In his column in the Mail on Sunday, James Forsyth suggests this is "almost certainly [David] Cameron's last General Election battle." But he argues that the Conservatives won't "win without taking some risks" and that some Tories are pushing for the right to buy - "the great, iconic Thatcherite policy" - to be extended to two and a half million housing association properties.
Still, never mind eh, as long as its not his last referendum campaign.
England cricket humiliation - tick Liverpool win - tick Arsenal win - tick England rugby lose - tick Spurs lose - effing bloody tick...
I did have the accumulator with William Hill on a 'slip' online for the last 4 earlier but couldn't bring myself to do it. wouldn't have helped anyway.
I feel lower than a Mark Reckless.
The only result of significance went the right way. OTBC!
Just had a look in at my home team, Coventry City - League 2 appears to be knocking...
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP immigration spokesman, speaking on the Daily Politics a few days ago said their immigration targets were gross numbers not net. In particular he said the target for gross immigration for employment (EU and non-EU but excluding students) would be 50,000. That is a B answer.
So: let's say I have an analog semiconductor design business, and I need an analog semiconductor engineer, and there are no British candidates, and it's May and the 50,000 work visas have gone, does that mean I'm out of luck until the following January?
Also: we have long had open borders with Ireland for employment; is that to go as well?
And, are we still going to let young Aussies and Kiwis in for a couple of years post university (with the option of staying forever)?
All immigration levels should be decided by the British parliament. We should be allowed to discriminate e.g: if a certain nationality has a disproportionate number of criminals we should be allowed to bar that nationality or set strict limits. We might prefer to have no limits on Aussies and other "favoured nations".
I've started five business: all are international in nature, and all are substantial export earners for the UK.
What you propose is madness.
If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK.
That sounds very like the hypothetical emigratory flounce of the rich in response to rises in income tax. In reality the most likely outcome would be that you would find your analog semiconductor engineer already here, you'd just have to pay more for him, or you'd get the job done temporarily elsewhere what with your businesses being "international in nature".
That only works if there are enough of skill X in the country. Otherwise the net result, at least in the short-term, is to slow growth and increase inflation. One would hope in the longer term our education would respond to market forces, but good luck with that. And in truly cutting edge industries, that simply is not an option.
If you want your company to be a world-beater, you need access to the best global talent. Simples.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP immigration spokesman, speaking on the Daily Politics a few days ago said their immigration targets were gross numbers not net. In particular he said the target for gross immigration for employment (EU and non-EU but excluding students) would be 50,000. That is a B answer.
So: let's say I have an analog semiconductor design business, and I need an analog semiconductor engineer, and there are no British candidates, and it's May and the 50,000 work visas have gone, does that mean I'm out of luck until the following January?
Also: we have long had open borders with Ireland for employment; is that to go as well?
And, are we still going to let young Aussies and Kiwis in for a couple of years post university (with the option of staying forever)?
All immigration levels should be decided by the British parliament. We should be allowed to discriminate e.g: if a certain nationality has a disproportionate number of criminals we should be allowed to bar that nationality or set strict limits. We might prefer to have no limits on Aussies and other "favoured nations".
I've started five business: all are international in nature, and all are substantial export earners for the UK.
What you propose is madness.
If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK.
That sounds very like the hypothetical emigratory flounce of the rich in response to rises in income tax. In reality the most likely outcome would be that you would find your analog semiconductor engineer already here, you'd just have to pay more for him, or you'd get the job done temporarily elsewhere what with your businesses being "international in nature".
So in other words you have no rational answer to living in the real world.
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP immigration spokesman, speaking on the Daily Politics a few days ago said their immigration targets were gross numbers not net. In particular he said the target for gross immigration for employment (EU and non-EU but excluding students) would be 50,000. That is a B answer.
So: let's say I have an analog semiconductor design business, and I need an analog semiconductor engineer, and there are no British candidates, and it's May and the 50,000 work visas have gone, does that mean I'm out of luck until the following January?
Also: we have long had open borders with Ireland for employment; is that to go as well?
And, are we still going to let young Aussies and Kiwis in for a couple of years post university (with the option of staying forever)?
All immigration levels should be decided by the British parliament. We should be allowed to discriminate e.g: if a certain nationality has a disproportionate number of criminals we should be allowed to bar that nationality or set strict limits. We might prefer to have no limits on Aussies and other "favoured nations".
I've started five business: all are international in nature, and all are substantial export earners for the UK.
What you propose is madness.
If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK.
That sounds very like the hypothetical emigratory flounce of the rich in response to rises in income tax. In reality the most likely outcome would be that you would find your analog semiconductor engineer already here, you'd just have to pay more for him, or you'd get the job done temporarily elsewhere what with your businesses being "international in nature".
Businesses crave certainty.
Before anyone commits millions of pounds to a project (whether a factory, or a company or a new product), they want to know the environmental regulations won't change, that they'll be able to get the workers they need, that you'll be allowed to import the components you need from abroad, etc.
If you had a points based system - even one that was only expected to allow in 10,000 people a year - then that would give businesses more certainty than one where the numbers were subject to change on an annual basis according to the whims of politicians and the electoral cycle.
I can start a business anywhere in the world. Why would I go somewhere where there is substantial and unnecessary uncertainty?
"This would be the part where I offer a counter argument, only to do that I'd have had to find one in this post. Sadly when you get through the meaningless smeary invective, hyperbole, and baseless crystal ball gazing, you're left with nothing - like a sausageless casserole. "
"A sausageless casserole". Can I suggest a trip to the Ivy. It might not lessen your affection for Farage but it'll make you think more about your similes
No 1 priority is Farage and UKIP want a referendum. It's in the name. So another defection will most likely be just enough to put Miliband into No 10, the one guy that states he is not having a referendum and will for the next 5 years ties us in so tightly to the EU that escape will never be possible. We can all then live in Milibands socialist utopia for ever after and the UKIP party will become utterly irrelevant
There's is just one thing? It's the direct opposite of what Farage wants.......
