The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
Indeed, while Russell Group graduates make more than non-graduates and apprentices as well as graduates from other universities top apprentices make more than graduates from non-Russell Group universities
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
Sanders could win Minnesota yes, though it is an open caucus which is difficult to predict, Oklahoma will likely go to Hillary. I doubt he drops out after Tuesday, especially if he wins a few states and he will likely win at least Maine on March 6th. The GOP battle is also likely to go a while, especially if Cruz wins Texas and he and Rubio win a couple of other states, so he can argue with the GOP still battling it out he is not damaging the Dems by continuing the fight on their side as well
When it comes to winner-takes-all in the Republican primaries, if Cruz and Rubio are still in the race, then Trump's victory is assured. One of these two has to go out before that happens.
Cruz and Rubio will stay in at least until March 15th when Trump beats Rubio in Florida, then Rubio drops out and it becomes Cruz v Trump
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
I appreciate that many people have an opinion on what the EU countries will do after a LEAVE vote, but the only simulation that actually involved real nonAnglosphere people that I am aware of was the Open Europe simulation in December 2013. The TL:DR summary is "messy divorce with a suboptimal result". It was one of two wargames: one prior to negotiations, one after a LEAVE vote. Links are below:
Interesting points to note: * The European Parliament have to approve the agreement.I did not know this. * It's not a "negotiation" in the classical sense: the UK gets what it's given unless it's willing to walk away with nothing * Protectionist elements in the EU will render the agreement less rational than the UK would like and - post-Brexit - would make the EU more protectionist.
If memory serves, NorfolkTilIDie deprecates the wargame because the European participants were Europhile. I think a wargame should be as realistic as possible so that isa strength, nor a weakness.
So with 2/3 of the Irish seats allocated, we have four main blocs - Fine Gael (currently 31), Fianna Fail (currently 30), Sinn Fein (currently 14) and Independents (12).
Clearly, FF and FG would command a majority in the Dail but history and political culture mitigates against these two parties wortking together as much as it would Conservative and Labour over here. I'm pushed to see the ideological distinction between FF and FG in all honesty though I've always thought FG the urban party and FF the rural party.
With SF unwilling to be involved in any coalition, FF and FG are going to have to try to cobble something together with the Independents and the "others" and it may be that on their own neither FF nor FG will be able to create a majority government.
The options are therefore two it would seem:
1) An FG/FF Grand Coalition. It would be strange to see Enda Kenny remain as Taoiseach given the battering FG has received in terms of seats and votes.
2) Either FF or FG persuades SF to join the Government. Listening to Adams this morning, I think he's hoping for SF to be the main opposition Party facing a fractious FF/FG government so the idea of him throwing in SF's lot with either seems unlikely.
You seem to know a lot more than me, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is a FG + independents, out of the question? it may tern out to be mathematically insufficient, and some Independents may chose not to participate, but can it be ruled out? at this point?
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party) What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
. Hillary is in massive trouble.
free.
I think you ar
wire
I politely disagree with your analysis, Trump, is still very much an unknown, He has beaten almost everybody's predictions about him so far, but still has a big load of vanrabilatys, that could be devastating. this could be the year of the 3rd party, whether that's Bloomberg, or perhaps the libertarian Gary Johnson. I don't know, how this will play out, but the odds of it being a 49% vs 51% down to the last few days, are much smaller, IMHO, than it terns in to a comfortable or 'blow out' win for one side or the other.
I politely disagree too, after
OK, interesting, there are some good examples, it seems that more elections have been close than I realised, but I think Trump is less like the examples you have given above, he has similtaniasly, alienated some republicans, and attracted some democrats, much more so than normal. I think he will ether tern out (electorally) to be a Goldwater or a Ragan, I'm just not shore which.
When Ross Paero, stood in 1992, he got 19% which If I recall was about 2 Republicans to every Democrat, Bloomberg could take a similar ratio from the democrats, Johnson from the Republicans, they may even cancel each other out! but I think more likely one will be much bigger than the other.
One other think that may be interesting is how Trump gets on in a 'One on One' debate (assuming that nether Johnson or Bloomberg get in the debates) I think his style has worked well in multie person debates, because he always comes out with the most memorisable lines, thus leading everybody watching to forget who else was even on the stage! but I think that this style may play less well if it is just 2 people.
It is of course possible Trump could be Goldwater or Reagan, personally I see him more as Hubert Humphrey to Hillary's Nixon in 1968, a race which went down to the wire. Perot actually drew about equally from Bush and Clinton voters exit polls confirmed, Bloomberg and Johnson would likely be similar, even if Bloomberg draws a few more Democrats, Johnson a few more Republicans.
HRC is certainly a formidable and experienced debater, the debates could go either way and Trump will need to avoid any gaffes, easier said than done for him
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now?
That's not the relevant question in a post-Brexit scenario. The relevant question is what incentive each party has versus no deal, not versus today's situation.
The EU not only sells more to us than vice-versa. It also has more of its people in the UK than vice versa. There is a clear incentive on both sides to agree to maintain legacy rights and benefits for each other's citizens already here. But that doesn't have to be the case and the difference in numbers gives the UK an advantage here.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
That central govt policy over the last 30 years has created huge areas of labour shortage that have become increasingly met through EU migration does not change the fact that these shortages exist and will need to be met should we leave the EU.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
And who created all those NBG universities? A socialist called John Major IIRC
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
That central govt policy over the last 30 years has created huge areas of labour shortage that have become increasingly met through EU migration does not change the fact that these shortages exist and will need to be met should we leave the EU.
You are being extremely inconsistent also. One moment you are saying that the reason all these jobs are occupied by foreigners is because they are prepared to live in squalid conditions on slave wages, the next the British workers need to get with the program and get over their taste for "luxury".
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
Indeed, while Russell Group graduates make more than non-graduates and apprentices as well as graduates from other universities top apprentices make more than graduates from non-Russell Group universities
I'm piggybacking a bit on you discussion, but could I propose, that instead of having the government fund most of the cost of university, that is then toped up with tuition fees, we move to a system where every young person gets a 'bursary' a set amount of case that can be used however that person whishes, towards there education, which could be to pay some of the real cost of University, or it could be towards an appretership, or any form of training.
I like the idea because it is consistent with the idea of 'equality before the lore' But I think that by equalising the incentives, individuals would be better at making the chose as to what is the best form of education/training for them.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
You could easily sort out something on retirement, although would probably need reciprocal arrangements on healthcare etc. I was focusing on people of working age who would be part of a trade agreement.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
The data clearly shows that most migration from the UK to other parts of the EU involves people who do not have jobs to go to. Why would it be easy to work something out on retirement? What do we give up to allow hundreds of thousands of Brits to retire in EU countries on the same basis as they are able to now?
All countries would need to agree a Brexit deal. Most member states do not have a trade deficit with us, so have no incentive to give us what we want without us giving stuff back. And even those that do have a trade degicit have other considerstions. Under your plan, for example, the likelihood is that the Northern European countries would see heightened immigration from people no longer able to move freely to the UK. Why would Germany, France, Benelux etc agree to that?
Just saying it would all be OK is not that compelling an argument. We currently enjoy full freedom to move capital, services and goods around the EU, while British citizens have full freedom of movement. How much of that are you prepared to give up?
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican e?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Trump is only getting 17% of the Hispanic vote with Quinnipiac, Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, George W Bush 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004
Even settled Hispanics will note the racist overtone in "building the wall". 20% will be about right. There are 20% idiots in very community.
but still has a big load of vanrabilatys, that could be devastating. this could be the year of the 3rd party, whether that's Bloomberg, or perhaps the libertarian Gary Johnson. I don't know, how this will play out, but the odds of it being a 49% vs 51% down to the last few days, are much smaller, IMHO, than it terns in to a comfortable or 'blow out' win for one side or the other.
