Listen to the sob story of this wanker psychologist in South Africa.
Judge should go lenient because Pistorius is upset at being found guilty, and people have been nasty to him because he's a murderer...
I heard about 20mins of it and gave in. He murdered her - of course he's got a load of psyc issues from being sentenced for it. Who wouldn't bar someone with a serious personality disorder.
London tech companies need immediate access to world class talent. Any visa system reduces that access and also slows it down. That may be a price worth paying, but we should at least be honest about it.
You can make it fast and efficient.
When my wife went through the process the issues were (a) demonstrating that the organisation she worked for was legitimate and (b) justifying that she was better than any EU candidate.
The simple answer is self-certification.
You pre-approve firms to allow them to fast track highly skilled immigrants as needed. (For start ups you can come up with a model, possibly, whereby VCs or Angel organisations can 'lend' their certification for a period of time).
Then those firms can simply fill in a form, online, with basic facts on the candidate - name, background, education qualifications, role, salary, etc. And it's automatically approved.
Of course you'd have spot checks once in a while. And massive fines / prison sentences for people who abuse the system
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Agreed - he is a very good writer and communicator. I've read his book The Establishment too. He does a better job that most Labour MPs at needling the Tories and the centre-right.
Maybe I'm a bit thick (I'm certainly not very thin-skinned, and therefore don't get easily offended) but I don't understand why Jones was so wound-up last night. Clearly he was upset (which is obviously understandable) but what did JHB or the SKY guy say to offend him? They all looked as though they were pretty much agreeing.
Yep, seemed that way to me. They all seemed to be talking over it each other. The Sky bloke actually started to shout, which was incredibly unprofessional.
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
I'm sure you might see it like that but if that's the case why are Leave running such an overtly racist campaign? Is the idea that once you're over the line you can discard that nonsense?
But the ARENT running a racist campaign - can't you get that through your thick skull.
Xenophobic yes, but, to be fair, it’s not racist. Some at least seem to hate all ‘furriners”!
Not even xenophobic. The key planks of Leave are:
1) The UK Parliament sets the laws for the UK, solely for the UK and for the benefit of the UK. 2) The UK instigates an immigration policy based on some format of suitability for entrance that is independent of age, gender, religion, or race and based on benefitting the UK. 3) As a consequence of 1 and 2 a new trade deal (format unknown) will have to be negotiated with the EU - and trade deals long prohibited can be negotiated with other countries/ trading blocks.
Anything less is bending over, holding your ankles with your hands and ...
If the UK leave some in the EU may well say "Good riddance." Most will not. Apart from the deadly contagion, a serious worry, there's the financial aspect. Who picks up the slack?
That may be why they're so upset as us going?
During the Scottish referendum, I hoped the Scots would stay for the good of the union. But if I were Scottish, I'd have voted for independence.
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
It's such a losers' argument - it's the exact opposite of the truth, but somehow they think name-calling us as racist xenophobic isolationists will work.
It's very NewSpeak. Global trade vs 28 is isolation, recruiting from everywhere is racist, looking to the whole world is xenophobic...
Yep. Clearly Tyson is a frustrated Imperialist who would have been far more at home in the 19th century when European powers were exporting their unique brand of civilisation to the ill educated masses around the world. Under his warped world view preferential treatment to 7% of the world's population who happen to be overwhelmingly white whilst keeping out the remaining 93% is enlightened.
I suspect Tyson's world view would be to let in more of the 93%, rather than restricting the 7%. But that will never happen. Instead, there will be more restrictions on everyone. It is very safe to say, I think, that when we leave the EU we will not see more immigration from non-EU countries. How could we when we are being promised a lower overall cap?
The person who promised the cap will be long gone by then.
On the subject of Tyson please do remember this is the man who thinks that anyone whose views he finds distasteful by his own warped logic should not be allowed to vote. Who knows what goes on in that strange mind of his.
Apart from some gentle digging at Plato or seanT I don't make ad hominem attacks here. Playing the ball rather than the man so to speak.
My point on disenfranchising Brexiters has really got under your skin. Actually, the most persuasive political text I have read is Plato's Republic. Democracy has on occasion proved to be quite catastrophic. Collectively, people can make some quite horrendous choices.
For the governance of Plato's Republic to work we need governors without ego, self interest, personal baggage, wealth, emotional connections to family etc...but who are highly intelligent. Narcissists such as Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Putin are the exact opposite of Plato's ideal governor.
As are every world leader I can think of in the last century or more. Plato's ideal, just like his Theory of Forms, was fantasy. Indeed one could claim his perfect Governor was one of his ideal forms existing outside our world of which our own leaders are only shadows.
And that's where your whole point collapses. We have to deal with reality, not theory, and in reality all our leaders are untrustworthy egotists. That is why we have to be able to limit their power and influence as much as possible and make sure they are accountable to those who elect them. That is why Democracy is the least worst system we have. And why you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to limit it.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Agreed - he is a very good writer and communicator. I've read his book The Establishment too. He does a better job that most Labour MPs at needling the Tories and the centre-right.
Maybe I'm a bit thick (I'm certainly not very thin-skinned, and therefore don't get easily offended) but I don't understand why Jones was so wound-up last night. Clearly he was upset (which is obviously understandable) but what did JHB or the SKY guy say to offend him? They all looked as though they were pretty much agreeing.
Yep, seemed that way to me. They all seemed to be talking over it each other. The Sky bloke actually started to shout, which was incredibly unprofessional.
It came across as "how dare you talk to me about LGBT matters"
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
It's such a losers' argument - it's the exact opposite of the truth, but somehow they think name-calling us as racist xenophobic isolationists will work.
It's very NewSpeak. Global trade vs 28 is isolation, recruiting from everywhere is racist, looking to the whole world is xenophobic...
Yep. Clearly Tyson is a frustrated Imperialist who would have been far more at home in the 19th century when European powers were exporting their unique brand of civilisation to the ill educated masses around the world. Under his warped world view preferential treatment to 7% of the world's population who happen to be overwhelmingly white whilst keeping out the remaining 93% is enlightened.
I suspect Tyson's world view would be to let in more of the 93%, rather than restricting the 7%. But that will never happen. Instead, there will be more restrictions on everyone. It is very safe to say, I think, that when we leave the EU we will not see more immigration from non-EU countries. How could we when we are being promised a lower overall cap?
Don't expect you to agree, SO, but FWIW I would accept net immigration of high skilled labour from around the world at between 100k-200k per year (a bit higher than current Tory pledge) provided we planned and built the right infrastructure to accommodate it.
I see a net population increase of between 1-2 million every 10 years as just about manageable, in the long-term, but no more.
That is essentially my view as well, between 150-200k net migration per year, I would prefer a market solution which prices out low wage migration, essentially keeping free movement and even extending it to the rest of the world but imposing social and welfare charges in addition to tax for new arrivals for a minimum of 3-5 years. That would make it essentially impossible for anyone who is looking to earn under £25k to come here.
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
I'm sure you might see it like that but if that's the case why are Leave running such an overtly racist campaign? Is the idea that once you're over the line you can discard that nonsense?
But the ARENT running a racist campaign - can't you get that through your thick skull.
There are 2 main groupings of Leave supporters with some minor overlap in some cases . There are the sovereignistas and the anti immigrants . The two sets realise that to have a chance of winning they need the votes of each other , The former think that they are using the latter and getting greater sovereignity is worth the price of being associated with the anti immigrants but to avoid themselves sounding too racist they drivel on about point systems and other meaningless twaddle . The anti immigrants in turn think they are using the former to get what they want which is an end to all immigration but could not care less about anything else so they are happy for the former group to drone on about other issues ..
London tech companies need immediate access to world class talent. Any visa system reduces that access and also slows it down. That may be a price worth paying, but we should at least be honest about it.