I really don't get his game plan
In general, if you have a conviction you should act on it as directly as possible. Lots of people told de Gaulle to shut up and not rock the boat and leave it to the grown-up Petainists to sort things out, d G was playing into Hitler's hands.
In particular, Cameron is unreliable and flaky. Cast-iron guarantee, no-ifs-no-buts: he doesn't intend to lie or mislead (I think) but he says things with no thought as to whether he can perform on them. Farage wants a winnable referendum, and Cameron will not deliver one - if it looks like an Out vote he will collude with Labour in offering the electorate free owls for life and all the gold they can eat if they vote to stay in, just as he did in the Indyref.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
"This would be the part where I offer a counter argument, only to do that I'd have had to find one in this post. Sadly when you get through the meaningless smeary invective, hyperbole, and baseless crystal ball gazing, you're left with nothing - like a sausageless casserole. "
"A sausageless casserole". Can I suggest a trip to the Ivy. It might not lessen your affection for Farage but it'll make you think more about your similes
Lobsterless Bisque? Feel free to suggest a more champagne socialist alternative.
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP immigration spokesman, speaking on the Daily Politics a few days ago said their immigration targets were gross numbers not net. In particular he said the target for gross immigration for employment (EU and non-EU but excluding students) would be 50,000. That is a B answer.
So: let's say I have an analog semiconductor design business, and I need an analog semiconductor engineer, and there are no British candidates, and it's May and the 50,000 work visas have gone, does that mean I'm out of luck until the following January?
Also: we have long had open borders with Ireland for employment; is that to go as well?
And, are we still going to let young Aussies and Kiwis in for a couple of years post university (with the option of staying forever)?
It means you should have had some idea of your business and trained someone.
"This would be the part where I offer a counter argument, only to do that I'd have had to find one in this post. Sadly when you get through the meaningless smeary invective, hyperbole, and baseless crystal ball gazing, you're left with nothing - like a sausageless casserole. "
"A sausageless casserole". Can I suggest a trip to the Ivy. It might not lessen your affection for Farage but it'll make you think more about your similes
No 1 priority is Farage and UKIP want a referendum. It's in the name. So another defection will most likely be just enough to put Miliband into No 10, the one guy that states he is not having a referendum and will for the next 5 years ties us in so tightly to the EU that escape will never be possible. We can all then live in Milibands socialist utopia for ever after and the UKIP party will become utterly irrelevant
There's is just one thing? It's the direct opposite of what Farage wants.......
I really don't get his game plan
Well unless they rewrite the Lisbon Treaty which the EU commission seems rather reticent to do Article 50 setting out the terms of withdrawal would rather suggest that your assertion that we would never be able to escape is somewhat wide of the mark.
I suspect the fallback position has always been that given 80% plus of the electorate oppose 'ever closer union' should Miliband or any other PM try to further tie us into the EU then UKIP will benefit off the back of the voter unpopularity that would be generated by Miliband's or someone else's treachery.
Given now it looks like the Libdems will not support an EU referendum it seems highly unlikely (given the Tories are incapable of winning a majority) that any of the establishment parties will be able to offer a referendum. If a referendum is not on the table what else do you expect UKIP to do but try their best to improve their own position?
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Would you recruit a medical statistician who can code in python and r? If so, you could recruit "locally".
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP immigration spokesman, speaking on the Daily Politics a few days ago said their immigration targets were gross numbers not net. In particular he said the target for gross immigration for employment (EU and non-EU but excluding students) would be 50,000. That is a B answer.
So: let's say I have an analog semiconductor design business, and I need an analog semiconductor engineer, and there are no British candidates, and it's May and the 50,000 work visas have gone, does that mean I'm out of luck until the following January?
Also: we have long had open borders with Ireland for employment; is that to go as well?
And, are we still going to let young Aussies and Kiwis in for a couple of years post university (with the option of staying forever)?
All immigration levels should be decided by the British parliament. We should be allowed to discriminate e.g: if a certain nationality has a disproportionate number of criminals we should be allowed to bar that nationality or set strict limits. We might prefer to have no limits on Aussies and other "favoured nations".
I've started five business: all are international in nature, and all are substantial export earners for the UK.
What you propose is madness.
If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK.
"international in nature".
Businesses crave certainty.
Before anyone comre in the world. Why would I go somewhere where there is substantial and unnecessary uncertainty?
Everyone craves certainty, and no one gets it. You would be bonkers to start a business of any kind on a planet where the price of oil can halve in six months, but people do.
You can in theory start a business anywhere in the world. The difficulties inherent in trying to do so outside your home country (starting, ironically, with obtaining the necessary visa for yourself) would probably outweigh the perceived advantages of escaping not-very-onerous immigration restrictions here.
FPT A lot of Kippers say "When we leave the EU, Ukip will negotiate this or that". This is Syriza-type over-optimistic chat. Remember that hopey-changey stuff before the Greek election? Even though Europe made it clear it didn't want to play ball with hostile nationalism. The UK will lose markets to the proper free-trade areas of the EU and EFTA, and gain markets exactly nowhere. Fortunately, unlike Syriza, we all know the economics isn't important. Leaving the EU lets Kippers keep out the Poles (the nice chappies who broke Enigma and flew with the RAF) and Romanians (who had the guts to string up their communist despot). Which I guess was the real point of Ukip all along.
Applause.
Applause indeed for such a clear illustration of the leftie worldview. The reality is that trading partners need trading partners; the EU will tango with the UK either way because their businesses need people to sell stuff to. The left doesn't recognise that the world works like that, reciprocally. It thinks that if we leave, the EU will cut off our benefits.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002080.html#more ''Though we sometimes take pleasure in the eurozone’s dysfunctional family tearing itself apart, stronger growth in Europe is good for Britain. Much of the growth disappointment in Britain in the early stages of recovery was down to the eurozone’s woes. The better it does, in general, the better we do too.'' Yes we need trading partners all right.