I politely disagree too, after
OK, interesting, there are some good examples, it seems that more elections have been close than I realised, but I think Trump is less like the examples you have given above, he has similtaniasly, alienated some republicans, and attracted some democrats, much more so than normal. I think he will ether tern out (electorally) to be a Goldwater or a Ragan, I'm just not shore which.
When Ross Paero, stood in 1992, he got 19% which If I recall was about 2 Republicans to every Democrat, Bloomberg could take a similar ratio from the democrats, Johnson from the Republicans, they may even cancel each other out! but I think more likely one will be much bigger than the other.
One other think that may be interesting is how Trump gets on in a 'One on One' debate (assuming that nether Johnson or Bloomberg get in the debates) I think his style has worked well in multie person debates, because he always comes out with the most memorisable lines, thus leading everybody watching to forget who else was even on the stage! but I think that this style may play less well if it is just 2 people.
It is of course possible Trump could be Goldwater or Reagan, personally I see him more as Hubert Humphrey to Hillary's Nixon in 1968, a race which went down to the wire. Perot actually drew about equally from Bush and Clinton voters exit polls confirmed, Bloomberg and Johnson would likely be similar, even if Bloomberg draws a few more Democrats, Johnson a few more Republicans.
HRC is certainly a formidable and experienced debater, the debates could go either way and Trump will need to avoid any gaffes, easier said than done for him
OK HYUFD, it seems that we will not agree, on how big the win will be, but we do seem to agree that we cant yet say with any confidence who will win, (if that is not an oxymoron) if come November if the election is within a % or 2 I will concede you where correct, but until then I will keep predicting that it is likely to be more than that.
My view is that people should be allowed to work where they want, but that it is perfectly permissible for governments to discriminate in favour of citizens as far as benefits, etc go. As such, our views are very close. (I would probably go slightly further in some respects, in that I would argue that unless you are a citizen or paying National Insurance, then you need to buy compulsory NHS Insurance if you are in the UK.)
Where I think we disagree is that you propose that people cannot come to the UK to look for work. The reason I disagree is that I think it is - in effect - impractical to enforce, and creates a massive evasion industry. Effectively, loop holes (friends who'd extend a job offer, on-line bureaus offering piecework, etc) would render it effectively worthless. Further, it's not like you can prevent people coming to the UK for job interviews, although you could require them to get a bus to Calais to await the official job offer letter.
I would simply say that: 1. Benefits are for citizens 2. Access to the NHS requires either (a) citizenship, (b) employment with NI contributions, or (c) NHS Health Insurance. 3. Anyone resident longer than 90 days needs to register, and have either an NI paying job, or means of support and NHS Health Insurance card.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
You could easily sort out something on retirement, although would probably need reciprocal arrangements on healthcare etc. I was focusing on people of working age who would be part of a trade agreement.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
The data clearly shows that most migration from the UK to other parts of the EU involves people who do not have jobs to go to. Why would it be easy to work something out on retirement? What do we give up to allow hundreds of thousands of Brits to retire in EU countries on the same basis as they are able to now?
All countries would need to agree a Brexit deal.
This is a point which seems to be conveniently brushed over. The EU negotiates trade deals as a unit. We do not get to negotiate 26 different trade deals with each individual country. And just because it is clearly in some EU countries' interests to try to replicate the status quo, others have no such incentive. And there is no reason why the former should prevail.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
And who created all those NBG universities? A socialist called John Major IIRC
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
What does it matter who was responsible. It was still a stupid bloody idea. Something Major seems to have excelled in.
Nor does it matter whether it was an idea from left or right of the political spectrum. One if the best advances in higher education in the 20th century was the Open University. Created by Harold Wilson.
Ideas should be judged on their merits not on which side came up with them.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
Indeed, while Russell Group graduates make more than non-graduates and apprentices as well as graduates from other universities top apprentices make more than graduates from non-Russell Group universities
I'm piggybacking a bit on you discussion, but could I propose, that instead of having the government fund most of the cost of university, that is then toped up with tuition fees, we move to a system where every young person gets a 'bursary' a set amount of case that can be used however that person whishes, towards there education, which could be to pay some of the real cost of University, or it could be towards an appretership, or any form of training.
I like the idea because it is consistent with the idea of 'equality before the lore' But I think that by equalising the incentives, individuals would be better at making the chose as to what is the best form of education/training for them.
Yes and the government seems to be moving towards that direction and funded apprenticeships
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now?
That's not the relevant question in a post-Brexit scenario. The relevant question is what incentive each party has versus no deal, not versus today's situation.
The EU not only sells more to us than vice-versa. It also has more of its people in the UK than vice versa. There is a clear incentive on both sides to agree to maintain legacy rights and benefits for each other's citizens already here. But that doesn't have to be the case and the difference in numbers gives the UK an advantage here.
If there is no deal we are not going to deport EU citizens currently living here. So they stay. We may introduce tariffs on goods coming in from the EU - that will make them more expensive to buy. But making German, Italian and French cars more expensive reduces consumer choice in the UK and invites car manufacturers from elsewhere to raise their prices. Ditto with plenty of other goods of all kinds. We may be able to source some from elsewhere, but plenty of others we would not be able to, especially more specialist stuff like the hospital equipment IDS was talking about this morning, for example.
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
Your peculiar determination that right of centre people want to punish and/or disenfranchise left wing people makes you appear like a paranoid idiot. I imagine you'd get a considerably higher level of respect paid to your posts if you resisted the urge.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
That central govt policy over the last 30 years has created huge areas of labour shortage that have become increasingly met through EU migration does not change the fact that these shortages exist and will need to be met should we leave the EU.
You are being extremely inconsistent also. One moment you are saying that the reason all these jobs are occupied by foreigners is because they are prepared to live in squalid conditions on slave wages, the next the British workers need to get with the program and get over their taste for "luxury".
I dont think the answer is too difficult. A brexit scenario would have a reciprocal arrangement that continued to allow the free movement of labour etc, but, that there would be no obligation to reciprocate on reliance on public funds. There would be no requirement for the british state to support non UK nationals, and there would be no requirement on EU states to do likewise to British nationals.
We need to smarten our own system up significantly. Welfare only to British *citizens*, or at a push, those with indefinite leave to remain. Tax credits, and other employment related tax funded benefits, again only available to residents or citizens, and only payable and calculated based on children residing within the UK.
I think one of the concerns is that you get a double whammy in attracting migrants from eastern europe. They can come over and do a min wage job, earn £14k and then get a further £10k in tax credits and child benefit.
Cut that out, and a lot of the resentment goes with it. Oh, an students from the EU can pay their own sodding fees at British universities like the rest of England has to.
Combine that with a much greater freedom to exclude undesirables (though not unreasonably), specifically, those who have a criminal record, or commit crimes in the UK.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
And who created all those NBG universities? A socialist called John Major IIRC
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
What does it matter who was responsible. It was still a stupid bloody idea. Something Major seems to have excelled in.
Nor does it matter whether it was an idea from left or right of the political spectrum. One if the best advances in higher education in the 20th century was the Open University. Created by Harold Wilson.
Ideas should be judged on their merits not on which side came up with them.
I agree. But then, I haven't had a Party to puff for over 25 years.
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
Your peculiar determination that right of centre people want to punish and/or disenfranchise left wing people makes you appear like a paranoid idiot. I imagine you'd get a considerably higher level of respect paid to your posts if you resisted the urge.
My view is that people should be allowed to work where they want, but that it is perfectly permissible for governments to discriminate in favour of citizens as far as benefits, etc go. As such, our views are very close. (I would probably go slightly further in some respects, in that I would argue that unless you are a citizen or paying National Insurance, then you need to buy compulsory NHS Insurance if you are in the UK.)
Where I think we disagree is that you propose that people cannot come to the UK to look for work. The reason I disagree is that I think it is - in effect - impractical to enforce, and creates a massive evasion industry. Effectively, loop holes (friends who'd extend a job offer, on-line bureaus offering piecework, etc) would render it effectively worthless. Further, it's not like you can prevent people coming to the UK for job interviews, although you could require them to get a bus to Calais to await the official job offer letter.