You can make it fast and efficient.
When my wife went through the process the issues were (a) demonstrating that the organisation she worked for was legitimate and (b) justifying that she was better than any EU candidate.
The simple answer is self-certification.
You pre-approve firms to allow them to fast track highly skilled immigrants as needed. (For start ups you can come up with a model, possibly, whereby VCs or Angel organisations can 'lend' their certification for a period of time).
Then those firms can simply fill in a form, online, with basic facts on the candidate - name, background, education qualifications, role, salary, etc. And it's automatically approved.
Of course you'd have spot checks once in a while. And massive fines / prison sentences for people who abuse the system
It's still creating an administrative and time burden that doesn't currently exist. And as has been observed downthread, this does not only affect tech start-ups. Perhaps that is a price worth paying, but it is unquestionably a price.
@MaxPB Abandoned in the sense of considered and rejected.
Well the French and Dutch people considered and rejected the EU constitution and it just came back a few years later as the Lisbon Treaty. Can you 100% say that they EU won't try and recycle these regulations a few years down the road and just give it some token changes and new name?
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
It's such a losers' argument - it's the exact opposite of the truth, but somehow they think name-calling us as racist xenophobic isolationists will work.
It's very NewSpeak. Global trade vs 28 is isolation, recruiting from everywhere is racist, looking to the whole world is xenophobic...
Yep. Clearly Tyson is a frustrated Imperialist who would have been far more at home in the 19th century when European powers were exporting their unique brand of civilisation to the ill educated masses around the world. Under his warped world view preferential treatment to 7% of the world's population who happen to be overwhelmingly white whilst keeping out the remaining 93% is enlightened.
I suspect Tyson's world view would be to let in more of the 93%, rather than restricting the 7%. But that will never happen. Instead, there will be more restrictions on everyone. It is very safe to say, I think, that when we leave the EU we will not see more immigration from non-EU countries. How could we when we are being promised a lower overall cap?
Don't expect you to agree, SO, but FWIW I would accept net immigration of high skilled labour from around the world at between 100k-200k per year (a bit higher than current Tory pledge) provided we planned and built the right infrastructure to accommodate it.
I see a net population increase of between 1-2 million every 10 years as just about manageable, in the long-term, but no more.
Can I ask though what led you to come up with that number for a manageable population increase?
Also- net migration accounts for about half of population growth...
It's my assessment of the broad range within which I think political sustainability could be achieved, would allow sufficient flexibility for expansion of our economy, and what our national infrastructure can reasonably be expected to expand to accommodate.
I agree that "net" isn't the be all and end all (effectively, we are talking about overall population management) but I think it's crucial here for the UK Government to find a balance between businesses in London/SE who'd like open doors, and the majority of the population who are not happy (perfectly reasonably IMHO) with it.
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?
No he didn't look at the Bloomberg speech for what he opened up asking for. He got very little of it. Eventually he asked for next to nothing as he'd been told he wouldn't get anything ambitious and he still didn't get all that.
I'd say Cameron got *promises* to deliver the things he asked, and did not ask for most of the things he said he was going to ask for.
So ... the technique was:
1 - Promises to ask for his inheritance. 2 - At last minute, decides to ask for a Mess of Pottage. 3 - Gets promises to give him part of a Mess of Pottage at some undetermined point in the future. 4 - Other family members who have to approve state that he will not be getting his half-measure of pottage.
@MaxPB Considered and rejected by the EU bureaucracy.
Such regulations could just as easily be introduced by a post-Leave UK government. Given some of the idiotic comments about Tata Steel and BHS, that wouldn't completely surprise me.
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
There had been some decline yes and overfishing had been a problem but no where near on the scale of what was seen after we joined the CFP. Look at the history of the collapse of stocks in the Irish box or look at the way Norway has maintained very successful fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry thanks to being outside the CFP.
And much of the problem with the Grand Banks lay with massive Spanish fishing fleets destroying stocks - just as they have done down the West Coast of Africa, destroying the livelihoods of the local fishermen there as well.
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?
Cameron may have asked for a little more if he'd thought that there was the remotest chance that he'd have achieved it.
Cameron might have got a little more if Merkel thought there was the remotest chance he was serious.
Unfortunately, he made it quite clear to her that he was fully pro-EU and just needed a semi-credible bone to throw to his backbenchers, and to get it out the way asap.
I think that's broadly right. Both of them underestimated the degree of reforms needed to keep us in the EU.
I think we may well leave, and just about I think I've decided to vote that way too. (Have found it very hard indeed to decide.)
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
I'm sure you might see it like that but if that's the case why are Leave running such an overtly racist campaign? Is the idea that once you're over the line you can discard that nonsense?
But the ARENT running a racist campaign - can't you get that through your thick skull.
There are 2 main groupings of Leave supporters with some minor overlap in some cases . There are the sovereignistas and the anti immigrants . The two sets realise that to have a chance of winning they need the votes of each other , The former think that they are using the latter and getting greater sovereignity is worth the price of being associated with the anti immigrants but to avoid themselves sounding too racist they drivel on about point systems and other meaningless twaddle . The anti immigrants in turn think they are using the former to get what they want which is an end to all immigration but could not care less about anything else so they are happy for the former group to drone on about other issues ..
Being 'anti-immigration' in its current form is neither racist, nor xenophobic. You seem to be deliberately interpreting that being against they system as being against the people who have benefitted from the system.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
I do think that. A lot of working class voters feel marginalised, unheard on issues such as immigration and under permanent pressure as the services they use are cut to the bone. Quite frankly, life is not a lot of fun a lot of the time. I can understand completely why they'd choose Leave. If you feel you have nothing more to lose, why wouldn't you do so?
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Agreed - he is a very good writer and communicator. I've read his book The Establishment too. He does a better job that most Labour MPs at needling the Tories and the centre-right.
Maybe I'm a bit thick (I'm certainly not very thin-skinned, and therefore don't get easily offended) but I don't understand why Jones was so wound-up last night. Clearly he was upset (which is obviously understandable) but what did JHB or the SKY guy say to offend him? They all looked as though they were pretty much agreeing.
Yep, seemed that way to me. They all seemed to be talking over it each other. The Sky bloke actually started to shout, which was incredibly unprofessional.
It came across as "how dare you talk to me about LGBT matters"
Eh. He's a manchild at the best of times.
Even if he looked 31 rather than 14 - his whole persona is of someone who doesn't listen, rudely overtalks everyone else to shut them out, and blocks/flounces off when met with even the slightest difference of opinion.
His whole Kevin The Teenager strop last night was so WTF. I watched the whole exchange and it seemed to me that he couldn't accept two other sensible people noting it was a bigger issue than gay-bashing.
Getting out of his pram over JHB using the word *lunatic* was bizarre.
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
It's such a losers' argument - it's the exact opposite of the truth, but somehow they think name-calling us as racist xenophobic isolationists will work.
It's very NewSpeak. Global trade vs 28 is isolation, recruiting from everywhere is racist, looking to the whole world is xenophobic...
Yep. Clearly Tyson is a frustrated Imperialist who would have been far more at home in the 19th century when European powers were exporting their unique brand of civilisation to the ill educated masses around the world. Under his warped world view preferential treatment to 7% of the world's population who happen to be overwhelmingly white whilst keeping out the remaining 93% is enlightened.
I suspect Tyson's world view would be to let in more of the 93%, rather than restricting the 7%. But that will never happen. Instead, there will be more restrictions on everyone. It is very safe to say, I think, that when we leave the EU we will not see more immigration from non-EU countries. How could we when we are being promised a lower overall cap?
Don't expect you to agree, SO, but FWIW I would accept net immigration of high skilled labour from around the world at between 100k-200k per year (a bit higher than current Tory pledge) provided we planned and built the right infrastructure to accommodate it.