FPT A lot of Kippers say "When we leave the EU, Ukip will negotiate this or that". This is Syriza-type over-optimistic chat. Remember that hopey-changey stuff before the Greek election? Even though Europe made it clear it didn't want to play ball with hostile nationalism. The UK will lose markets to the proper free-trade areas of the EU and EFTA, and gain markets exactly nowhere. Fortunately, unlike Syriza, we all know the economics isn't important. Leaving the EU lets Kippers keep out the Poles (the nice chappies who broke Enigma and flew with the RAF) and Romanians (who had the guts to string up their communist despot). Which I guess was the real point of Ukip all along.
Applause.
Applause indeed for such a clear illustration of the leftie worldview. The reality is that trading partners need trading partners; the EU will tango with the UK either way because their businesses need people to sell stuff to. The left doesn't recognise that the world works like that, reciprocally. It thinks that if we leave, the EU will cut off our benefits.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002080.html#more ''Though we sometimes take pleasure in the eurozone’s dysfunctional family tearing itself apart, stronger growth in Europe is good for Britain. Much of the growth disappointment in Britain in the early stages of recovery was down to the eurozone’s woes. The better it does, in general, the better we do too.'' Yes we need trading partners all right.
And we will continue to have them (all) when we are outside the EU. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly a fool.
FPT A lot of Kippers say "When we leave the EU, Ukip will negotiate this or that". This is Syriza-type over-optimistic chat. Remember that hopey-changey stuff before the Greek election? Even though Europe made it clear it didn't want to play ball with hostile nationalism. The UK will lose markets to the proper free-trade areas of the EU and EFTA, and gain markets exactly nowhere. Fortunately, unlike Syriza, we all know the economics isn't important. Leaving the EU lets Kippers keep out the Poles (the nice chappies who broke Enigma and flew with the RAF) and Romanians (who had the guts to string up their communist despot). Which I guess was the real point of Ukip all along.
Applause.
Applause indeed for such a clear illustration of the leftie worldview. The reality is that trading partners need trading partners; the EU will tango with the UK either way because their businesses need people to sell stuff to. The left doesn't recognise that the world works like that, reciprocally. It thinks that if we leave, the EU will cut off our benefits.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002080.html#more ''Though we sometimes take pleasure in the eurozone’s dysfunctional family tearing itself apart, stronger growth in Europe is good for Britain. Much of the growth disappointment in Britain in the early stages of recovery was down to the eurozone’s woes. The better it does, in general, the better we do too.'' Yes we need trading partners all right.
But surely that is just basic common sense and true of all nations that potentially we could deal with. The more prosperous they are the more likely they are to trade with other countries and hopefully the UK
Yes we need trading partners but we do not need political masters. We can trade with the EU without being members of it. The thing is why would we put all our money on just one trading partner when there are so many other options out there?
PS It is the idea of the fabricated political construct of the EU crumbling that is pleasurable. I don't think any of us take pleasure in the poverty the PIGS countries are experiencing.
Learned today that my grandmother was au pair briefly to Jean-Noël Jeanneney, at a time when Jean-Marcel Jeanneney was still plotting the return of de Gaulle to french politics, something she, therefore, was accidentally a party to. An east End kid in a very different world...
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Would you recruit a medical statistician who can code in python and r? If so, you could recruit "locally".
The nature of the business is that you are getting contracts from big pharma (and middle sized biotech). And you either have the bandwidth to do the contract or you do not. Half the company is either Python programmers who have learnt about biology, or statisticians (R-people) who've learnt about Python. But sometimes you have an urgent need for someone senior. That's the nature of a contract driven business.
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP immigration spokesman, speaking on the Daily Politics a few days ago said their immigration targets were gross numbers not net. In particular he said the target for gross immigration for employment (EU and non-EU but excluding students) would be 50,000. That is a B answer.
So: let's say I have an analog semiconductor design business, and I need an analog semiconductor engineer, and there are no British candidates, and it's May and the 50,000 work visas have gone, does that mean I'm out of luck until the following January?
Also: we have long had open borders with Ireland for employment; is that to go as well?
And, are we still going to let young Aussies and Kiwis in for a couple of years post university (with the option of staying forever)?
It means you should have had some idea of your business and trained someone.
Alalbrooke: that's great for well established businesses, but basically a big f*ck off to start ups.
Everyone craves certainty, and no one gets it. You would be bonkers to start a business of any kind on a planet where the price of oil can halve in six months, but people do.
You can in theory start a business anywhere in the world. The difficulties inherent in trying to do so outside your home country (starting, ironically, with obtaining the necessary visa for yourself) would probably outweigh the perceived advantages of escaping not-very-onerous immigration restrictions here.
Okay, I've got to back RCS up on this, because I've worked as a pleb for a handful of tech startups in the UK. (*). In the case of technology, they're often started by one or two people who have a really good idea: for instance a promising avenue of technology, or an unexploited market.
The people I know who've done this are largely internationalists - people who've worked abroad and for whom foreign climes hold no fear, and who have the necessary marketing and VC contacts from other work. Certainly in the cases of two of the companies, the reason they chose the UK to start up was because they knew they could get the very precisely-skilled people they needed (sometimes by name because they've worked with them before), and attract others from abroad.
They can't train people, up, because there's no-one to train them - often because the tech is just an idea in someone's head, and/or because there is simply not the bandwidth - they need everyone to get the initial prototypes or docs out of the door.
Two of these companies are now fairly successful, although I doubt you'll ever have heard of them. But they employ hundreds of well-paid, highly-skilled people in the UK, and attract others in. We need more like them.