I would simply say that: 1. Benefits are for citizens 2. Access to the NHS requires either (a) citizenship, (b) employment with NI contributions, or (c) NHS Health Insurance. 3. Anyone resident longer than 90 days needs to register, and have either an NI paying job, or means of support and NHS Health Insurance card.
As I have said before I think the problem we have is not with people coming to the UK to work. It is that we are actively supporting the employers to use foreign labour when we should be encouraging better training and use of a British labour force.
I have no problem with employers choosing to use foreign labour. But if they do they should be entirely responsible for the welfare of that Labour including paying for whatever social benefits they ate entitled to. So if a non UK worker is entitled to in work benefits then that money should be reclaimed by the Government directly from the company.
This should also continue after a non UK worked has been laid off until such times as they either leave the country or get another job.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
Indeed, while Russell Group graduates make more than non-graduates and apprentices as well as graduates from other universities top apprentices make more than graduates from non-Russell Group universities
I'm piggybacking a bit on you discussion, but could I propose, that instead of having the government fund most of the cost of university, that is then toped up with tuition fees, we move to a system where every young person gets a 'bursary' a set amount of case that can be used however that person whishes, towards there education, which could be to pay some of the real cost of University, or it could be towards an appretership, or any form of training.
I like the idea because it is consistent with the idea of 'equality before the lore' But I think that by equalising the incentives, individuals would be better at making the chose as to what is the best form of education/training for them.
Yes and the government seems to be moving towards that direction and funded apprenticeships
When I were a lad, as is said, a lot of professionals, such as as solicitors and accountants never went to university. They signed articles at 16 and did professional exams over the next four years or so. Same applied, IIRC, to journalists.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
And who created all those NBG universities? A socialist called John Major IIRC
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
What does it matter who was responsible. It was still a stupid bloody idea. Something Major seems to have excelled in.
Nor does it matter whether it was an idea from left or right of the political spectrum. One if the best advances in higher education in the 20th century was the Open University. Created by Harold Wilson.
Ideas should be judged on their merits not on which side came up with them.
I agree. But then, I haven't had a Party to puff for over 25 years.
We sound more similar than either of us is probably comfort with.
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
Your peculiar determination that right of centre people want to punish and/or disenfranchise left wing people makes you appear like a paranoid idiot. I imagine you'd get a considerably higher level of respect paid to your posts if you resisted the urge.
Heard of irony?
I can only see that working as irony if you're actually mocking paranoid lefty idiots. If that is indeed the case, well done for being such a well disguised right wing troll. Bravo!
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Wine Rooms, Kensington Church Street, is nice for a light meal.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Wine Rooms, Kensington Church Street, is nice for a light meal.
Thank you, Mr. F, that looks ideal. Now has anyone any offers on where to go for tea and cake? The usual suspects, Fortnums, The Ritz, etc., will be over the top - too much food and it is my wife that I am entertaining.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
But accepting a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now is rational if the status quo ante is no longer on offer and the alternative is worse.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Wine Rooms, Kensington Church Street, is nice for a light meal.
Thank you, Mr. F, that looks ideal. Now has anyone any offers on where to go for tea and cake? The usual suspects, Fortnums, The Ritz, etc., will be over the top - too much food and it is my wife that I am entertaining.
Fortnums and the Ritz are also a long way from the RAH.
We have record employment now, don't we? Won't the effect of reducing the pool to choose from be to raise prices?
Yes! exactly, whether the effect of razing everybody's pay, and the cost of everything sold and or exported, is good or bad is another, on balance you could say it the benefits will cancel out the negatives, which they might. however if you say that the benefits will be proportionally larger to the low/zero skilled, and therefore we could undo some of the counterproductive, marketed distorting and wealth destroying legislation like the Minimum wage, then the result would be a big benefit. yippy!!!!
However the biggest divide between net gainers/lowse will be home ownership, if a significant number of people leave this island, then hose prises will come down, if you are a home owner then this is all bad, but if you have not yet bought a home, then you benefit as rents come down. again overall this is balanced, unless we take the opportunity to reduces housing benefits, in which case as the 'big state' retreats we all benefit.
My view is that people should be allowed to work where they want, but that it is perfectly permissible for governments to discriminate in favour of citizens as far as benefits, etc go. As such, our views are very close. (I would probably go slightly further in some respects, in that I would argue that unless you are a citizen or paying National Insurance, then you need to buy compulsory NHS Insurance if you are in the UK.)
Where I think we disagree is that you propose that people cannot come to the UK to look for work. The reason I disagree is that I think it is - in effect - impractical to enforce, and creates a massive evasion industry. Effectively, loop holes (friends who'd extend a job offer, on-line bureaus offering piecework, etc) would render it effectively worthless. Further, it's not like you can prevent people coming to the UK for job interviews, although you could require them to get a bus to Calais to await the official job offer letter.
I would simply say that: 1. Benefits are for citizens 2. Access to the NHS requires either (a) citizenship, (b) employment with NI contributions, or (c) NHS Health Insurance. 3. Anyone resident longer than 90 days needs to register, and have either an NI paying job, or means of support and NHS Health Insurance card.
As I have said before I think the problem we have is not with people coming to the UK to work. It is that we are actively supporting the employers to use foreign labour when we should be encouraging better training and use of a British labour force.
I have no problem with employers choosing to use foreign labour. But if they do they should be entirely responsible for the welfare of that Labour including paying for whatever social benefits they ate entitled to. So if a non UK worker is entitled to in work benefits then that money should be reclaimed by the Government directly from the company.
This should also continue after a non UK worked has been laid off until such times as they either leave the country or get another job.
That's a very interesting proposal. Essentially the goal of all these things is to change the supply and demand curves for both UK and non-UK nationals. In doing so, we can hopefully permanently improve the labour rate participation and skills of British citizens, and improve the competitiveness of British business.
It seems that we need to work hard on the structure of our education and benefits system to improve the supply of UK labour. And we need to make sure that we lower the cost of employing people from the UK too. A simple 'Non UK Citizens NHS Contribution' to be paid by businesses might be an interesting and easy way of changing the relative costs, while collecting tax in a way we might all benefit from.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Wine Rooms, Kensington Church Street, is nice for a light meal.
Thank you, Mr. F, that looks ideal. Now has anyone any offers on where to go for tea and cake? The usual suspects, Fortnums, The Ritz, etc., will be over the top - too much food and it is my wife that I am entertaining.
If you're looking at Piccadilly, Richoux is very nice for tea.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
From their perspective, we will be giving up our share of self-sufficiency in agriculture, the prestige of European Union membership, free movement of our citizens throughout the EU and influence in one of the major blocs that decides world affairs.
Many Remain supporters seem to believe an inconsistency: that EU membership is clearly better than a free trade deal, but also that a free trade deal is so much better than EU membership that we wouldn't be allowed it. Well, which is it??
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
But accepting a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now is rational if the status quo ante is no longer on offer and the alternative is worse.
Indeed. We know where we are now: we have unhindered access to a market of 500 million and the right to move freely around 27 countries. What do we give up if we vote to Leave and what do we gain?
What do we get from no deal? Higher prices, as a result of shrinking the labour pool and making imports more expensive; and no more unhindered access to the single market.
My view is that people should be allowed to work where they want, but that it is perfectly permissible for governments to discriminate in favour of citizens as far as benefits, etc go. As such, our views are very close. (I would probably go slightly further in some respects, in that I would argue that unless you are a citizen or paying National Insurance, then you need to buy compulsory NHS Insurance if you are in the UK.)
Where I think we disagree is that you propose that people cannot come to the UK to look for work. The reason I disagree is that I think it is - in effect - impractical to enforce, and creates a massive evasion industry. Effectively, loop holes (friends who'd extend a job offer, on-line bureaus offering piecework, etc) would render it effectively worthless. Further, it's not like you can prevent people coming to the UK for job interviews, although you could require them to get a bus to Calais to await the official job offer letter.