I see a net population increase of between 1-2 million every 10 years as just about manageable, in the long-term, but no more.
That is essentially my view as well, between 150-200k net migration per year, I would prefer a market solution which prices out low wage migration, essentially keeping free movement and even extending it to the rest of the world but imposing social and welfare charges in addition to tax for new arrivals for a minimum of 3-5 years. That would make it essentially impossible for anyone who is looking to earn under £25k to come here.
Quite so.
More than virtually any other issue, immigration seems to be debated as a black and white issue (either 'open doors' or 'pull up the doorbridge' ) whereas in reality it is as grey as any other political issue, and there is a practical common-sense balance between the two.
The public see this. They are incredulous as to why the politicians do not.
"He [Donald Tusk] later says divorce will be “sad” but manageable within 2 years. But he notes a parallel trade deal – setting the future EU-UK relationship – will be far tougher, and take at least another 5 years after the divorce, if it can be agreed at all. Long as it seems, this 7-year drift is actually optimistic version of the “decade of uncertainty” that David Cameron and Whitehall have described."
Seven years is broadly in line with what I suggested a few months ago. Regular pbers went into meltdown then.
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
Robert, Sean, at some point even Richard T will come over to Remain.
They realise that take away immigration (they profess and I believe them not to worry about it), and all you are left with is some nebulous sovereignty guff which they are hard-pressed to put their finger on and which, in any case, does not compensate for the very real diminution in our trading environment and more general risks to our economy that a Leave vote entails.
Sean is not going to come over to Remain.
Probably depends whose bottom he's leaning on when filling in his postal ballot
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
There had been some decline yes and overfishing had been a problem but no where near on the scale of what was seen after we joined the CFP. Look at the history of the collapse of stocks in the Irish box or look at the way Norway has maintained very successful fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry thanks to being outside the CFP.
And much of the problem with the Grand Banks lay with massive Spanish fishing fleets destroying stocks - just as they have done down the West Coast of Africa, destroying the livelihoods of the local fishermen there as well.
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
I read a paper on the total factor productivity of the fishing fleet in the UK up to and including the CFP, and it showed a pretty horrible trend even before we joined the EU.
(With the dislaimer that one would suspect that the UK would be quicker moving at changing things than the EU.)
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Tyson's posts are most illuminating when it comes to seeing the view of the working classes from the Islington ivory tower (though, in his case, Italian).
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
There had been some decline yes and overfishing had been a problem but no where near on the scale of what was seen after we joined the CFP. Look at the history of the collapse of stocks in the Irish box or look at the way Norway has maintained very successful fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry thanks to being outside the CFP.
And much of the problem with the Grand Banks lay with massive Spanish fishing fleets destroying stocks - just as they have done down the West Coast of Africa, destroying the livelihoods of the local fishermen there as well.
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
I'm sure you might see it like that but if that's the case why are Leave running such an overtly racist campaign? Is the idea that once you're over the line you can discard that nonsense?
But the ARENT running a racist campaign - can't you get that through your thick skull.
There are 2 main groupings of Leave supporters with some minor overlap in some cases . There are the sovereignistas and the anti immigrants . The two sets realise that to have a chance of winning they need the votes of each other , The former think that they are using the latter and getting greater sovereignity is worth the price of being associated with the anti immigrants but to avoid themselves sounding too racist they drivel on about point systems and other meaningless twaddle . The anti immigrants in turn think they are using the former to get what they want which is an end to all immigration but could not care less about anything else so they are happy for the former group to drone on about other issues ..
Good post.
There are two strands to the Brexit argument, and most people only ascribe to one of them.
The question is, when it comes down to the cross in the box, which members of each group really will let that half of a position determine all of their vote.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
I do think that. A lot of working class voters feel marginalised, unheard on issues such as immigration and under permanent pressure as the services they use are cut to the bone. Quite frankly, life is not a lot of fun a lot of the time. I can understand completely why they'd choose Leave. If you feel you have nothing more to lose, why wouldn't you do so?
That's different. But saying they will be completely marginalised in the event of Brexit is not.
Moi, comp Sci grad, ex startup scene (.com era tho', so not quite the same) and contractor/consultant in various niche things before my life was ruined and I hung up my boots in despair.
This is a good article and illustrates why I've been so disillusioned by both campaigns ("Brexit people are racist! No, Remainers are racist 'cos they prefer a Latvian over an Indian"). Bleh.
There's probably a good nuanced article to be had about why people are so riled up about immigration. My only experience of living in a very mixed environment (in Leeds) ended in the early 90s.
Beeston was cliched Coronation Street land (imagine street after street of two-up two-down terraced houses, no gardens, just a back yard where the privies used to be). Tension back then was because immigrants were perceived to get preferential access to social housing. For a lot of indigenous young people, getting out from under Mum and Dad was only possible if you got a council flat. Hence, getting yourself pregnant was so popular.
I'd be interested in input as to whether that's changed. Perceived preferential access to social housing, welfare benefits and so on is one factor. The other is cultural. Even back then you could see old white people looking besumedly on as the shops switched to having funny squiggly writing outside.
If you look at current immigration figures, Cameron hasn't got a hope in hell of hitting his target ambition. We take 60k people under the high tech visa scheme (which as the article points out is still not enough). Around 80k people come in via various Commonwealth schemes. Boom! Target blown.
So, Cameron was lying then and Leave are lying now. Or, rather, they're playing sophist games with the definition of the word 'control'.
In terms of home-grown training...it's hard. Most comp sci /software engineering/computing & IT degrees offer only a modicum of training in Java or Python or the like. I made my money on being expert in build systems and continuous integration (for most readers: 'woosh! wtf is he on about!). That doesn't get taught at university. There are all kinds of technology niches like that. You can train, but why? Often you need someone to come in, do a job for a year, then punt them as you scale up and out (e.g. Twitter was built with Ruby on Rails, they switched largely to Scala as the business scaled).
Hard problems. No evidence anyone is thinking about them. I've more to say, but I'll stop now .
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
I'm sure you might see it like that but if that's the case why are Leave running such an overtly racist campaign? Is the idea that once you're over the line you can discard that nonsense?
But the ARENT running a racist campaign - can't you get that through your thick skull.
Xenophobic yes, but, to be fair, it’s not racist. Some at least seem to hate all ‘furriners”!
Not even xenophobic. The key planks of Leave are:
1) The UK Parliament sets the laws for the UK, solely for the UK and for the benefit of the UK. 2) The UK instigates an immigration policy based on some format of suitability for entrance that is independent of age, gender, religion, or race and based on benefitting the UK. 3) As a consequence of 1 and 2 a new trade deal (format unknown) will have to be negotiated with the EU - and trade deals long prohibited can be negotiated with other countries/ trading blocks.
Anything less is bending over, holding your ankles with your hands and ...
That, to be fair, is what I would expect an intelligent, rational Leaver to say. However............
"Gove added: "Holyrood would be strengthened if we left the EU. "The Scottish Parliament would have new powers over fishing, agriculture, over some social areas and potentially over immigration."
Mr Gove said he would not mind being dismissed from the Cabinet if the UK votes to Remain in the EU against his wishes.
"I don't mind if my Cabinet career is over," he said. "I think the most important thing is to make a principled case for Britain leaving the EU."
"He [Donald Tusk] later says divorce will be “sad” but manageable within 2 years. But he notes a parallel trade deal – setting the future EU-UK relationship – will be far tougher, and take at least another 5 years after the divorce, if it can be agreed at all. Long as it seems, this 7-year drift is actually optimistic version of the “decade of uncertainty” that David Cameron and Whitehall have described."
Seven years is broadly in line with what I suggested a few months ago. Regular pbers went into meltdown then.