As an aside I support the idea that people who risk capital in setting up businesses that employ people should get tax reductions, but that won't be popular with many people on here. ;-)
(*) In fact, I usually work(ed) for small, new companies, as they're the most fun. Once they get too large, they quickly get less fun. Which is probably one reason I'm not rich. It's great when you're the first or second software engineer in the door, and you can help shape the company. It's less fun when you have five-hour meetings about the design of a sign.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Would you recruit a medical statistician who can code in python and r? If so, you could recruit "locally".
The nature of the business is that you are getting contracts from big pharma (and middle sized biotech). And you either have the bandwidth to do the contract or you do not. Half the company is either Python programmers who have learnt about biology, or statisticians (R-people) who've learnt about Python. But sometimes you have an urgent need for someone senior. That's the nature of a contract driven business.
If you take the particular circumstances you illustrate, and the fact that we don't have unrestricted immigration from anywhere outside the EU at present anyway, aren't you arguing about a vanishingly small possibility?
Steven Woolfe, the UKIP immigration spokesman, speaking on the Daily Politics a few days ago said their immigration targets were gross numbers not net. In particular he said the target for gross immigration for employment (EU and non-EU but excluding students) would be 50,000. That is a B answer.
So: let's say I have an analog semiconductor design business, and I need an analog semiconductor engineer, and there are no British candidates, and it's May and the 50,000 work visas have gone, does that mean I'm out of luck until the following January?
Also: we have long had open borders with Ireland for employment; is that to go as well?
And, are we still going to let young Aussies and Kiwis in for a couple of years post university (with the option of staying forever)?
All immigration levels should be decided by the British parliament. We should be allowed to discriminate e.g: if a certain nationality has a disproportionate number of criminals we should be allowed to bar that nationality or set strict limits. We might prefer to have no limits on Aussies and other "favoured nations".
I've started five business: all are international in nature, and all are substantial export earners for the UK.
What you propose is madness.
If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK.
That sounds very like the hypothetical emigratory flounce of the rich in response to rises in income tax. In reality the most likely outcome would be that you would find your analog semiconductor engineer already here, you'd just have to pay more for him, or you'd get the job done temporarily elsewhere what with your businesses being "international in nature".
That only works if there are enough of skill X in the country. Otherwise the net result, at least in the short-term, is to slow growth and increase inflation. One would hope in the longer term our education would respond to market forces, but good luck with that. And in truly cutting edge industries, that simply is not an option.
If you want your company to be a world-beater, you need access to the best global talent. Simples.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Asinine comment. I was talking about world-beating technologies. That is not the stuff that can be provided through apprenticeships or in-house training.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Would you recruit a medical statistician who can code in python and r? If so, you could recruit "locally".
The nature of the business is that you are getting contracts from big pharma (and middle sized biotech). And you either have the bandwidth to do the contract or you do not. Half the company is either Python programmers who have learnt about biology, or statisticians (R-people) who've learnt about Python. But sometimes you have an urgent need for someone senior. That's the nature of a contract driven business.
If you take the particular circumstances you illustrate, and the fact that we don't have unrestricted immigration from anywhere outside the EU at present anyway, aren't you arguing about a vanishingly small possibility?
This is not about the EU.
This is about the dangers of hard cap system of immigration control, rather than a needs based one,
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Your position is clear, and lucidly put, and valid as far as it goes, but we are trying to optimise overall outcomes. Legislation which makes your business less profitable can still be a net benefit. Think of all those poor shackle-makers who went out of business when they abolished the slave trade.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002080.html#more ''Though we sometimes take pleasure in the eurozone’s dysfunctional family tearing itself apart, stronger growth in Europe is good for Britain. Much of the growth disappointment in Britain in the early stages of recovery was down to the eurozone’s woes. The better it does, in general, the better we do too.'' Yes we need trading partners all right.
But surely that is just basic common sense and true of all nations that potentially we could deal with. The more prosperous they are the more likely they are to trade with other countries and hopefully the UK
Yes we need trading partners but we do not need political masters. We can trade with the EU without being members of it. The thing is why would we put all our money on just one trading partner when there are so many other options out there?
PS It is the idea of the fabricated political construct of the EU crumbling that is pleasurable. I don't think any of us take pleasure in the poverty the PIGS countries are experiencing.
They all conspired to fiddle their books. We are not in the Euro and not part of any monetary fiscal and political ever closer union. That is the whole point about renegotiations. We can leave joining the Euro and ever closer union to a future LabLibSNP pact. Or rather you can, since this is what would happen if we do not get a Tory majority.
From the point of view of 'trading' - any likely agreement will not make any material difference to us than it is now. Even if we left then its likely as per the EEA we would be in the single market, the recipient of inward investment into that market and the free movement of labour in that market. We might get some changes to the labour rules but as long as we are creating jobs we will need workers. You might relish the thought of wage inflation and those able to bully their way to top dog under that scenario will be right there with you. In the real world labour is going to move. In the last thread I pointed out the strains of NAFTA where free trade without free movement was costing jobs as industries moved. The answer to those strains is likely to be the movement of Labour.
"I've only been once, and was not particularly impressed."
I've been more than once but I've never been a fan and it used to be so difficult to get into that it was always too much trouble. Normal rules didn't apply if you went with a minor celeb though which made it even less desirable.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Your position is clear, and lucidly put, and valid as far as it goes, but we are trying to optimise overall outcomes. Legislation which makes your business less profitable can still be a net benefit. Think of all those poor shackle-makers who went out of business when they abolished the slave trade.
We are a hub for innovation in the UK. A hard cap system will most affect the smallest and most entreuprenerial start-ups.
It's one thing to have a system which encourages only the brightest and the best to come here. But a hard cap doesn't do that: it encourages a rush to get visas in January and February and then locks people out for the rest of the year. It means someone exceptional in May is crowded out by someone ordinary in January.