I would simply say that: 1. Benefits are for citizens 2. Access to the NHS requires either (a) citizenship, (b) employment with NI contributions, or (c) NHS Health Insurance. 3. Anyone resident longer than 90 days needs to register, and have either an NI paying job, or means of support and NHS Health Insurance card.
As I have said before I think the problem we have is not with people coming to the UK to work. It is that we are actively supporting the employers to use foreign labour when we should be encouraging better training and use of a British labour force.
I have no problem with employers choosing to use foreign labour. But if they do they should be entirely responsible for the welfare of that Labour including paying for whatever social benefits they ate entitled to. So if a non UK worker is entitled to in work benefits then that money should be reclaimed by the Government directly from the company.
This should also continue after a non UK worked has been laid off until such times as they either leave the country or get another job.
I can agree with much of that. The fact that we have allowed a situation to arise where there is for want of a better word (and there probably is) a benefits culture where UK 'workers' have become unemployable due to their attitudes and education and work ethic, is nothing to do with membership of the EU. More of the growth in jobs should have gone to British workers but they do not want them. This has been the case for some considerable time. It is a serious problem and a disgraceful situation for our country to have found itself in. We have a govt now which is trying to limit benefits but it is being opposed all the time by political opportunists.
You could easily sort out something on retirement, although would probably need reciprocal arrangements on healthcare etc. I was focusing on people of working age who would be part of a trade agreement.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
The data clearly shows that most migration from the UK to other parts of the EU involves people who do not have jobs to go to. Why would it be easy to work something out on retirement? What do we give up to allow hundreds of thousands of Brits to retire in EU countries on the same basis as they are able to now?
All countries would need to agree a Brexit deal. Most member states do not have a trade deficit with us, so have no incentive to give us what we want without us giving stuff back. And even those that do have a trade degicit have other considerstions. Under your plan, for example, the likelihood is that the Northern European countries would see heightened immigration from people no longer able to move freely to the UK. Why would Germany, France, Benelux etc agree to that?
Just saying it would all be OK is not that compelling an argument. We currently enjoy full freedom to move capital, services and goods around the EU, while British citizens have full freedom of movement. How much of that are you prepared to give up?
Please link to the data,breaking out at least retirees.
Retirees going abroad, funded by UK pensions, and with healthcare provided for are attractive migrants. Most countries will accept them.
You've ignored my point on EU trade negotiations. They are centralised by the commission. Not sure whether they are QMV or not but, if on balance they are beneficial to the EU as a whole, any single country will be bought off by some other change.
Northern Europe will see the increased immigration. The options at this point are either (a) no trade deal with UK and no immigration or (b) trade deal with immigration and no work permits. (B) is better than (A) for the EU.
You could easily sort out something on retirement, although would probably need reciprocal arrangements on healthcare etc. I was focusing on people of working age who would be part of a trade agreement.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
The data clearly shows that most migration from the UK to other parts of the EU involves people who do not have jobs to go to. Why would it be easy to work something out on retirement? What do we give up to allow hundreds of thousands of Brits to retire in EU countries on the same basis as they are able to now?
All countries would need to agree a Brexit deal. Most member states do not have a trade deficit with us, so have no incentive to give us what we want without us giving stuff back. And even those that do have a trade degicit have other considerstions. Under your plan, for example, the likelihood is that the Northern European countries would see heightened immigration from people no longer able to move freely to the UK. Why would Germany, France, Benelux etc agree to that?
Just saying it would all be OK is not that compelling an argument. We currently enjoy full freedom to move capital, services and goods around the EU, while British citizens have full freedom of movement. How much of that are you prepared to give up?
Please link to the data,breaking out at least retirees.
Retirees going abroad, funded by UK pensions, and with healthcare provided for are attractive migrants. Most countries will accept them.
You've ignored my point on EU trade negotiations. They are centralised by the commission. Not sure whether they are QMV or not but, if on balance they are beneficial to the EU as a whole, any single country will be bought off by some other change.
Northern Europe will see the increased immigration. The options at this point are either (a) no trade deal with UK and no immigration or (b) trade deal with immigration and no work permits. (B) is better than (A) for the EU.
Trade deals also need to be passed by the parliament.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Wine Rooms, Kensington Church Street, is nice for a light meal.
Thank you, Mr. F, that looks ideal. Now has anyone any offers on where to go for tea and cake? The usual suspects, Fortnums, The Ritz, etc., will be over the top - too much food and it is my wife that I am entertaining.
If you're looking at Piccadilly, Richoux is very nice for tea.
Frankly, I'd wander round the corner and sit at the bar of Le Caprice. If you're only having a glass of the house wine it's not expensive.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
I appreciate that many people have an opinion on what the EU countries will do after a LEAVE vote, but the only simulation that actually involved real nonAnglosphere people that I am aware of was the Open Europe simulation in December 2013. The TL:DR summary is "messy divorce with a suboptimal result". It was one of two wargames: one prior to negotiations, one after a LEAVE vote. Links are below:
Interesting points to note: * The European Parliament have to approve the agreement.I did not know this. * It's not a "negotiation" in the classical sense: the UK gets what it's given unless it's willing to walk away with nothing * Protectionist elements in the EU will render the agreement less rational than the UK would like and - post-Brexit - would make the EU more protectionist.
If memory serves, NorfolkTilIDie deprecates the wargame because the European participants were Europhile. I think a wargame should be as realistic as possible so that isa strength, nor a weakness.
My point is that the wargame is not quarantined from real world debate. The pro-EU people acting out that wargame did so knowing it could influence the real world pre-referendum debate.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Wine Rooms, Kensington Church Street, is nice for a light meal.
Thank you, Mr. F, that looks ideal. Now has anyone any offers on where to go for tea and cake? The usual suspects, Fortnums, The Ritz, etc., will be over the top - too much food and it is my wife that I am entertaining.
Where I think we disagree is that you propose that people cannot come to the UK to look for work. The reason I disagree is that I think it is - in effect - impractical to enforce, and creates a massive evasion industry. Effectively, loop holes (friends who'd extend a job offer, on-line bureaus offering piecework, etc) would render it effectively worthless. Further, it's not like you can prevent people coming to the UK for job interviews, although you could require them to get a bus to Calais to await the official job offer letter.
I would simply say that: 1. Benefits are for citizens 2. Access to the NHS requires either (a) citizenship, (b) employment with NI contributions, or (c) NHS Health Insurance. 3. Anyone resident longer than 90 days needs to register, and have either an NI paying job, or means of support and NHS Health Insurance card.
As I have said before I think the problem we have is not with people coming to the UK to work. It is that we are actively supporting the employers to use foreign labour when we should be encouraging better training and use of a British labour force.
I have no problem with employers choosing to use foreign labour. But if they do they should be entirely responsible for the welfare of that Labour including paying for whatever social benefits they ate entitled to. So if a non UK worker is entitled to in work benefits then that money should be reclaimed by the Government directly from the company.
This should also continue after a non UK worked has been laid off until such times as they either leave the country or get another job.
That's a very interesting proposal. Essentially the goal of all these things is to change the supply and demand curves for both UK and non-UK nationals. In doing so, we can hopefully permanently improve the labour rate participation and skills of British citizens, and improve the competitiveness of British business.
It seems that we need to work hard on the structure of our education and benefits system to improve the supply of UK labour. And we need to make sure that we lower the cost of employing people from the UK too. A simple 'Non UK Citizens NHS Contribution' to be paid by businesses might be an interesting and easy way of changing the relative costs, while collecting tax in a way we might all benefit from.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Villandry in St James may be a little far away but does good teas at £18 per head.
