EU. Also, for 2020, exceptions were made to the rules under tier 5 for 10,000 temporary non EU seasonal workers to be allowed into the UK for work in agriculture, presumably because they authorities thought there may have been a reduction in those coming in from the EU. So already we have seen a big increase in work visas from outside the EU.

On top of this the government has already said that none EU International students will be allowed to remain in the UK to work for a further 2 years post studies. Before this was abolished about 10 year ago, about 50% of International students used to stay on in the UK, so if we get back to those levels that's another potential 80k over the next couple of years.

The new bill probably relates most to tier 2 work permits given to employer sponsored workers. The existing salary level for these is £30k, which is reducing to £25k under the new rules, so even that is better. If it were related to company relocation then the current minimum alary is £48k. Plus, for those being sponsored by government departments, i.e the Health Service, those minimum wage criteria are currently bypassed anyway and they will have the same discretion to continue that under the new rules too.

There are a number of issues I have with the new bill Bruce. I don't believe there should be a minimum salary criteria and there needs to be a proviso that covers temporary seasonal employment, which I'm 100% sure will be implemented at some stage. But the view that people from outside of the EU will not benefit from the new arrangements it just absurd. In fact, as I have pointed out, they already are benefitting.

As regards your Brazilian barista, I'm not sure what point you are making here. There will obviously be the odd exception to the generalisation I made above, but under existing arrangements I wouldnlt have thought Brazilian baristas would have been given a work permit anyway. So the only way they could have been here is if they had somehow got dual citizenship with an EU country.

I'm well aware of the old and new criteria, and both are far removed from what EU citizens have enjoyed over the past few decades. I presume you're also aware that just over 25% of all of the immigrants to the UK last year were moving for work purposes, with study far and away the most common reason for non-EU migrants to come to the UK (and the vast majority of those students don't stay after their studies have finished). Of those non-EU migrants that came here for work, the overwhelming majority were healthcare workers, which given the criteria in place will mean nurses and doctors.

Those people are, of course, important, but this swollocks from Johnson that we're attracting the best and brightest from around the world is a clear myth, as just 2% of all work visas for non-EU citizens went to those classified as such, which works out at a couple of thousand people. Truly transformative, I'm sure you'll agree. It also jars with the cringeworthy clapping we've been giving to 'key workers' in recent months, none of whom would qualify for a work visa under either old or new rules. Delivery driver? Sorry chum. Checkout worker? Soz. Binman? Don't need you any more mate. Meat processing person? Catch your covid elsewhere buddy. The computer in Whitehall says no.

For a great many of the migrants that have so enriched British life, they weren't successful when they came here, they became successful as a result of being here. They would all be refused entry under the new system because they don't meet the criteria. My missus wouldn't come close to meeting the criteria.

Which is precisely the point I was making with regards to the Brazilian barista. It's an absurdity that you believe mandarins in Whitehall are able to say what the economy needs, or what's best for individuals and the people employing them. It's absurd that you want to run the rule over peoples lives based upon 'generalisations', which by their very nature are going to be hugely simplistic and overlook most of what makes humans so rich. It's absurd that we're carrying on as though adding bureaucracy to life is some kind of crowning achievement rather than a royal pain in the backside for all concerned, just so armanisgod doesn't feel uncomfortable when he goes shopping. It's absurd that we're sending out a message that we're only interested in people of a certain type, and there is already clear evidence of a backlash against this 'hostile environment' at a time when the country most needs it.

With regards to your latter comment about BAME crusading, the overwhelming majority of work visas into the UK go to Indians and Chinese, both of whom have suffered horrendous racism in the UK over the years, and will continue to do so as long as those Brexiters who equate 'controlling our borders' with 'stopping Muslims coming here'. I guarantee you, if EU migration was solely the preserve of the French or Italians or Dutch or Germans, Brexiters wouldn't have bat an eyelid, but many view Slavs as beneath them and unworthy of being here. It was dog whistling to the working class whose status in society was being taken by forens.

If you want to create a purely utilitarian contract between migrants and the UK then cool, great way to go about doing it. The country is only interested in them whilst they provide something, and the migrant is only interested in the UK for what they can get out of it. If you want a deeper and more lasting relationship then this isn't the way to go.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I


I dont for one second doubt your own personal take on removing freedom leads to more fairness, and opportunities for BAME immigrants/less for white europeans.

But excuse me if I dont for one second remember Farage suggesting Brexit meant more brown people.

Maybe he didn't but that is going to be the end result anyway. And Yes. I have been consistent on this since I first posted in here 3 years ago

 

[roydo]

Maybe he didn't but that is going to be the end result anyway. And Yes. I have been consistent on this since I first posted in here 3 years ago

@Bruce Wayne puts it better than me mate.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Maybe he didn't but that is going to be the end result anyway. And Yes. I have been consistent on this since I first posted in here 3 years ago

I'm well aware of the old and new criteria, and both are far removed from what EU citizens have enjoyed over the past few decades. I presume you're also aware that just over 25% of all of the immigrants to the UK last year were moving for work purposes, with study far and away the most common reason for non-EU migrants to come to the UK (and the vast majority of those students don't stay after their studies have finished). Of those non-EU migrants that came here for work, the overwhelming majority were healthcare workers, which given the criteria in place will mean nurses and doctors.