That is not good for the UK, that is not good for business.
They all conspired to fiddle their books. We are not in the Euro and not part of any monetary fiscal and political ever closer union. That is the whole point about renegotiations. We can leave joining the Euro and ever closer union to a future LabLibSNP pact. Or rather you can, since this is what would happen if we do not get a Tory majority.
From the point of view of 'trading' - any likely agreement will not make any material difference to us than it is now. Even if we left then its likely as per the EEA we would be in the single market, the recipient of inward investment into that market and the free movement of labour in that market. We might get some changes to the labour rules but as long as we are creating jobs we will need workers. You might relish the thought of wage inflation and those able to bully their way to top dog under that scenario will be right there with you. In the real world labour is going to move. In the last thread I pointed out the strains of NAFTA where free trade without free movement was costing jobs as industries moved. The answer to those strains is likely to be the movement of Labour.
Wrong. We are part of a political ever closer union as long as we remain in the EU. It is written into the original Treaty of Rome (the one a Tory PM signed us up to if you remember) and has remained part of the underlying constitutional framework of the EU ever since. You may not like it - and of course neither do I - but it is a fact of life that as long as the UK remains part of the EU then 'ever closer union' is a fundamental part of what we are signed up to.
And of course you repeat your oft repeated myth about there being no material difference between membership of the EU and the EEA. Given that only a small proportion of EU law applies to EEA members and that those bits that do are probably the bits we would be most happy to stick with and given that the costs of EEA membership would be a fraction of the costs of EU membership, the idea that there is no material difference is just plain wrong.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Your position is clear, and lucidly put, and valid as far as it goes, but we are trying to optimise overall outcomes. Legislation which makes your business less profitable can still be a net benefit. Think of all those poor shackle-makers who went out of business when they abolished the slave trade.
A nice, but incorrect analogy. The more correct one would be international football players playing in the English leagues. Yes, they take jobs from English players, but the teams would be less skilled if they comprised only Brits, and the best Brits' skills would be poorer as they would not be having the chance to hone their skills on a daily basis against the best the world has to offer.
They all conspired to fiddle their books. We are not in the Euro and not part of any monetary fiscal and political ever closer union. That is the whole point about renegotiations. We can leave joining the Euro and ever closer union to a future LabLibSNP pact. Or rather you can, since this is what would happen if we do not get a Tory majority.
From the point of view of 'trading' - any likely agreement will not make any material difference to us than it is now. Even if we left then its likely as per the EEA we would be in the single market, the recipient of inward investment into that market and the free movement of labour in that market. We might get some changes to the labour rules but as long as we are creating jobs we will need workers. You might relish the thought of wage inflation and those able to bully their way to top dog under that scenario will be right there with you. In the real world labour is going to move. In the last thread I pointed out the strains of NAFTA where free trade without free movement was costing jobs as industries moved. The answer to those strains is likely to be the movement of Labour
As long as we are in the EU we will always be part of ever closer union. Just last year the Government signed up to a number of Criminal Justice matters. Since November last year we have been in transition giving up tens of vetoes which will be replaced by Qualified Majority Voting which will further dilute our sovereignty. In March 2017 those vetoes will be lost forever. Ever closer Union is all around you.
If we withdrew from the EU we would not have to sign up to the EEA, NAFTA or anything if they are not in the nations best interests. That is what 'sovereignty' means. That you keep trying to flog these empty redundant concepts demonstrates how weak the arguments are for our continued membership of the EU.
As for your ridiculous assertion that we must have free uncontrolled movement of labour in order to ensure we have sufficient labour in this country; it is risible. Even the most dim witted individuals surely must be able to grasp the concept that immigration quotas can be adjusted to meet the nations needs.
I'd be interested to know why from your perspective European workers should get preferential immigration treatment over the rest of the world. Do you think European workers are more intelligent or more capable than workers from elsewhere?
As for a Tory majority in the modern age that is nothing more that Tory fantasism. Blaming voters because your party is not good enough is self defeating and destructive. Basically you Tories need to get better at this politics lark and the first step to doing that is to stop blaming everybody else for your failures.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Your position is clear, and lucidly put, and valid as far as it goes, but we are trying to optimise overall outcomes. Legislation which makes your business less profitable can still be a net benefit. Think of all those poor shackle-makers who went out of business when they abolished the slave trade.
A nice, but incorrect analogy. The more correct one would be international football players playing in the English leagues. Yes, they take jobs from English players, but the teams would be less skilled if they comprised only Brits, and the best Brits' skills would be poorer as they would not be having the chance to hone their skills on a daily basis against the best the world has to offer.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Your position is clear, and lucidly put, and valid as far as it goes, but we are trying to optimise overall outcomes. Legislation which makes your business less profitable can still be a net benefit. Think of all those poor shackle-makers who went out of business when they abolished the slave trade.
A nice, but incorrect analogy. The more correct one would be international football players playing in the English leagues. Yes, they take jobs from English players, but the teams would be less skilled if they comprised only Brits, and the best Brits' skills would be poorer as they would not be having the chance to hone their skills on a daily basis against the best the world has to offer.
Ah yes that's why England has won all those World Cups and European Chamionships.
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Your position is clear, and lucidly put, and valid as far as it goes, but we are trying to optimise overall outcomes. Legislation which makes your business less profitable can still be a net benefit. Think of all those poor shackle-makers who went out of business when they abolished the slave trade.
A nice, but incorrect analogy. The more correct one would be international football players playing in the English leagues. Yes, they take jobs from English players, but the teams would be less skilled if they comprised only Brits, and the best Brits' skills would be poorer as they would not be having the chance to hone their skills on a daily basis against the best the world has to offer.
Ah yes that's why England has won all those World Cups and European Chamionships.