Alternatively Ivy Brasserie has just opened up in Ken High Street - solid breakfast, never been there for tea
If you want to push the boat out a little more you could have tea at The Baglioni or the Milestone (?) Just next to it, which are about halfway between the Ivy and the Albert Hall.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
I appreciate that many people have an opinion on what the EU countries will do after a LEAVE vote, but the only simulation that actually involved real nonAnglosphere people that I am aware of was the Open Europe simulation in December 2013. The TL:DR summary is "messy divorce with a suboptimal result". It was one of two wargames: one prior to negotiations, one after a LEAVE vote. Links are below:
Interesting points to note: * The European Parliament have to approve the agreement.I did not know this. * It's not a "negotiation" in the classical sense: the UK gets what it's given unless it's willing to walk away with nothing * Protectionist elements in the EU will render the agreement less rational than the UK would like and - post-Brexit - would make the EU more protectionist.
If memory serves, NorfolkTilIDie deprecates the wargame because the European participants were Europhile. I think a wargame should be as realistic as possible so that isa strength, nor a weakness.
Thanks - very interesting link. At the moment I get the impression of that much of the LEAVE view on what will happen post BREXIT is actually just their wish list which takes very little account of what our EU partners might actually do.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation. accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
But accepting a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now is rational if the status quo ante is no longer on offer and the alternative is worse.
Indeed. We know where we are now: we have unhindered access to a market of 500 million and the right to move freely around 27 countries. What do we give up if we vote to Leave and what do we gain?
What do we get from no deal? Higher prices, as a result of shrinking the labour pool and making imports more expensive; and no more unhindered access to the single market.
The two biggest buckets of spending for the average person are housing and groceries. If immigration fell, housing price growth would slow. Without CAP, and with ability to sign trade deals with African nations, food prices would drop.
Do you have that source on most EU nations having trade deficit with us??
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
I appreciate that many people have an opinion on what the EU countries will do after a LEAVE vote, but the only simulation that actually involved real nonAnglosphere people that I am aware of was the Open Europe simulation in December 2013. The TL:DR summary is "messy divorce with a suboptimal result". It was one of two wargames: one prior to negotiations, one after a LEAVE vote. Links are below:
Interesting points to note: * The European Parliament have to approve the agreement.I did not know this. * It's not a "negotiation" in the classical sense: the UK gets what it's given unless it's willing to walk away with nothing * Protectionist elements in the EU will render the agreement less rational than the UK would like and - post-Brexit - would make the EU more protectionist.
If memory serves, NorfolkTilIDie deprecates the wargame because the European participants were Europhile. I think a wargame should be as realistic as possible so that isa strength, nor a weakness.
My point is that the wargame is not quarantined from real world debate. The pro-EU people acting out that wargame did so knowing it could influence the real world pre-referendum debate.
Indeed. Whilst simultaneously knowing they could be as hard nosed as they liked with no repercussions in reality for their countries. It was an entirely artificial and unrealistic game.
My view is that people should be allowed to work where they want, but that it is perfectly permissible for governments to discriminate in favour of citizens as far as benefits, etc go. As ther (a) citizenship, (b) employment with NI contributions, or (c) NHS Health Insurance. 3. Anyone resident longer than 90 days needs to register, and have either an NI paying job, or means of support and NHS Health Insurance card.
As I hahatever social benefits they ate entitled to. So if a non UK worker is entitled to in work benefits then that money should be reclaimed by the Government directly from the company.
This should also continue after a non UK worked has been laid off until such times as they either leave the country or get another job.
I can agree with much of that. The fact that we have allowed a situation to arise where there is for want of a better word (and there probably is) a benefits culture where UK 'workers' have become unemployable due to their attitudes and education and work ethic, is nothing to do with membership of the EU. More of the growth in jobs should have gone to British workers but they do not want them. This has been the case for some considerable time. It is a serious problem and a disgraceful situation for our country to have found itself in. We have a govt now which is trying to limit benefits but it is being opposed all the time by political opportunists.
I've followed welfare reform with great interest, we have seen a fascinating change in how it is perceived, by those on it and those not. I've seen the attacks by Labour get more and more extreme. If you ever have the misfortune to fall into the wrong facebook group or click on the wrong hashtag you will come across people who have it absolutely clear in their mind that Iain Duncan Smith is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, that the government are committing an act of genocide on the working classes and that David Cameron is worse than Hitler.
Irony of course that the big changes that kicked off welfare reform were brought in by labour in 2007, when it kind of worked out that it had fostered some kind of nightmare.
The two biggest buckets of spending for the average person are housing and groceries. If immigration fell, housing price growth would slow. Without CAP, and with ability to sign trade deals with African nations, food prices would drop.
Do you have that source on most EU nations having trade deficit with us??
The statistics on EU nations trade deficits is on a link I posted, and it showed all but two or three having a goods trade surplus with us. I haven't seen a goods and services trade deficit by country table.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
Because the status quo is no longer an option.
Of course. Who has most to lose from that is the issue. What incentive do Eastern European countries have to agree a deal which restricts their citizens' free movement without getting anything much back in return? And if no deal is done, who loses then? We get higher prices and restricted access to our single biggest trading partner. What do the Eastern Europeans lose. Their citizens still have plenty of countries to move to.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation. accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
But accepting a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now is rational if the status quo ante is no longer on offer and the alternative is worse.
Indeed. We know where we are now: we have unhindered access to a market of 500 million and the right to move freely around 27 countries. What do we give up if we vote to Leave and what do we gain?
What do we get from no deal? Higher prices, as a result of shrinking the labour pool and making imports more expensive; and no more unhindered access to the single market.
The two biggest buckets of spending for the average person are housing and groceries. If immigration fell, housing price growth would slow. Without CAP, and with ability to sign trade deals with African nations, food prices would drop.
Do you have that source on most EU nations having trade deficit with us??
The "slowing" of house price growth would be purely notional.
Its cause is the belief by the international mega-rich that housing (i.e. the land on which it stands) is the only safe currency, and the immunity of those mega-rich from national and/or local taxes.
A question for the PB Brains Trust (London Division).
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
Wine Rooms, Kensington Church Street, is nice for a light meal.
Thank you, Mr. F, that looks ideal. Now has anyone any offers on where to go for tea and cake? The usual suspects, Fortnums, The Ritz, etc., will be over the top - too much food and it is my wife that I am entertaining.
If you're looking at Piccadilly, Richoux is very nice for tea.
Thank you again, Mr. F. I wasn't thinking particularly of Piccadilly for tea, but it would suit the case I think. Arrive Victoria at about 14:45, cab to St James's and a short stroll up to Piccadilly. Tea and cake. Amble about a bit, trying to keep her out of the shops in the arcades, then a cab to Kensington Church Street for a well deserved (for me) drinkie and a bite to eat at 18:00 followed by a stroll down the the RAH to arrive in time for the concert. That should keep her happy.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
I appreciate that many people have an opinion on what the EU countries will do after a LEAVE vote, but the only simulation that actually involved real nonAnglosphere people that I am aware of was the Open Europe simulation in December 2013. The TL:DR summary is "messy divorce with a suboptimal result". It was one of two wargames: one prior to negotiations, one after a LEAVE vote. Links are below:
Interesting points to note: * The European Parliament have to approve the agreement.I did not know this. * It's not a "negotiation" in the classical sense: the UK gets what it's given unless it's willing to walk away with nothing * Protectionist elements in the EU will render the agreement less rational than the UK would like and - post-Brexit - would make the EU more protectionist.
If memory serves, NorfolkTilIDie deprecates the wargame because the European participants were Europhile. I think a wargame should be as realistic as possible so that isa strength, nor a weakness.
My point is that the wargame is not quarantined from real world debate. The pro-EU people acting out that wargame did so knowing it could influence the real world pre-referendum debate.
My point was not that it was perfect, but (unless there's another one I'm unaware of) it's the only one we have that actually involved asking people how they would react. Which is what I said to the OP.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
Because the status quo is no longer an option.
Of course. Who has most to lose from that is the issue. What incentive do Eastern European countries have to agree a deal which restricts their citizens' free movement without getting anything much back in return? And if no deal is done, who loses then? We get higher prices and restricted access to our single biggest trading partner. What do the Eastern Europeans lose. Their citizens still have plenty of countries to move to.