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
Robert, Sean, at some point even Richard T will come over to Remain.
They realise that take away immigration (they profess and I believe them not to worry about it), and all you are left with is some nebulous sovereignty guff which they are hard-pressed to put their finger on and which, in any case, does not compensate for the very real diminution in our trading environment and more general risks to our economy that a Leave vote entails.
Sean is not going to come over to Remain.
Probably depends whose bottom he's leaning on when filling in his postal ballot
Nigel Lawson says we should love them and leave them. Though he won't be doing that personally of course.
I believe this is the image they're going to go for for Docklands post Brexit
Good. Echoes of 'Maggies Broken Britain'. I'm expecting a huge advertising onslaught this week. If they've spent much of their £7 million it's not been obvious. Unfortunately though many of the best brains in advertising would happily work for free on such a noble cause it's not possible because their time has to be included in the £7 million.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
It's crap out there for a lot of people, it really is. Leave promisrs a totally different future: higher pay, cheaper housing, less immigration, more spending on public services. Why on earth wouldn't you vote for that if right now you feel you have the square root of F'all? Yet again, though, I fear that working class voters are going to end up feeling very let down.
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Quite - see Matthew D'ancona writing in today's Guardian obliviously reflecting on the idiocy of the Brexit voting lower orders while watching Richard Wagner at Glyndebourne (tickets £230 - £300 each - champagne and truffles extra).
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Agreed - he is a very good writer and communicator. I've read his book The Establishment too. He does a better job that most Labour MPs at needling the Tories and the centre-right.
Maybe I'm a bit thick (I'm certainly not very thin-skinned, and therefore don't get easily offended) but I don't understand why Jones was so wound-up last night. Clearly he was upset (which is obviously understandable) but what did JHB or the SKY guy say to offend him? They all looked as though they were pretty much agreeing.
It was the anger of someone who realises they have been wrong but are struggling to accept it.
Islam does not like homosexuality. He is lined up politically with the modern Labour party, which is increasingly occupied by people who follow that religion. At some point, he will come to see that Islam and modern 'progressive' values are incompatible.
Off topic, the blanket Remain advertising is back in Canary Wharf this morning. This time, a slightly different tack: they are now flying the flag (union flag) and appealing to vote Remain to "keep Britain great".
My reading is that someone in Remain is recognising they need "heart" to compete with Leave, as well as what they think is head, and this is their attempt to engage it.
It will be interesting to see if this is the new line nationally over the next 10 days.
I hear they're going to start running with images of Canary Wharf in the early 1970s before Britain joined the EU.
"Don't Return to This" will be the slogan.
"Vote REMAIN or the Bankers get it"
This is not going to win over the working class vote.
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
There had been some decline yes and overfishing had been a problem but no where near on the scale of what was seen after we joined the CFP. Look at the history of the collapse of stocks in the Irish box or look at the way Norway has maintained very successful fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry thanks to being outside the CFP.
And much of the problem with the Grand Banks lay with massive Spanish fishing fleets destroying stocks - just as they have done down the West Coast of Africa, destroying the livelihoods of the local fishermen there as well.
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.
Excellent article Tech Founder. Having read your very persuasive piece I'm interested to know why you haven't managed to persuade your chum and investor RCS 1000? Your case seems overwhelming.
I work in the service sector too and everyone is worried. Advertising in the UK is second only to the US and in terms of creativity probably above them. British agencies have a presence in nearly every country in the world.
What this vote is telling them -particularly as it's based on a quasi racist campaign-is very worrying indeed
I know - the Remainers are still pushing their Racist selection criteria for working in the EU. The Leavers want to make it aracist.
It's such a losers' argument - it's the exact opposite of the truth, but somehow they think name-calling us as racist xenophobic isolationists will work.
It's very NewSpeak. Global trade vs 28 is isolation, recruiting from everywhere is racist, looking to the whole world is xenophobic...
Yep. Clearly Tyson is a frustrated Imperialist who would have been far more at home in the 19th century when European powers were exporting their unique brand of civilisation to the ill educated masses around the world. Under his warped world view preferential treatment to 7% of the world's population who happen to be overwhelmingly white whilst keeping out the remaining 93% is enlightened.
I suspect Tyson's world view would be to let in more of the 93%, rather than restricting the 7%. But that will never happen. Instead, there will be more restrictions on everyone. It is very safe to say, I think, that when we leave the EU we will not see more immigration from non-EU countries. How could we when we are being promised a lower overall cap?
Don't expect you to agree, SO, but FWIW I would accept net immigration of high skilled labour from around the world at between 100k-200k per year (a bit higher than current Tory pledge) provided we planned and built the right infrastructure to accommodate it.
I see a net population increase of between 1-2 million every 10 years as just about manageable, in the long-term, but no more.
Can I ask though what led you to come up with that number for a manageable population increase?
Also- net migration accounts for about half of population growth...
It's my assessment of the broad range within which I think political sustainability could be achieved, would allow sufficient flexibility for expansion of our economy, and what our national infrastructure can reasonably be expected to expand to accommodate.
I agree that "net" isn't the be all and end all (effectively, we are talking about overall population management) but I think it's crucial here for the UK Government to find a balance between businesses in London/SE who'd like open doors, and the majority of the population who are not happy (perfectly reasonably IMHO) with it.
So just so that you're aware- the ONS expects the population to grow by 4.4m over 10 years from 2014 - 2024. They reckon about 50/50 net migration/natural population growth. 68/32 if you account for their estimate effect of indirect migration on birth rates and death rates.
So even if they are out a bit... there would essentially need to be zero net migration to meet your assessment of what is politically sustainable.
That's a nice piece of writing, Tech Founder. Here's a summary:
* you want Britain to remain in the EU so that hi-tech startups employing cheap foreign labour (most of which fail, and are aiming to get taken over by Google etc.) can hire computer programmers from the continent who are too lazy to apply for visas or to bring a letter from their employer that will get them a long-term visa stamp in their passport at Dover - or maybe their employer won't write them a letter because he's too busy.
And therefore the rest of us should say okay to a level of immigration running in the hundreds of thousands for the next few decades?
Learn to write letters for your employees, or go to the Valley, mate.
"young, hungry, raw talent, fresh off the Megabus from Krakow."
You mean impoverished and desperate and naive enough to believe that working for six months in Dalston on shit wages may lead them to be the next Steve Jobs.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Quite - see Matthew D'ancona writing in today's Guardian obliviously reflecting on the idiocy of the Brexit voting lower orders while watching Richard Wagner at Glyndebourne (tickets £230 - £300 each - champagne and truffles extra).
Mr D'Ancona is IIRC closely plugged into Team Cameron - I read all his stuff through this prism.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
It's crap out there for a lot of people, it really is. Leave promisrs a totally different future: higher pay, cheaper housing, less immigration, more spending on public services. Why on earth wouldn't you vote for that if right now you feel you have the square root of F'all? Yet again, though, I fear that working class voters are going to end up feeling very let down.
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).
Gove offering real independence. EUnionist stooges don't like that, you bet.
Most comp sci /software engineering/computing & IT degrees offer only a modicum of training in Java or Python or the like. I made my money on being expert in build systems and continuous integration (for most readers: 'woosh! wtf is he on about!). That doesn't get taught at university.
Universities don't teach such things because universities don't do IT at scale, not by today's standards, or at the speed of industry.
So education fails us and industry would rather poach than train, which doesn't do much for increasing the supply of skilled personnel. What we ought to be asking is how we increase the numbers locally, and of course retain those people in the UK (no point training people who immediately piss-off to the US). There has to be a better way than the free-for-all advocated by some.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
I heard several intv with him when he was selling the book - I'd rather stab myself with a fork than read it. He's got far too many axes to grind. He wants to be Billy Elliott.