The issue is that we get beaten by countries who also have leagues full of foreign players. So, clearly it isn't harming them.
Do you think British companies would produce better products if they didn't compete with foreign ones?
'If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK. '
UK business seemed to manage pretty well based on the immigration system we had prior to 1972.
'If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK. '
UK business seemed to manage pretty well based on the immigration system we had prior to 1972.
Did we have a hard annual cap on immigration in 1972?
Or God-forbid you could actually plan for the future and have people in training to gain the necessary skills within your own company.
Not every company is a multinational with a massive training budget.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
Your position is clear, and lucidly put, and valid as far as it goes, but we are trying to optimise overall outcomes. Legislation which makes your business less profitable can still be a net benefit. Think of all those poor shackle-makers who went out of business when they abolished the slave trade.
A nice, but incorrect analogy. The more correct one would be international football players playing in the English leagues. Yes, they take jobs from English players, but the teams would be less skilled if they comprised only Brits, and the best Brits' skills would be poorer as they would not be having the chance to hone their skills on a daily basis against the best the world has to offer.
Ah yes that's why England has won all those World Cups and European Chamionships.
The issue is that we get beaten by countries who also have leagues full of foreign players. So, clearly it isn't harming them.
Do you think British companies would produce better products if they didn't compete with foreign ones?
Your analysis tends to be as simplistic as a kipper. The issue is more complex. The ability to just buy off the shelf restricts the English game as there just isn't enough base development of talent. Other countries are better at managing their original talent, which comes to play in the English league and gets all that top class experience you advocate.
So your analogy isn't that far removed what happens in business. The nation doesn't develop talent sufficiently, the management buy off the shelf since they're also too lazy to develop, the companies can profit from the system but overall the nation loses since the installed capacity remains suboptimised.
The issue is that we get beaten by countries who also have leagues full of foreign players. So, clearly it isn't harming them.
Do you think British companies would produce better products if they didn't compete with foreign ones?
We get beaten by the Germans:
'"The Bundesliga and German FA made a right decision 10 years ago when they decided that to obtain a licence to play you must run an education camp [academy]. The Bundesliga and second Bundesliga spend €75m a year on these camps.
"Five thousand players aged 12-18 are educated there, which has now made the number of under-23-year-olds in the Bundesliga 15%. Ten years ago it was 6%. This allows more money to be spent on the players that are bought, and there is a bigger chance to buy better, rather than average, players," Seifert says of a league in which the stellar performers currently include Bayern's Frank Ribéry and Arjen Robben.'
So they imposed a condition that without doubt made it far harder for their 'companies' to do business. And they're now reaping the reward.
Kevin Pietersen epitomises the truly mobile business contract with scant regard for nationality except as a card to play to further his own career and wealth.
A fitting sportsman for the 21st century "reality"
Your analysis tends to be as simplistic as a kipper. The issue is more complex. The ability to just buy off the shelf restricts the English game as there just isn't enough base development of talent. Other countries are better at managing their original talent, which comes to play in the English league and gets all that top class experience you advocate.
So your analogy isn't that far removed what happens in business. The nation doesn't develop talent sufficiently, the management buy off the shelf since they're also too lazy to develop, the companies can profit from the system but overall the nation loses since the installed capacity remains suboptimised.
I was kidding to some extent, because I'm not sure TimT's analogy is necessarily that appropriate at a country level.
Regarding sport. Surely there is no need for an argument. Let's look at the empirical evidence. Have countries which have limited foreign players in their leagues done better?
The only example I can think of is Yorkshire cricket, where it did the county no good at all to restrict its players to only those born in the county. But I'm sure we can think of other examples.
Your analysis tends to be as simplistic as a kipper. The issue is more complex. The ability to just buy off the shelf restricts the English game as there just isn't enough base development of talent. Other countries are better at managing their original talent, which comes to play in the English league and gets all that top class experience you advocate.
So your analogy isn't that far removed what happens in business. The nation doesn't develop talent sufficiently, the management buy off the shelf since they're also too lazy to develop, the companies can profit from the system but overall the nation loses since the installed capacity remains suboptimised.
I was kidding to some extent, because I'm not sure TimT's analogy is necessarily that appropriate at a country level.
Regarding sport. Surely there is no need for an argument. Let's look at the empirical evidence. Have countries which have limited foreign players in their leagues done better?
The only example I can think of is Yorkshire cricket, where it did the county no good at all to restrict its players to only those born in the county. But I'm sure we can think of other examples.
The issue isn't about foreign imports it's more about developing your own base. Autarky isn't a way forward since as you say you miss out on learning. However when imports becomes the way of life and gets to the point where you ignore your investing in your own future then something is wrong. Ultimately it's a question of getting the balance right.
Stuart Lancaster did some proper trolling of the Irish before the match, he said
"They [The Irish side] are full of British Lions"
Sir Clive Woodward before the match said that 12 years ago England knew if they din't win that game and the Grand Slam they would not win the World Cup.
Starting to think I won't do any more work tonight - so on PB - the absolute hatred by the middle class for the working class, disguised as anti-racism.
Starting to think I won't do any more work tonight - so on PB - the absolute hatred by the middle class for the working class, disguised as anti-racism.
I don't think I've seen anything about racism or about hatred of anyone.
'Labour MP says party shouldn’t rule out a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, has said that Labour shouldn’t rule out forming a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories after the next election if neither party win a majority.'
'Labour MP says party shouldn’t rule out a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, has said that Labour shouldn’t rule out forming a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories after the next election if neither party win a majority.'
'Labour MP says party shouldn’t rule out a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, has said that Labour shouldn’t rule out forming a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories after the next election if neither party win a majority.'
'Labour MP says party shouldn’t rule out a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, has said that Labour shouldn’t rule out forming a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories after the next election if neither party win a majority.'