Why are those East European countries so keen to export their people?
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
You could easily sort out something on retirement, although would probably need reciprocal arrangements on healthcare etc. I was focusing on people of working age who would be part of a trade agreement.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
The data clearly shows that most migration from the UK to other parts of the EU involves people who do not have jobs to go to. Why would it be easy to work something out on retirement? What do we give up to allow hundreds of thousands of Brits to retire in EU countries on the same basis as they are able to now?
All countries would need to agree a Brexit deal. Most member states do not have a trade deficit with us, so have no incentive to give us what we want without us giving stuff back. And even those that do have a trade degicit have other considerstions. Under your plan, for example, the likelihood is that the Northern European countries would see heightened immigration from people no longer able to move freely to the UK. Why would Germany, France, Benelux etc agree to that?
Just saying it would all be OK is not that compelling an argument. We currently enjoy full freedom to move capital, services and goods around the EU, while British citizens have full freedom of movement. How much of that are you prepared to give up?
I do know that this is a back handed compliment but it is pretty staggering that its you that is exposing the paucity and practicality of the Leave argument which can perhaps be summed up by the Micawber theory that something will turn up.
Isn't it a fairly consistent belief amongst Eurosceptics that Eurocrats act against the interests of their people all the time. That's one of the reasons they want to leave, it's lack of accountability and responsiveness to democratic pressures! But apparently these same Eurocrats are going to start acting in the interests of their people once they are negotiating with an exiting UK. Despite the fact that giving the UK anything other than unfavourable conditions has the potential to undermine the movement towards the superstate that they are desperate to achieve!
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your response. I suspect that the chances of the EU acting irrationally are considerably higher than you suggest. Wouldn't be averse to your preferred outcome but I still think we will be being asked to take a leap in the dark and I doubt I will be taking it to be honest.
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
Because the status quo is no longer an option.
Of course. Who has most to lose from that is the issue. What incentive do Eastern European countries have to agree a deal which restricts their citizens' free movement without getting anything much back in return? And if no deal is done, who loses then? We get higher prices and restricted access to our single biggest trading partner. What do the Eastern Europeans lose. Their citizens still have plenty of countries to move to.
Why are those East European countries so keen to export their people?
What does it matter? The important thing is that they are. That's what will matter come the Brexit negotiations.
Isn't it a fairly consistent belief amongst Eurosceptics that Eurocrats act against the interests of their people all the time. That's one of the reasons they want to leave, it's lack of accountability and responsiveness to democratic pressures! But apparently these same Eurocrats are going to start acting in the interests of their people once they are negotiating with an exiting UK. Despite the fact that giving the UK anything other than unfavourable conditions has the potential to undermine the movement towards the superstate that they are desperate to achieve!
Um No. Your whole argument presupposes that every country in the EU has the same interests and perspectives and that Eurocrats can work in the interests of all those different perspectives at the same time. That is in fact the fundamental problem with the EU. One size fits all doesn't work.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Thanks for your
There is nothing irrational about refusing to do a deal that leaves your citizens worse off than they are now. If we are going to ask 27 countries to give stuff up, they will want to know what we are going to give up in return.
Because the status quo is no longer an option.
Of course. Who has most to lose from that is the issue. What incentive do Eastern European countries have to agree a deal which restricts their citizens' free movement without getting anything much back in return? And if no deal is done, who loses then? We get higher prices and restricted access to our single biggest trading partner. What do the Eastern Europeans lose. Their citizens still have plenty of countries to move to.
Why are those East European countries so keen to export their people?
I do wonder myself. It does reduce unemployment at home, and the remittances are probably worth a bit too. Mainly I suppose the diaspora makes for a web of contacts that help other businesses.
Isn't it a fairly consistent belief amongst Eurosceptics that Eurocrats act against the interests of their people all the time. That's one of the reasons they want to leave, it's lack of accountability and responsiveness to democratic pressures! But apparently these same Eurocrats are going to start acting in the interests of their people once they are negotiating with an exiting UK. Despite the fact that giving the UK anything other than unfavourable conditions has the potential to undermine the movement towards the superstate that they are desperate to achieve!
Um No. Your whole argument presupposes that every country in the EU has the same interests and perspectives and that Eurocrats can work in the interests of all those different perspectives at the same time. That is in fact the fundamental problem with the EU. One size fits all doesn't work.
Ah, Caesar. Capable chap, although getting brutally murdered by your own side after winning a civil war is an unorthodox celebration, to say the least.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
You could easily sort out something on retirement, although would probably need reciprocal arrangements on healthcare etc. I was focusing on people of working age who would be part of a trade agreement.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
The data clearly shows that most migration from the UK to other parts of the EU involves people who do not have jobs to go to. Why would it be easy to work something out on retirement? What do we give up to allow hundreds of thousands of Brits to retire in EU countries on the same basis as they are able to now?
Just saying it would all be OK is not that compelling an argument. We currently enjoy full freedom to move capital, services and goods around the EU, while British citizens have full freedom of movement. How much of that are you prepared to give up?
I do know that this is a back handed compliment but it is pretty staggering that its you that is exposing the paucity and practicality of the Leave argument which can perhaps be summed up by the Micawber theory that something will turn up.
I havery very little problem with leave into the EEA and suspect that's what we'll end up doing. The bigger claims about the Brexit deal we could do just don't seem grounded in the real world to me.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Oops, yes my bad, i had got something worked out incorrectly in my mind. The anomaly being that the only people in Scotland who pay full tuition fees from the entire European Economic Area are the English, even Turks on work visas no longer pay tuition there.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
It is a dubious claim that all tuition fees are subsidised. It's the same dubious claim put out in housing debates. Charging below the market rate does not automatically make something subsidised. To be subsidised something has to be below the cost of provision.
Isn't it a fairly consistent belief amongst Eurosceptics that Eurocrats act against the interests of their people all the time. That's one of the reasons they want to leave, it's lack of accountability and responsiveness to democratic pressures! But apparently these same Eurocrats are going to start acting in the interests of their people once they are negotiating with an exiting UK. Despite the fact that giving the UK anything other than unfavourable conditions has the potential to undermine the movement towards the superstate that they are desperate to achieve!
Um No. Your whole argument presupposes that every country in the EU has the same interests and perspectives and that Eurocrats can work in the interests of all those different perspectives at the same time. That is in fact the fundamental problem with the EU. One size fits all doesn't work.
There are about seven countries with which we have surpluses.
With our economy increasingly in the services sector, what is the effect of the single market in services of Brexit?
The single market is still incomplete in services, with various non-tariff barriers. There has been a drive to reduce these over recent decades. Surely this trend will stop or even reverse if we leave the EU and negotiate some sort of EFTA deal.
Isn't it a fairly consistent belief amongst Eurosceptics that Eurocrats act against the interests of their people all the time. That's one of the reasons they want to leave, it's lack of accountability and responsiveness to democratic pressures! But apparently these same Eurocrats are going to start acting in the interests of their people once they are negotiating with an exiting UK. Despite the fact that giving the UK anything other than unfavourable conditions has the potential to undermine the movement towards the superstate that they are desperate to achieve!
Um No. Your whole argument presupposes that every country in the EU has the same interests and perspectives and that Eurocrats can work in the interests of all those different perspectives at the same time. That is in fact the fundamental problem with the EU. One size fits all doesn't work.
Um, my point made?
Nope.
Why not? Trade deals post Brexit must be with the EU as a bloc. If trade deals favourable to the UK are in some countries interests, but not others, then who is to say the the former will win out? As you say, one size doesn't fit all, but one size is what we must deal with...
There are about seven countries with which we have surpluses.
With our economy increasingly in the services sector, what is the effect of the single market in services of Brexit?
The single market is still incomplete in services, with various non-tariff barriers. There has been a drive to reduce these over recent decades. Surely this trend will stop or even reverse if we leave the EU and negotiate some sort of EFTA deal.
The problem with the single market in services, is that it's much more dependent on the free movement of people than is the free market in goods.