That's the spirit. Best to shut yourself off from views that don't reinforce your own prejudices.
Golly, you really do yourself no favours here with such silly remarks. Still, it's an improvement on "if only you were as clever as me you'd understand" - a stock in trade of yours for quite a time.
Yesterday you announced you've stopped reading Dan Hodges because he is too pro-EU. A few weeks back, the once lauded Matthew Parris was consigned to oblivion. You'd rather stab yourself than read Owen Jones. I'm afraid there's a pattern here, even if you don't recognise it. There are plenty of very clever people on here who get my arguments, even if they don't agree with them. We have some great conversations and sometimes heated ones. They're all enjoyable. There are, of course, some less intelligent posters too.
There you go again. Reading the views of someone with a very biased opinion adds no light. I take no pleasure in reading Mr Parris when his articles contain nothing but abuse.
It's really not very hard to understand - for someone as clever as you - or perhaps it is
I like reading the views of polemicists and challenging my confirmation bias. I remember Nick Palmer (no polemicist, ha!) changing my views here through his gentle, sharp argument.
I live in a former mining village so a few years back I set about reading all I could about the miner's strike. I was seven in 1984/1985, during the strike.
I read Campbell's biography of Thatcher. Thatcher's own Downing Street Years*, the Scargill book... I even read Seamus Milne's 'The Enemy Within'. All super interesting viewpoints and contrasting arguments, especially for a dunderhead like me living in a (beautiful) village that had a few hundred miners living in it in 1980.... and a place where the strike was so painful.
I'm reading Tom Bowers' Broken Vows at the moment, about the Blair years. It's a bit of a hatchet job, but the contrast between the Thatcher books and the Blair books (I've read a few) are startling. Bowers' book is a critique of style over substance and of how Blair was so brilliantly successful at discovering what voters wanted and promising to deliver it. Blair, of course, then found that actually delivering in govt was extraordinarily arduous and complex and became frustrated very quickly.
*The Downing Street Years (whether you like Thatcher or hate her) is an astonishing demonstration of how clear-minded she was. The contrast with Blair (who was wracked with doubts and uncomfortably squished between the stark realities in his centrist head and the heart of his left-wing supporters) is extraordinary. Her clarity of thought - you'll nod along to some of it, cringe at other bits - is a bit scary really.
I suspect there will never be a Blair or a Thatcher-style Premiership again. The electorate would be too unbowed to take the bullish actions of a Thatcher and too cynical to believe the words to a messianic Blair.
So we take back control of our immigration policy and ensure we admit the best and brightest computer science graduates from around the world, each and every year.
Next.
Back on topic this hit the nail on the head. Most of us on the Leave side want a fairer points system for people from anywhere around the world. See James Dyson's brilliant article which rather pulled the rug out from underneath the piece on here.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
I do think that. A lot of working class voters feel marginalised, unheard on issues such as immigration and under permanent pressure as the services they use are cut to the bone. Quite frankly, life is not a lot of fun a lot of the time. I can understand completely why they'd choose Leave. If you feel you have nothing more to lose, why wouldn't you do so?
That's different. But saying they will be completely marginalised in the event of Brexit is not.
I don't think they will be.
I don't think much will change, except there'll be more cuts to public services.
Labour going big on #ToryBrexit today,giving proper warning of a Johnson/Gove/Farage/Murdoch government.Could work.Their bogus support for the NHS was highlighted by Sir John Major and has not yet been exploited by Labour.The NHS can get us to the polls.
This blog is currently providing loads of examples and material to support his hypothesis (including that we are all good people, honestly divided).
He argues, with lots of evidence, that almost all judgements, political or otherwise, are instinctive and intuitive and followed up by post-rationalisations to justify the original instinct. These post-rationalisations are often passionately argued (and sometimes can become bizarre and OTT).
The original instinctive judgements come from a mix of six factors ((Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation) that arise from evolutionary and cultural processes. Different groups of people have different mixes.
The usual left/right disagreements are based on the left putting a lot of weight on the first three factors and the right putting weight on the last three. The euref disagreement seems to cut across the left/right divide. The drivers for Leavers seems to me to be Liberty (take control), Loyalty (to kith, kin and country), Subversion (anti-authority) and Sanctity (no mixing). The drivers for Remainers seems to be Care (avoid harm) and Authority (we know best). Leavers are all heart; remainers are all head.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Agreed - he is a very good writer and communicator. I've read his book The Establishment too. He does a better job that most Labour MPs at needling the Tories and the centre-right.
Maybe I'm a bit thick (I'm certainly not very thin-skinned, and therefore don't get easily offended) but I don't understand why Jones was so wound-up last night. Clearly he was upset (which is obviously understandable) but what did JHB or the SKY guy say to offend him? They all looked as though they were pretty much agreeing.
At some point, he will come to see that Islam and modern 'progressive' values are incompatible.
Remain have spent an awful lot of time talking 'at' people rather than 'to' people.
Their experts in particular. I'm still amazed that just 21% of undecideds trust BoE Carney.
I think it is because this is seem as a political issue and Mark Carney (or the BoE governor) is a political appointment. If Stuart Gulliver made the same statements and they got the same publicity I think people would be more inclined to listen because he wasn't appointed to the position by Osborne, one of the key remain campaigners.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Yes, but if this referendum has achieved anything it has certainly woken me up to the concerns (and good common sense) of a lot of the poorer members of our society in a way I had never fully appreciated before.
I believe this is the image they're going to go for for Docklands post Brexit
The problem is that quite a lot of Britain looks like that now. "Less of it now than we had before. And more of it later - if we Brexit", while probably true, isn't a very clear message.
So we take back control of our immigration policy and ensure we admit the best and brightest computer science graduates from around the world, each and every year.
Next.
Back on topic this hit the nail on the head. Most of us on the Leave side want a fairer points system for people from anywhere around the world. See James Dyson's brilliant article which rather pulled the rug out from underneath the piece on here.
It's a capped system that takes nearly three months to process. THEN you apply for a visa. That's not great and typical of civil service thinking. Cut me open and it'll say 'Brexit'. But we can't just reflexively poo-poo people's entirely reasonable concerns and objections. Leave that to the Remainers.
Mr. Barnesian, the a posteriori approach (religious rather than scientific, getting a conclusion then looking for evidence rather than vice versa) is something we do perhaps more than we think we do.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
There had been some decline yes and overfishing had been a problem but no where near on the scale of what was seen after we joined the CFP. Look at the history of the collapse of stocks in the Irish box or look at the way Norway has maintained very successful fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry thanks to being outside the CFP.
And much of the problem with the Grand Banks lay with massive Spanish fishing fleets destroying stocks - just as they have done down the West Coast of Africa, destroying the livelihoods of the local fishermen there as well.
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.
This is mainly missing the point, which is the destruction of the industry largely as a result of a failed regulatory system, and the impossibility of reformation of that failed regulatory system.
The CFP have mandated that a large proportion - probably half or more - of caught fish has had to be thrown back into the sea, dead, because of a failed regulatory regime. That discard alone shows that it failed.
Perhaps fish stocks wouldn't have declined (or stayed at endangered levels) if we had been able to keep what we caught, rather than catching twice as much as we keep, and throwing half back, dead.
Then it has taken 30+ years to even begin to sort the discard problem, and that because of the intervention of a TV Celebrity Chef, and the issue has proven to be beyond the ability of a sclerotic, failed, EU to resolve.
Then the industry has been forcibly decimated repearedly as a result of that failure.
This blog is currently providing loads of examples and material to support his hypothesis (including that we are all good people, honestly divided).
He argues, with lots of evidence, that almost all judgements, political or otherwise, are instinctive and intuitive and followed up by post-rationalisations to justify the original instinct. These post-rationalisations are often passionately argued (and sometimes can become bizarre and OTT).