The smears start. The BBC4 pro-eu propaganda piece kicks off with Nigel Farage deporting all immigrants who have arrived in the past 10 years.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
I presume next week at the same time we will be getting a film that is equally hyperbolic about how bad total EU integration with UK taking the Euro is, no?
Comments
First visit to Huntingdon races was very enjoyable and small profit too.
Any reason why EICIPM has shortened slightly to 2.34 but Lab most seats has drifted like a barge to 2.58?
Before anyone commits millions of pounds to a project (whether a factory, or a company or a new product), they want to know the environmental regulations won't change, that they'll be able to get the workers they need, that you'll be allowed to import the components you need from abroad, etc.
If you had a points based system - even one that was only expected to allow in 10,000 people a year - then that would give businesses more certainty than one where the numbers were subject to change on an annual basis according to the whims of politicians and the electoral cycle.
I can start a business anywhere in the world. Why would I go somewhere where there is substantial and unnecessary uncertainty?
"A sausageless casserole". Can I suggest a trip to the Ivy. It might not lessen your affection for Farage but it'll make you think more about your similes
In particular, Cameron is unreliable and flaky. Cast-iron guarantee, no-ifs-no-buts: he doesn't intend to lie or mislead (I think) but he says things with no thought as to whether he can perform on them. Farage wants a winnable referendum, and Cameron will not deliver one - if it looks like an Out vote he will collude with Labour in offering the electorate free owls for life and all the gold they can eat if they vote to stay in, just as he did in the Indyref.
Let's say I have a business with half a dozen employees, going back through historic medical trials, and trying to work out if there were drugs that failed on efficacy grounds, which work for a certain subset with specific genetic markers.
The biopython skills I need might be had by 1,000 people in the world. And sure, I can (and do) hire 22 year olds out of university and train them up. But that doesn't solve my primary problem right now of someone who knows drugs, DNA, python and a bunch of specific technologies.
As a director of a business, my primary obligation is to my shareholders, and if I'm not allowed to import the people with the skills I need, then I'm not going to be training up any 22 year olds.
The gap between the two prices looks about right to me, although they both look a bit long to me, I'd have it at around 1.9 and 2.1
I suspect the fallback position has always been that given 80% plus of the electorate oppose 'ever closer union' should Miliband or any other PM try to further tie us into the EU then UKIP will benefit off the back of the voter unpopularity that would be generated by Miliband's or someone else's treachery.
Given now it looks like the Libdems will not support an EU referendum it seems highly unlikely (given the Tories are incapable of winning a majority) that any of the establishment parties will be able to offer a referendum. If a referendum is not on the table what else do you expect UKIP to do but try their best to improve their own position?
You can in theory start a business anywhere in the world. The difficulties inherent in trying to do so outside your home country (starting, ironically, with obtaining the necessary visa for yourself) would probably outweigh the perceived advantages of escaping not-very-onerous immigration restrictions here.
''Though we sometimes take pleasure in the eurozone’s dysfunctional family tearing itself apart, stronger growth in Europe is good for Britain. Much of the growth disappointment in Britain in the early stages of recovery was down to the eurozone’s woes. The better it does, in general, the better we do too.''
Yes we need trading partners all right.
"Isn't the Ivy closed for refurbishment?"
I've no idea I haven't been there for a while. It's not a favourite of mine
Yes we need trading partners but we do not need political masters. We can trade with the EU without being members of it. The thing is why would we put all our money on just one trading partner when there are so many other options out there?
PS It is the idea of the fabricated political construct of the EU crumbling that is pleasurable. I don't think any of us take pleasure in the poverty the PIGS countries are experiencing.
Learned today that my grandmother was au pair briefly to Jean-Noël Jeanneney, at a time when Jean-Marcel Jeanneney was still plotting the return of de Gaulle to french politics, something she, therefore, was accidentally a party to. An east End kid in a very different world...
The people I know who've done this are largely internationalists - people who've worked abroad and for whom foreign climes hold no fear, and who have the necessary marketing and VC contacts from other work. Certainly in the cases of two of the companies, the reason they chose the UK to start up was because they knew they could get the very precisely-skilled people they needed (sometimes by name because they've worked with them before), and attract others from abroad.
They can't train people, up, because there's no-one to train them - often because the tech is just an idea in someone's head, and/or because there is simply not the bandwidth - they need everyone to get the initial prototypes or docs out of the door.
Two of these companies are now fairly successful, although I doubt you'll ever have heard of them. But they employ hundreds of well-paid, highly-skilled people in the UK, and attract others in. We need more like them.
As an aside I support the idea that people who risk capital in setting up businesses that employ people should get tax reductions, but that won't be popular with many people on here. ;-)
(*) In fact, I usually work(ed) for small, new companies, as they're the most fun. Once they get too large, they quickly get less fun. Which is probably one reason I'm not rich. It's great when you're the first or second software engineer in the door, and you can help shape the company. It's less fun when you have five-hour meetings about the design of a sign.
This is about the dangers of hard cap system of immigration control, rather than a needs based one,
We are not in the Euro and not part of any monetary fiscal and political ever closer union. That is the whole point about renegotiations. We can leave joining the Euro and ever closer union to a future LabLibSNP pact. Or rather you can, since this is what would happen if we do not get a Tory majority.
From the point of view of 'trading' - any likely agreement will not make any material difference to us than it is now. Even if we left then its likely as per the EEA we would be in the single market, the recipient of inward investment into that market and the free movement of labour in that market. We might get some changes to the labour rules but as long as we are creating jobs we will need workers. You might relish the thought of wage inflation and those able to bully their way to top dog under that scenario will be right there with you.
In the real world labour is going to move. In the last thread I pointed out the strains of NAFTA where free trade without free movement was costing jobs as industries moved. The answer to those strains is likely to be the movement of Labour.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/paddy-power-face-backlash-after-5253342
"I've only been once, and was not particularly impressed."