What does it matter? The important thing is that they are. That's what will matter come the Brexit negotiations.
Of course, it matters, especially should it come to Brexit negotiations. If one doesn't understand what is motivating the chap on the other side of the table then one is not going to get the best deal, if, indeed, any deal. Understanding why someone is asking for something is the key to successful negotiation on a win-win basis. As you are an international businessman I am astonished that point has escaped you.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
It is a dubious claim that all tuition fees are subsidised. It's the same dubious claim put out in housing debates. Charging below the market rate does not automatically make something subsidised. To be subsidised something has to be below the cost of provision.
The same error is often made with alcohol in Parliament's bars.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
It is a dubious claim that all tuition fees are subsidised. It's the same dubious claim put out in housing debates. Charging below the market rate does not automatically make something subsidised. To be subsidised something has to be below the cost of provision.
I suspect the word "subsidy" can have both meanings. Which applies in any given case may well not be in the public domain.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
It is a dubious claim that all tuition fees are subsidised. It's the same dubious claim put out in housing debates. Charging below the market rate does not automatically make something subsidised. To be subsidised something has to be below the cost of provision.
£9k a year fees are below cost for some subject i.e. a lot of STEM. Things like Chemistry are extremely expensive (and why lots of crap unis don't run them). Your liberal arts, where lecturer + projector is basically all you need, £9k is a around / above cost price (depending on a lot of factors).
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
As I understand it, they are eligible for student loans to cover tuition fees. If they return to their home country after graduation, the debt cannot be collected through the tax system of their home nation.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
My apologies, I've checked the link I stand corrected. A few years ago I dated a girl form Netherlands, who had tolled me that she did not need to pay NI as she was from the EU. Not shore if the rules have changed or if she was incorrect, but ether way I was wrong, sorry for that, I still think that abolishing NI and increasing IT would save money in admin costs, for both employers and the government.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
It is a dubious claim that all tuition fees are subsidised. It's the same dubious claim put out in housing debates. Charging below the market rate does not automatically make something subsidised. To be subsidised something has to be below the cost of provision.
According to the IFS the total tax payer contribution (under the Coalition tuition system which has been amended since) was £25k per student.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
As I understand it, they are eligible for student loans to cover tuition fees. If they return to their home country after graduation, the debt cannot be collected through the tax system of their home nation.
The whole student loan system is a total disaster. If any individual leaves the UK, it is very difficult to get the money and / or get them paying the correct amount. They have no real powers to enforce things, especially if the individual does not intend to return to the UK employment market.
To be fair, the offering of loans to non-UK students was forced upon the UK (they haven't always had to do so), but like a lot of laws / schemes it is setup with the notion that people aren't really mobile, in a world where people are more mobile than ever.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
And vice versa, of course.
Yes, But I belief that there are a lot more EU students in UK university's that the other way round, mostly because they are better at learning English than we are at learning other langwiages.
Isn't it a fairly consistent belief amongst Eurosceptics that Eurocrats act against the interests of their people all the time. That's one of the reasons they want to leave, it's lack of accountability and responsiveness to democratic pressures! But apparently these same Eurocrats are going to start acting in the interests of their people once they are negotiating with an exiting UK. Despite the fact that giving the UK anything other than unfavourable conditions has the potential to undermine the movement towards the superstate that they are desperate to achieve!
Um No. Your whole argument presupposes that every country in the EU has the same interests and perspectives and that Eurocrats can work in the interests of all those different perspectives at the same time. That is in fact the fundamental problem with the EU. One size fits all doesn't work.
Um, my point made?
Nope.
Why not? Trade deals post Brexit must be with the EU as a bloc. If trade deals favourable to the UK are in some countries interests, but not others, then who is to say the the former will win out? As you say, one size doesn't fit all, but one size is what we must deal with...
There are about seven countries with which we have surpluses.
With our economy increasingly in the services sector, what is the effect of the single market in services of Brexit?
The single market is still incomplete in services, with various non-tariff barriers. There has been a drive to reduce these over recent decades. Surely this trend will stop or even reverse if we leave the EU and negotiate some sort of EFTA deal.
The problem with the single market in services, is that it's much more dependent on the free movement of people than is the free market in goods.
Also much more susceptible to non-tariff barriers surely?
I also note from your link that our trade deficit with the EU was pretty small apart from 2010 onwards. Presumably this mostly reflects the £/€ exchange rate and also the euro-austerity of recent years. If the £ were to weaken then presumably the figures would get back closer to usual.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
My apologies, I've checked the link I stand corrected. A few years ago I dated a girl form Netherlands, who had tolled me that she did not need to pay NI as she was from the EU. Not shore if the rules have changed or if she was incorrect, but ether way I was wrong, sorry for that, I still think that abolishing NI and increasing IT would save money in admin costs, for both employers and the government.
You can pay the rates from the country you are from... And be exempt from needing an NI card. I presume that means no NI contributions from employer as well as employee.
I like the way you are thinking and agree with where you are coming form, but before we start with a new tax an the associated burocracy, can I suggest that we abolish NI (which non UK don't pay) and increases Income tax, it would have the same effect as you state above, but with the added advantage that it will save burocracy, and therefor cost.
I didn't realise that non UK citizens didn't pay NI? Is that correct? If it were then that is immediate incentive to employers to take non UK workers instead of UK workers.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
They also pay university fees (except in Scotland). A claim to the contrary that was slipped in earlier in the debate.
Thay do pay universe Tuition Fees, but at the UK i.e. subsidised by UK taxpayer, rate rater than the (higher) international rate, paid by others e.g. US or Chines students.
It is a dubious claim that all tuition fees are subsidised. It's the same dubious claim put out in housing debates. Charging below the market rate does not automatically make something subsidised. To be subsidised something has to be below the cost of provision.
According to the IFS the total tax payer contribution (under the Coalition tuition system which has been amended since) was £25k per student.
As pointed out before, the cost of courses isn't uniform, so average contribution per student is meaningless in the context. Of course the benefit to students (and indeed long term benefit to the taxpayer) isn't uniform either, which is part of the argument for a fully blown market based system rather than the current cap which fails to adequately distinguish between courses.
Comments
* http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/eu-wargame/
* http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Open_Europe_Gaming_Europes_Future.pdf
* http://capx.co/gaming-the-uks-future-in-europe/
* http://capx.co/eu-war-games-brexit-feasible-but-talks-will-be-messy/
Interesting points to note:
* The European Parliament have to approve the agreement.I did not know this.
* It's not a "negotiation" in the classical sense: the UK gets what it's given unless it's willing to walk away with nothing
* Protectionist elements in the EU will render the agreement less rational than the UK would like and - post-Brexit - would make the EU more protectionist.
If memory serves, NorfolkTilIDie deprecates the wargame because the European participants were Europhile. I think a wargame should be as realistic as possible so that isa strength, nor a weakness.
HRC is certainly a formidable and experienced debater, the debates could go either way and Trump will need to avoid any gaffes, easier said than done for him
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now?
That's not the relevant question in a post-Brexit scenario. The relevant question is what incentive each party has versus no deal, not versus today's situation.
The EU not only sells more to us than vice-versa. It also has more of its people in the UK than vice versa. There is a clear incentive on both sides to agree to maintain legacy rights and benefits for each other's citizens already here. But that doesn't have to be the case and the difference in numbers gives the UK an advantage here.
Still, when Ms Patel gets to be PM or Chancellor or wherever she's going she'll be able to arrange for all us lefties to be given 1,000 lashes each and then all England's troubles will be over, surely
Clinton 48%
Trump 39%
Clinton 48%
Cruz 43%
Clinton 48%
Rubio 45%
Clinton 48%
Carson 44%
Clinton 44%
Kasich 45%
Sanders 48%
Trump 39%
Sanders 46%
Cruz 43%
Sanders 46%
Rubio 44%
Sanders 47%
Carson 43%
Sanders 43%
Kasich 44%
Trustworthiness of each candidate
Sanders 59%
Clinton 42%
Kasich 68%
Carson 63%
Rubio 51%
Cruz 38%
Trump 28.5%
http://www.hamptonu.edu/cpp/polls/201602_presidential_poll/
I like the idea because it is consistent with the idea of 'equality before the lore' But I think that by equalising the incentives, individuals would be better at making the chose as to what is the best form of education/training for them.