Those people are, of course, important, but this swollocks from Johnson that we're attracting the best and brightest from around the world is a clear myth, as just 2% of all work visas for non-EU citizens went to those classified as such, which works out at a couple of thousand people. Truly transformative, I'm sure you'll agree. It also jars with the cringeworthy clapping we've been giving to 'key workers' in recent months, none of whom would qualify for a work visa under either old or new rules. Delivery driver? Sorry chum. Checkout worker? Soz. Binman? Don't need you any more mate. Meat processing person? Catch your covid elsewhere buddy. The computer in Whitehall says no.

For a great many of the migrants that have so enriched British life, they weren't successful when they came here, they became successful as a result of being here. They would all be refused entry under the new system because they don't meet the criteria. My missus wouldn't come close to meeting the criteria.

Which is precisely the point I was making with regards to the Brazilian barista. It's an absurdity that you believe mandarins in Whitehall are able to say what the economy needs, or what's best for individuals and the people employing them. It's absurd that you want to run the rule over peoples lives based upon 'generalisations', which by their very nature are going to be hugely simplistic and overlook most of what makes humans so rich. It's absurd that we're carrying on as though adding bureaucracy to life is some kind of crowning achievement rather than a royal pain in the backside for all concerned, just so armanisgod doesn't feel uncomfortable when he goes shopping. It's absurd that we're sending out a message that we're only interested in people of a certain type, and there is already clear evidence of a backlash against this 'hostile environment' at a time when the country most needs it.

With regards to your latter comment about BAME crusading, the overwhelming majority of work visas into the UK go to Indians and Chinese, both of whom have suffered horrendous racism in the UK over the years, and will continue to do so as long as those Brexiters who equate 'controlling our borders' with 'stopping Muslims coming here'. I guarantee you, if EU migration was solely the preserve of the French or Italians or Dutch or Germans, Brexiters wouldn't have bat an eyelid, but many view Slavs as beneath them and unworthy of being here. It was dog whistling to the working class whose status in society was being taken by forens.

If you want to create a purely utilitarian contract between migrants and the UK then cool, great way to go about doing it. The country is only interested in them whilst they provide something, and the migrant is only interested in the UK for what they can get out of it. If you want a deeper and more lasting relationship then this isn't the way to go.

Look. I don't want to fall out with either of you.

This all came about because I pulled Bruce up on something he said that had nothing to do with Brexit. I'm sorry I did now and I won't be posting again in here because it simply isn't worth the hassle.

Please disregard whatever I've said and I apologise if my words or opinions have offended either of you.

I won't post again on the matter.



PS
Sorry micknick I'm going to have to put you on ignore again so I won't be tempted in here in the future.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Look. I don't want to fall out with either of you.

This all came about because I pulled Bruce up on something he said that had nothing to do with Brexit. I'm sorry I did now and I won't be posting again in here because it simply isn't worth the hassle.

Please disregard whatever I've said and I apologise if my words or opinions have offended either of you.

I won't post again on the matter.



PS
Sorry micknick I'm going to have to put you on ignore again so I won't be tempted in here in the future.

Apologies if my reply appeared tetchy, there's no need to stop posting on my account as certainly no offence was caused or intended.

 

[Walken]

Some white flag that, disappointing

 

[Barnfred 55]

Apologies if my reply appeared tetchy, there's no need to stop posting on my account as certainly no offence was caused or intended.

Best to stay out for my own good health mate. Doesn't take much for something that starts off convivial to spiral.

The threads only going to get worse/more emotive as the year progresses and I'm on the wrong side of the fence

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Even the Swiss are pitying us.

 

[Giri]

Personally I don´t think it´s a case of UK versus EU, I think the English resented being ruled by an unelected elite in Brussels, and helping to pay for their luxurious lifestyles. Those were certainly my objections, though I voted to stay in.
The referendum result and the racism which emerged around it appalled me, so I decided to remain in Europe and moved to Spain.
England´s allies now seem to be the three most belligerent and malicious nations on the planet, America, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
It has doggedly fought it´s way into a hopeless situation and is happy to serve as an American aircraft carrier moored off the European coast.
No doubt the English royalty are now compromised by videos of Andy humping a minor, and both sides of government are controlled by Zionists.
Can´t see much of a future for perfidious Albion.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Cornwall want £700 million to make up for the short fall from no more EU funding.

Cornwall demands £700m from Boris Johnson to replace EU funding

Council chief executive Kate Kennally says the money should be provided in a single pot so that Cornwall can decide how it should be spent over the next decade

www.cornwalllive.com

Cornwall may want to put that on a side bus as they knew what they were voting for, 56.5% voted to leave.

EU Referendum Results

Up to the minute results for the 2016 EU Referendum from BBC News

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Leylo]

Personally I don´t think it´s a case of UK versus EU, I think the English resented being ruled by an unelected elite in Brussels, and helping to pay for their luxurious lifestyles. Those were certainly my objections, though I voted to stay in.
The referendum result and the racism which emerged around it appalled me, so I decided to remain in Europe and moved to Spain.
England´s allies now seem to be the three most belligerent and malicious nations on the planet, America, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
It has doggedly fought it´s way into a hopeless situation and is happy to serve as an American aircraft carrier moored off the European coast.
No doubt the English royalty are now compromised by videos of Andy humping a minor, and both sides of government are controlled by Zionists.
Can´t see much of a future for perfidious Albion.

Enjoy your sun