The original instinctive judgements come from a mix of six factors ((Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation) that arise from evolutionary and cultural processes. Different groups of people have different mixes.
The usual left/right disagreements are based on the left putting a lot of weight on the first three factors and the right putting weight on the last three. The euref disagreement seems to cut across the left/right divide. The drivers for Leavers seems to me to be Liberty (take control), Loyalty (to kith, kin and country), Subversion (anti-authority) and Sanctity (no mixing). The drivers for Remainers seems to be Care (avoid harm) and Authority (we know best). Leavers are all heart; remainers are all head.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Yes, but if this referendum has achieved anything it has certainly woken me up to the concerns (and good common sense) of a lot of the poorer members of our society in a way I had never fully appreciated before.
I'm not going to let that lesson go in a hurry.
That is very, very good to hear (read).
Now I have to do some work. We'll make a mint from Brexit :-)
On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Agreed - he is a very good writer and communicator. I've read his book The Establishment too. He does a better job that most Labour MPs at needling the Tories and the centre-right.
Maybe I'm a bit thick (I'm certainly not very thin-skinned, and therefore don't get easily offended) but I don't understand why Jones was so wound-up last night. Clearly he was upset (which is obviously understandable) but what did JHB or the SKY guy say to offend him? They all looked as though they were pretty much agreeing.
At some point, he will come to see that Islam and modern 'progressive' values are incompatible.
Exactly
“Twas, of course, not always the case. Islam in the 14thC (CE) or so was much more “progressive” than Christendom. Islamic science was science; Western science didn’t really exist.
So we take back control of our immigration policy and ensure we admit the best and brightest computer science graduates from around the world, each and every year.
Next.
Back on topic this hit the nail on the head. Most of us on the Leave side want a fairer points system for people from anywhere around the world. See James Dyson's brilliant article which rather pulled the rug out from underneath the piece on here.
The thread is a non-sequitur.
Most on the Leave side anti immigrant section do not want a fairer points system . They want no immigration at all , end of .
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
There had been some decline yes and overfishing had been a problem but no where near on the scale of what was seen after we joined the CFP. Look at the history of the collapse of stocks in the Irish box or look at the way Norway has maintained very successful fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry thanks to being outside the CFP.
And much of the problem with the Grand Banks lay with massive Spanish fishing fleets destroying stocks - just as they have done down the West Coast of Africa, destroying the livelihoods of the local fishermen there as well.
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.
It accounts for about 12 - 15% of their total catch.
Remain have spent an awful lot of time talking 'at' people rather than 'to' people.
Their experts in particular. I'm still amazed that just 21% of undecideds trust BoE Carney.
I think it is because this is seem as a political issue and Mark Carney (or the BoE governor) is a political appointment. If Stuart Gulliver made the same statements and they got the same publicity I think people would be more inclined to listen because he wasn't appointed to the position by Osborne, one of the key remain campaigners.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Yes, but if this referendum has achieved anything it has certainly woken me up to the concerns (and good common sense) of a lot of the poorer members of our society in a way I had never fully appreciated before.
I'm not going to let that lesson go in a hurry.
People have valid concerns. Globalisation has losers as well as winners. The Liberal elites did a bad job of running things, leading to the 2008 crash.
The problem is that the same people don't have answers. So the snake-oil salesmen pile in.
So we take back control of our immigration policy and ensure we admit the best and brightest computer science graduates from around the world, each and every year.
Next.
Back on topic this hit the nail on the head. Most of us on the Leave side want a fairer points system for people from anywhere around the world. See James Dyson's brilliant article which rather pulled the rug out from underneath the piece on here.
It's a capped system that takes nearly three months to process. THEN you apply for a visa. That's not great and typical of civil service thinking. Cut me open and it'll say 'Brexit'. But we can't just reflexively poo-poo people's entirely reasonable concerns and objections. Leave that to the Remainers.
Fair enough John. My problem with the current system is that it's unfair. The EU has always been a closed shop.
The point about how long it takes is a good one: so let's ensure that short or long it's at least applied fairly to all applicants from no matter where?
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.
It accounts for about 12 - 15% of their total catch.
Depends how you count it.
15-40% by weight; 20-65% by numbers.
Of course the fish they can't keep are the small ones and the endangered species, which are supposed to be next year's catch...
Insiders said that the memo would not seek to direct BT's staff how to vote in next week's referendum, but would highlight a number of areas of concern.
Easily disproved lies don't bother LEAVE - take their £350 million, for example....
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What a trite response.
Perhaps you think fish come from little brown men in the Pacific.
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).
Even though it is Gove proposing this I honestly think it has to be a load of bollocks. In basic practical terms how could you have one part of a country with no internal borders with unrestricted immigration whilst the rest of the country had restrictions in place? It simply wouldn't work. Northern Ireland is different because of the ability to control movement between the province and the mainland but Scotland and England have a long land border.
As long as there is no border control between Scotland and England this is just Gove playing fast and lose.
Thanks for the reference to the article. A lot of sense there. I was going to say "for a change" because most journalists are "lazy, drunken and ignorant." just as Guardian journalists are smug, arrogant, know-it-alls, as well.
Easy, isn't it? And a way to make yourself feel superior, which is why they do it themselves.
Owen Jones wrote a book about it called Chavs. Well worth a read.
It's written from the Left, and I think he misses some key points as a result, but I agree it's a good book and well worth a read.
Owen Jones is a naturally gifted polemicist. Much like Michael Moore, or Hitchens. I doubt ultimately, they believe everything they write, but that is the nature of polemics- it creates a debate.
Owen Jones identified a real issue: the widespread contempt that working class people provoke in this country across the political spectrum and their complete marginalisation. Brexit will be one of the consequences of that.
SO, that's just silly.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Actually I think Southam is absolutely right. I am not sure it will be enough to win the referendum for Leave but the contempt held by many of the chattering classes for those they perceive to be lower than them is very obvious and offensive. It us a reshaped class system for the 21st century.
Yes, but if this referendum has achieved anything it has certainly woken me up to the concerns (and good common sense) of a lot of the poorer members of our society in a way I had never fully appreciated before.
I'm not going to let that lesson go in a hurry.
I'm pretty familiar with this - and have/do get really irked by the lack of concern by many Remainers who simply think it's a price worth paying.
Who needs to bother about these folk when you can replace them like widgets from somewhere else? It's all very Marxist and Utilitarian to treat our own people like commodities - and dismiss their concerns about loss of culture as *racist*.
It's no wonder that huge swathes of low paid workers are voting Leave.
So BT think it is a smart move for their brand to associate with REMAIN? The next time a customer (who is LEAVE such as I), has to choose their tv/broadband/mobile/telephone/etc supplier, some will remember and look harder for an alternative. After all it is widely known that LEAVErs are more passionate about the issue than REMAINers.
On a side note I have to say that BT is really only successful/survives in the UK. A quick look at their 2015 Report has the misnamed "Global Services" division really getting less than 60% of its revenues from outside the UK. GS represents under 20% of EBITDA - so take out the 40% UK part and it non-UK earnings are probably under 10% of all EBITDA of BT.... Why?
What Mr Rake and the other folk running BT should be focused on is improving their global performance and breaking out of their UK monopolies. Heck they have the EU - what is holding them back? Time they acted before Openreach goes.
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.
What a trite response.
Perhaps you think fish come from little brown men in the Pacific.
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).
Even though it is Gove proposing this I honestly think it has to be a load of bollocks. In basic practical terms how could you have one part of a country with no internal borders with unrestricted immigration whilst the rest of the country had restrictions in place? It simply wouldn't work. Northern Ireland is different because of the ability to control movement between the province and the mainland but Scotland and England have a long land border.