All countries would need to agree a Brexit deal. Most member states do not have a trade deficit with us, so have no incentive to give us what we want without us giving stuff back. And even those that do have a trade degicit have other considerstions. Under your plan, for example, the likelihood is that the Northern European countries would see heightened immigration from people no longer able to move freely to the UK. Why would Germany, France, Benelux etc agree to that?
Just saying it would all be OK is not that compelling an argument. We currently enjoy full freedom to move capital, services and goods around the EU, while British citizens have full freedom of movement. How much of that are you prepared to give up?
My view is that people should be allowed to work where they want, but that it is perfectly permissible for governments to discriminate in favour of citizens as far as benefits, etc go. As such, our views are very close. (I would probably go slightly further in some respects, in that I would argue that unless you are a citizen or paying National Insurance, then you need to buy compulsory NHS Insurance if you are in the UK.)
Where I think we disagree is that you propose that people cannot come to the UK to look for work. The reason I disagree is that I think it is - in effect - impractical to enforce, and creates a massive evasion industry. Effectively, loop holes (friends who'd extend a job offer, on-line bureaus offering piecework, etc) would render it effectively worthless. Further, it's not like you can prevent people coming to the UK for job interviews, although you could require them to get a bus to Calais to await the official job offer letter.
I would simply say that:
1. Benefits are for citizens
2. Access to the NHS requires either (a) citizenship, (b) employment with NI contributions, or (c) NHS Health Insurance.
3. Anyone resident longer than 90 days needs to register, and have either an NI paying job, or means of support and NHS Health Insurance card.
Nor does it matter whether it was an idea from left or right of the political spectrum. One if the best advances in higher education in the 20th century was the Open University. Created by Harold Wilson.
Ideas should be judged on their merits not on which side came up with them.
That's not the relevant question in a post-Brexit scenario. The relevant question is what incentive each party has versus no deal, not versus today's situation.
The EU not only sells more to us than vice-versa. It also has more of its people in the UK than vice versa. There is a clear incentive on both sides to agree to maintain legacy rights and benefits for each other's citizens already here. But that doesn't have to be the case and the difference in numbers gives the UK an advantage here.
If there is no deal we are not going to deport EU citizens currently living here. So they stay. We may introduce tariffs on goods coming in from the EU - that will make them more expensive to buy. But making German, Italian and French cars more expensive reduces consumer choice in the UK and invites car manufacturers from elsewhere to raise their prices. Ditto with plenty of other goods of all kinds. We may be able to source some from elsewhere, but plenty of others we would not be able to, especially more specialist stuff like the hospital equipment IDS was talking about this morning, for example.
We need to smarten our own system up significantly. Welfare only to British *citizens*, or at a push, those with indefinite leave to remain. Tax credits, and other employment related tax funded benefits, again only available to residents or citizens, and only payable and calculated based on children residing within the UK.
I think one of the concerns is that you get a double whammy in attracting migrants from eastern europe. They can come over and do a min wage job, earn £14k and then get a further £10k in tax credits and child benefit.
Cut that out, and a lot of the resentment goes with it. Oh, an students from the EU can pay their own sodding fees at British universities like the rest of England has to.
Combine that with a much greater freedom to exclude undesirables (though not unreasonably), specifically, those who have a criminal record, or commit crimes in the UK.
I have no problem with employers choosing to use foreign labour. But if they do they should be entirely responsible for the welfare of that Labour including paying for whatever social benefits they ate entitled to. So if a non UK worker is entitled to in work benefits then that money should be reclaimed by the Government directly from the company.
This should also continue after a non UK worked has been laid off until such times as they either leave the country or get another job.
Same applied, IIRC, to journalists.
Over lunch Herself reminded me that I have promised to take her to a concert at the Albert Hall in a couple of weeks time. I had completely forgotten this, and it is now more than two years since I was in Town, so I am very out of touch.
We will be arriving in London at about 15:00 and she will be demanding a nice cup of tea and some cake. She will then want to potter about a bit before being fed at about 18:00 in time for the concert that starts at about 19:30.
So can anyone recommend a place to take one's wife for tea and, more importantly, somewhere in the South Ken region for a nice, lightish meal that can be served and consumed in an hour or so? Not too fussed on price but it is my wife that I am taking out so there is no need to go mad.
For the rest, I am with you, SO
However the biggest divide between net gainers/lowse will be home ownership, if a significant number of people leave this island, then hose prises will come down, if you are a home owner then this is all bad, but if you have not yet bought a home, then you benefit as rents come down. again overall this is balanced, unless we take the opportunity to reduces housing benefits, in which case as the 'big state' retreats we all benefit.
It seems that we need to work hard on the structure of our education and benefits system to improve the supply of UK labour. And we need to make sure that we lower the cost of employing people from the UK too. A simple 'Non UK Citizens NHS Contribution' to be paid by businesses might be an interesting and easy way of changing the relative costs, while collecting tax in a way we might all benefit from.
Many Remain supporters seem to believe an inconsistency: that EU membership is clearly better than a free trade deal, but also that a free trade deal is so much better than EU membership that we wouldn't be allowed it. Well, which is it??
What do we get from no deal? Higher prices, as a result of shrinking the labour pool and making imports more expensive; and no more unhindered access to the single market.
We have a govt now which is trying to limit benefits but it is being opposed all the time by political opportunists.
Retirees going abroad, funded by UK pensions, and with healthcare provided for are attractive migrants. Most countries will accept them.
You've ignored my point on EU trade negotiations. They are centralised by the commission. Not sure whether they are QMV or not but, if on balance they are beneficial to the EU as a whole, any single country will be bought off by some other change.
Northern Europe will see the increased immigration. The options at this point are either (a) no trade deal with UK and no immigration or (b) trade deal with immigration and no work permits. (B) is better than (A) for the EU.
This place in Marylebone is good, and Marylebone is very pleasant for a potter for a couple of hours.
Alternatively Ivy Brasserie has just opened up in Ken High Street - solid breakfast, never been there for tea
If you want to push the boat out a little more you could have tea at The Baglioni or the Milestone (?) Just next to it, which are about halfway between the Ivy and the Albert Hall.
Do you have that source on most EU nations having trade deficit with us??
Irony of course that the big changes that kicked off welfare reform were brought in by labour in 2007, when it kind of worked out that it had fostered some kind of nightmare.
Can someone confirm this is correct as I have not heard of it before?
Its cause is the belief by the international mega-rich that housing (i.e. the land on which it stands) is the only safe currency, and the immunity of those mega-rich from national and/or local taxes.
It's on page 22 of here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf
There are about seven countries with which we have surpluses.
Thanks for your help.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-come-to-uk
Ah, Caesar. Capable chap, although getting brutally murdered by your own side after winning a civil war is an unorthodox celebration, to say the least.
The single market is still incomplete in services, with various non-tariff barriers. There has been a drive to reduce these over recent decades. Surely this trend will stop or even reverse if we leave the EU and negotiate some sort of EFTA deal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10920523/EU-students-fail-to-repay-record-40m-in-university-loans.html
https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/Annual-Tables.aspx
Ireland is the only country to run a particularly substantial trade deficit with us.
To be fair, the offering of loans to non-UK students was forced upon the UK (they haven't always had to do so), but like a lot of laws / schemes it is setup with the notion that people aren't really mobile, in a world where people are more mobile than ever.
I also note from your link that our trade deficit with the EU was pretty small apart from 2010 onwards. Presumably this mostly reflects the £/€ exchange rate and also the euro-austerity of recent years. If the £ were to weaken then presumably the figures would get back closer to usual.