I've been more than once but I've never been a fan and it used to be so difficult to get into that it was always too much trouble. Normal rules didn't apply if you went with a minor celeb though which made it even less desirable.
It's one thing to have a system which encourages only the brightest and the best to come here. But a hard cap doesn't do that: it encourages a rush to get visas in January and February and then locks people out for the rest of the year. It means someone exceptional in May is crowded out by someone ordinary in January.
That is not good for the UK, that is not good for business.
Desperate Danny !
And of course you repeat your oft repeated myth about there being no material difference between membership of the EU and the EEA. Given that only a small proportion of EU law applies to EEA members and that those bits that do are probably the bits we would be most happy to stick with and given that the costs of EEA membership would be a fraction of the costs of EU membership, the idea that there is no material difference is just plain wrong.
They all conspired to fiddle their books.
We are not in the Euro and not part of any monetary fiscal and political ever closer union. That is the whole point about renegotiations. We can leave joining the Euro and ever closer union to a future LabLibSNP pact. Or rather you can, since this is what would happen if we do not get a Tory majority.
From the point of view of 'trading' - any likely agreement will not make any material difference to us than it is now. Even if we left then its likely as per the EEA we would be in the single market, the recipient of inward investment into that market and the free movement of labour in that market. We might get some changes to the labour rules but as long as we are creating jobs we will need workers. You might relish the thought of wage inflation and those able to bully their way to top dog under that scenario will be right there with you.
In the real world labour is going to move. In the last thread I pointed out the strains of NAFTA where free trade without free movement was costing jobs as industries moved. The answer to those strains is likely to be the movement of Labour
As long as we are in the EU we will always be part of ever closer union. Just last year the Government signed up to a number of Criminal Justice matters. Since November last year we have been in transition giving up tens of vetoes which will be replaced by Qualified Majority Voting which will further dilute our sovereignty. In March 2017 those vetoes will be lost forever. Ever closer Union is all around you.
If we withdrew from the EU we would not have to sign up to the EEA, NAFTA or anything if they are not in the nations best interests. That is what 'sovereignty' means. That you keep trying to flog these empty redundant concepts demonstrates how weak the arguments are for our continued membership of the EU.
As for your ridiculous assertion that we must have free uncontrolled movement of labour in order to ensure we have sufficient labour in this country; it is risible. Even the most dim witted individuals surely must be able to grasp the concept that immigration quotas can be adjusted to meet the nations needs.
I'd be interested to know why from your perspective European workers should get preferential immigration treatment over the rest of the world. Do you think European workers are more intelligent or more capable than workers from elsewhere?
As for a Tory majority in the modern age that is nothing more that Tory fantasism. Blaming voters because your party is not good enough is self defeating and destructive. Basically you Tories need to get better at this politics lark and the first step to doing that is to stop blaming everybody else for your failures.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2010/apr/11/bundesliga-premier-league
Do you think British companies would produce better products if they didn't compete with foreign ones?
'If who I can employ is permanently changing, with annual shuffles for what skills are needed, etc., then I simply wouldn't start a business in the UK. '
UK business seemed to manage pretty well based on the immigration system we had prior to 1972.
So your analogy isn't that far removed what happens in business. The nation doesn't develop talent sufficiently, the management buy off the shelf since they're also too lazy to develop, the companies can profit from the system but overall the nation loses since the installed capacity remains suboptimised.
If he comes back, I'll be cheering for Ireland and won't go to any England matches whilst he plays for us.
'"The Bundesliga and German FA made a right decision 10 years ago when they decided that to obtain a licence to play you must run an education camp [academy]. The Bundesliga and second Bundesliga spend €75m a year on these camps.
"Five thousand players aged 12-18 are educated there, which has now made the number of under-23-year-olds in the Bundesliga 15%. Ten years ago it was 6%. This allows more money to be spent on the players that are bought, and there is a bigger chance to buy better, rather than average, players," Seifert says of a league in which the stellar performers currently include Bayern's Frank Ribéry and Arjen Robben.'
So they imposed a condition that without doubt made it far harder for their 'companies' to do business. And they're now reaping the reward.
A fitting sportsman for the 21st century "reality"
Regarding sport. Surely there is no need for an argument. Let's look at the empirical evidence. Have countries which have limited foreign players in their leagues done better?
The only example I can think of is Yorkshire cricket, where it did the county no good at all to restrict its players to only those born in the county. But I'm sure we can think of other examples.
"They [The Irish side] are full of British Lions"
" They are full of Irishmen who can't sing"
The list of constituencies in which I have reports of people receiving recent calls from Populus now stands at six -
East Renfrewshire
Rutherglen & Hamilton West
Lanark & Hamilton East
Edinburgh West
Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath
Ross, Skye & Lochaber <-
Well, it is because he is a crap singer, no really.
Just saying...
Or are you accusing me?
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, has said that Labour shouldn’t rule out forming a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories after the next election if neither party win a majority.'
http://tinyurl.com/o6ngdv5
Red Tories etc etc
East Coast trains is now back in private hands.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31680914
We could have a Mayoral election later on this year, and not next May.
He is trying to boost his profile etc
Fund-raiser for Tooting, or from Tooting.
Can Sadiq
If Boris doesn't quit until after November, then no London Mayoral election by-election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11443421/Independence-activists-abuse-Nick-Robinson-after-his-tumour-operation-is-revealed.html
But if the Tories lose power and Boris throws his hat into the ring, and he wins, he cannot be current London Mayor and Leader of the Opposition.
3m
Patrick Hennessy @PatJHennessy
Good trip to Wembley, our second home #Chelsea pic.twitter.com/Vw8QGTgBWA
Con largest Probability
with no possible two party coalition 0.28
I reckon that's Ed's SNP propped up gap.
I hope they have not received EU funding for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buckingham2007Constituency.svg