As long as there is no border control between Scotland and England this is just Gove playing fast and lose.
Sounds a bit like Juncker's quota system! It does seem rather odd that part of the UK would currently have a shortage of immigrants.
That's a nice piece of writing, Tech Founder. Here's a summary:
* you want Britain to remain in the EU so that hi-tech startups employing cheap foreign labour (most of which fail, and are aiming to get taken over by Google etc.) can hire computer programmers from the continent who are too lazy to apply for visas or to bring a letter from their employer that will get them a long-term visa stamp in their passport at Dover - or maybe their employer won't write them a letter because he's too busy.
And therefore the rest of us should say okay to a level of immigration running in the hundreds of thousands for the next few decades?
Learn to write letters for your employees, or go to the Valley, mate.
"young, hungry, raw talent, fresh off the Megabus from Krakow."
You mean impoverished and desperate and naive enough to believe that working for six months in Dalston on shit wages may lead them to be the next Steve Jobs.
While I don't speak for TF, I suspect you'd find the job satisfaction of most of those people is pretty high. They all enjoy their jobs too much to spend time on pb.
On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
It really depends on what kind of immigration system we have after Brexit, remember everything we do will probably be reciprocal or retaliatory. If we leave and introduce a points system then I think on balance we will lose out on some talent, though scaling down is unlikely, the opportunities for growth may reduce, though not disappear, in the short term. If we retain free movement and introduce social and welfare access charges to eliminate low paid and low/unskilled migrants then it would make very little difference to the outlook for tech companies and start ups who pay above average wages anyway. If we keep our EEA membership and join EFTA it will make no difference, indeed we may even be able to sign trade deals which include reciprocal work/residency rights with Canada, Australia or East Asian nations which would widen the pool of available workers.
Of the three possible scenarios, I'm more inclined for the market solution as we could apply it globally and British companies could cast their nets globally meaning we get the best talent in the world rather than just from Europe. Being in the EU restricts our non-EU immigration because we can't reduce the number of unskilled and low paid workers coming from Europe. If we could do that effectively we could open our migration system to RoW workers as well.
Comments
When my wife went through the process the issues were (a) demonstrating that the organisation she worked for was legitimate and (b) justifying that she was better than any EU candidate.
The simple answer is self-certification.
You pre-approve firms to allow them to fast track highly skilled immigrants as needed. (For start ups you can come up with a model, possibly, whereby VCs or Angel organisations can 'lend' their certification for a period of time).
Then those firms can simply fill in a form, online, with basic facts on the candidate - name, background, education qualifications, role, salary, etc. And it's automatically approved.
Of course you'd have spot checks once in a while. And massive fines / prison sentences for people who abuse the system
1) The UK Parliament sets the laws for the UK, solely for the UK and for the benefit of the UK.
2) The UK instigates an immigration policy based on some format of suitability for entrance that is independent of age, gender, religion, or race and based on benefitting the UK.
3) As a consequence of 1 and 2 a new trade deal (format unknown) will have to be negotiated with the EU - and trade deals long prohibited can be negotiated with other countries/ trading blocks.
Anything less is bending over, holding your ankles with your hands and ...
That may be why they're so upset as us going?
During the Scottish referendum, I hoped the Scots would stay for the good of the union. But if I were Scottish, I'd have voted for independence.
I suspect it will be the same for many Europeans.
And that's where your whole point collapses. We have to deal with reality, not theory, and in reality all our leaders are untrustworthy egotists. That is why we have to be able to limit their power and influence as much as possible and make sure they are accountable to those who elect them. That is why Democracy is the least worst system we have. And why you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to limit it.
You are in full campaign mode this morning. I don't believe you really believe what you are writing.
You are much too sensible for that.
Eh. He's a manchild at the best of times.
Is this the free mailshot both campaigns can have? (Bit miffed I haven't got one)
(Note 2/1 is no longer available on Leave according to Oddschecker)
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/742279735670124544
I agree that "net" isn't the be all and end all (effectively, we are talking about overall population management) but I think it's crucial here for the UK Government to find a balance between businesses in London/SE who'd like open doors, and the majority of the population who are not happy (perfectly reasonably IMHO) with it.
So ... the technique was:
1 - Promises to ask for his inheritance.
2 - At last minute, decides to ask for a Mess of Pottage.
3 - Gets promises to give him part of a Mess of Pottage at some undetermined point in the future.
4 - Other family members who have to approve state that he will not be getting his half-measure of pottage.
And we are supposed to be impressed?
I believe this is the image they're going to go for for Docklands post Brexit
Such regulations could just as easily be introduced by a post-Leave UK government. Given some of the idiotic comments about Tata Steel and BHS, that wouldn't completely surprise me.
The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries
Conclusion:
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
I think we may well leave, and just about I think I've decided to vote that way too. (Have found it very hard indeed to decide.)
His whole Kevin The Teenager strop last night was so WTF. I watched the whole exchange and it seemed to me that he couldn't accept two other sensible people noting it was a bigger issue than gay-bashing.
Getting out of his pram over JHB using the word *lunatic* was bizarre.
https://twitter.com/fastFT/status/742254808430694400
More than virtually any other issue, immigration seems to be debated as a black and white issue (either 'open doors' or 'pull up the doorbridge' ) whereas in reality it is as grey as any other political issue, and there is a practical common-sense balance between the two.
The public see this. They are incredulous as to why the politicians do not.
(With the dislaimer that one would suspect that the UK would be quicker moving at changing things than the EU.)
There are two strands to the Brexit argument, and most people only ascribe to one of them.
The question is, when it comes down to the cross in the box, which members of each group really will let that half of a position determine all of their vote.
I don't think they will be.
Moi, comp Sci grad, ex startup scene (.com era tho', so not quite the same) and contractor/consultant in various niche things before my life was ruined and I hung up my boots in despair.
This is a good article and illustrates why I've been so disillusioned by both campaigns ("Brexit people are racist! No, Remainers are racist 'cos they prefer a Latvian over an Indian"). Bleh.
There's probably a good nuanced article to be had about why people are so riled up about immigration. My only experience of living in a very mixed environment (in Leeds) ended in the early 90s.
Beeston was cliched Coronation Street land (imagine street after street of two-up two-down terraced houses, no gardens, just a back yard where the privies used to be). Tension back then was because immigrants were perceived to get preferential access to social housing. For a lot of indigenous young people, getting out from under Mum and Dad was only possible if you got a council flat. Hence, getting yourself pregnant was so popular.
I'd be interested in input as to whether that's changed. Perceived preferential access to social housing, welfare benefits and so on is one factor. The other is cultural. Even back then you could see old white people looking besumedly on as the shops switched to having funny squiggly writing outside.
If you look at current immigration figures, Cameron hasn't got a hope in hell of hitting his target ambition. We take 60k people under the high tech visa scheme (which as the article points out is still not enough). Around 80k people come in via various Commonwealth schemes. Boom! Target blown.
So, Cameron was lying then and Leave are lying now. Or, rather, they're playing sophist games with the definition of the word 'control'.
In terms of home-grown training...it's hard. Most comp sci /software engineering/computing & IT degrees offer only a modicum of training in Java or Python or the like. I made my money on being expert in build systems and continuous integration (for most readers: 'woosh! wtf is he on about!). That doesn't get taught at university. There are all kinds of technology niches like that. You can train, but why? Often you need someone to come in, do a job for a year, then punt them as you scale up and out (e.g. Twitter was built with Ruby on Rails, they switched largely to Scala as the business scaled).
Hard problems. No evidence anyone is thinking about them. I've more to say, but I'll stop now
"Gove added: "Holyrood would be strengthened if we left the EU. "The Scottish Parliament would have new powers over fishing, agriculture, over some social areas and potentially over immigration."
Mr Gove said he would not mind being dismissed from the Cabinet if the UK votes to Remain in the EU against his wishes.
"I don't mind if my Cabinet career is over," he said. "I think the most important thing is to make a principled case for Britain leaving the EU."
It's all working wonderfully for Vote Leave
They haven't "told" their staff to vote remain.
It's an easily disprovable lie.
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/742258507974643712
Should I consider this:
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).
Islam does not like homosexuality. He is lined up politically with the modern Labour party, which is increasingly occupied by people who follow that religion. At some point, he will come to see that Islam and modern 'progressive' values are incompatible.
This is not going to win over the working class vote.
So even if they are out a bit... there would essentially need to be zero net migration to meet your assessment of what is politically sustainable.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2015-10-29#main-points
And how a ban of Muslim immigrants is going to affect native born Muslims is unclear - unless he's proposing deportation or banning the religion?
* you want Britain to remain in the EU so that hi-tech startups employing cheap foreign labour (most of which fail, and are aiming to get taken over by Google etc.) can hire computer programmers from the continent who are too lazy to apply for visas or to bring a letter from their employer that will get them a long-term visa stamp in their passport at Dover - or maybe their employer won't write them a letter because he's too busy.
And therefore the rest of us should say okay to a level of immigration running in the hundreds of thousands for the next few decades?
Learn to write letters for your employees, or go to the Valley, mate.
"young, hungry, raw talent, fresh off the Megabus from Krakow."
You mean impoverished and desperate and naive enough to believe that working for six months in Dalston on shit wages may lead them to be the next Steve Jobs.
A state Dubya won by 46.5% in 2004 and McCain won by nearly 30% in 2008
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/742168796400652288
So education fails us and industry would rather poach than train, which doesn't do much for increasing the supply of skilled personnel. What we ought to be asking is how we increase the numbers locally, and of course retain those people in the UK (no point training people who immediately piss-off to the US). There has to be a better way than the free-for-all advocated by some.
I live in a former mining village so a few years back I set about reading all I could about the miner's strike. I was seven in 1984/1985, during the strike.
I read Campbell's biography of Thatcher. Thatcher's own Downing Street Years*, the Scargill book... I even read Seamus Milne's 'The Enemy Within'. All super interesting viewpoints and contrasting arguments, especially for a dunderhead like me living in a (beautiful) village that had a few hundred miners living in it in 1980.... and a place where the strike was so painful.
I'm reading Tom Bowers' Broken Vows at the moment, about the Blair years. It's a bit of a hatchet job, but the contrast between the Thatcher books and the Blair books (I've read a few) are startling. Bowers' book is a critique of style over substance and of how Blair was so brilliantly successful at discovering what voters wanted and promising to deliver it. Blair, of course, then found that actually delivering in govt was extraordinarily arduous and complex and became frustrated very quickly.
*The Downing Street Years (whether you like Thatcher or hate her) is an astonishing demonstration of how clear-minded she was. The contrast with Blair (who was wracked with doubts and uncomfortably squished between the stark realities in his centrist head and the heart of his left-wing supporters) is extraordinary. Her clarity of thought - you'll nod along to some of it, cringe at other bits - is a bit scary really.
I suspect there will never be a Blair or a Thatcher-style Premiership again. The electorate would be too unbowed to take the bullish actions of a Thatcher and too cynical to believe the words to a messianic Blair.
The thread is a non-sequitur.
Labour going big on #ToryBrexit today,giving proper warning of a Johnson/Gove/Farage/Murdoch government.Could work.Their bogus support for the NHS was highlighted by Sir John Major and has not yet been exploited by Labour.The NHS can get us to the polls.
This blog is currently providing loads of examples and material to support his hypothesis (including that we are all good people, honestly divided).
He argues, with lots of evidence, that almost all judgements, political or otherwise, are instinctive and intuitive and followed up by post-rationalisations to justify the original instinct. These post-rationalisations are often passionately argued (and sometimes can become bizarre and OTT).
The original instinctive judgements come from a mix of six factors ((Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation) that arise from evolutionary and cultural processes. Different groups of people have different mixes.
The usual left/right disagreements are based on the left putting a lot of weight on the first three factors and the right putting weight on the last three. The euref disagreement seems to cut across the left/right divide. The drivers for Leavers seems to me to be Liberty (take control), Loyalty (to kith, kin and country), Subversion (anti-authority) and Sanctity (no mixing). The drivers for Remainers seems to be Care (avoid harm) and Authority (we know best). Leavers are all heart; remainers are all head.
No rational argument will bridge that gap.
I'm not going to let that lesson go in a hurry.
http://www.techcityuk.com/tech-nation-visa/
It's a capped system that takes nearly three months to process. THEN you apply for a visa. That's not great and typical of civil service thinking. Cut me open and it'll say 'Brexit'. But we can't just reflexively poo-poo people's entirely reasonable concerns and objections. Leave that to the Remainers.
The CFP have mandated that a large proportion - probably half or more - of caught fish has had to be thrown back into the sea, dead, because of a failed regulatory regime. That discard alone shows that it failed.
Perhaps fish stocks wouldn't have declined (or stayed at endangered levels) if we had been able to keep what we caught, rather than catching twice as much as we keep, and throwing half back, dead.
Then it has taken 30+ years to even begin to sort the discard problem, and that because of the intervention of a TV Celebrity Chef, and the issue has proven to be beyond the ability of a sclerotic, failed, EU to resolve.
Then the industry has been forcibly decimated repearedly as a result of that failure.
Now I have to do some work. We'll make a mint from Brexit :-)
* "I don't need my toothpaste delivered.com"
and the classic
* "F*** you and the startup you rode in on"
Justin
16m
Justin @Donnie_Eagle
@MSmithsonPB ICM just confirmed new poll today at 12.30pm.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/mar/07/eu-referendum-fallon-says-brexit-campaign-pushing-conspiracy-theories-over-longworth-resignation-politics-live
"EU referendum: former Bank of England governor Mervyn King suggests he could vote for Brexit"
The problem is that the same people don't have answers. So the snake-oil salesmen pile in.
The point about how long it takes is a good one: so let's ensure that short or long it's at least applied fairly to all applicants from no matter where?
15-40% by weight; 20-65% by numbers.
Of course the fish they can't keep are the small ones and the endangered species, which are supposed to be next year's catch...
Here is one (old but makes the point) analysis where my numbers came from:
https://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/discards.pdf
Insiders said that the memo would not seek to direct BT's staff how to vote in next week's referendum, but would highlight a number of areas of concern.
Easily disproved lies don't bother LEAVE - take their £350 million, for example....
As long as there is no border control between Scotland and England this is just Gove playing fast and lose.
Who needs to bother about these folk when you can replace them like widgets from somewhere else? It's all very Marxist and Utilitarian to treat our own people like commodities - and dismiss their concerns about loss of culture as *racist*.
It's no wonder that huge swathes of low paid workers are voting Leave.
On a side note I have to say that BT is really only successful/survives in the UK. A quick look at their 2015 Report has the misnamed "Global Services" division really getting less than 60% of its revenues from outside the UK. GS represents under 20% of EBITDA - so take out the 40% UK part and it non-UK earnings are probably under 10% of all EBITDA of BT.... Why?
What Mr Rake and the other folk running BT should be focused on is improving their global performance and breaking out of their UK monopolies. Heck they have the EU - what is holding them back? Time they acted before Openreach goes.
:-o
Of the three possible scenarios, I'm more inclined for the market solution as we could apply it globally and British companies could cast their nets globally meaning we get the best talent in the world rather than just from Europe. Being in the EU restricts our non-EU immigration because we can't reduce the number of unskilled and low paid workers coming from Europe. If we could do that effectively we could open our migration system to RoW workers as well.