Friend of mine is looking to borrow £400k to start his washing machine business, Jim'll wash it. Can anybody help?
Did the alarm bells not start going off in Keith's head when the escort 'needed money for coke' that he MIGHT just possibly be involved in a set up operation ???
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Perhaps so.
In the final analysis the UK determined to leave the EU. The government must implement the will of the people on the best terms they might manage. It really is as simple as that.
And if the people don't like the deal they can kick out the Government in 2020. However, by then we will be stuck with the deal.
''What trade relationship? The EU never made an FTA with the USA and looks unlikely to do so.''
Absolutely. And yet who is the villain in Obama's eyes? Protectionist, socialist France?
No, its free trade Britain.
Obama's a dead duck, and so is his TTIP deal without British support. That's why he was annoyed at the Brexit vote and still annoyed now.
Quite. We were of more use to the US inside the EU than we are to them outside of it - that's the US national interest.
The British public has just decided the British national interest - and frankly its a little ungracious of foreign heads of state to criticise them for it.....
But it's equally ungracious for the British public to be offended that our international partners are prioritising far bigger and important markets for trade deals.
No US President is going to ignore the single largest investor in his country for long......and I've seen nothing that suggests the British public have expressed views after the referendum - some, quite reasonably, took umbrage before, but that's all in the past now and it'll be 'Obama who?' in a couple of months.....its really not done to criticise the decisions of voters, of your own, or other countries....
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
Not simplistic, just not flexible enough. A migrant from say Korea who has a specific skill in computing that is pretty esoteric will get the same number of points as a migrant from Germany who has a degree in computing but not the specific skill.
I say let the market decide and just do it by income.
What's the alternative to a "points-based system"? A ticky-boxy system?
All immigration systems are ticky-boxy but the point about a points system is that if you can't get permission to stay for one particular reason alone, but you're close for two or three or more different reasons, you can get permission on the basis of the combination of various different reasons.
In practice there's often little bit of this in any case; For example, when I applied for permanent residence in Japan I was a little bit short of the usual number of years you have to have the same visa category, but was also married to a Japanese national (but not for long enough to relevant according to the letter of the rules). They asked for some extra documentation about me being married, and I'm pretty sure they took that into account.
In itself that isn't really worthy of the ideological line that people seem to be drawing around it, but the political angle to demanding it is that if you say you're having a points system, people will tend to assume that the people they think should have visas (friends and family, and people they need for work) will have enough points, while all the criminals and deadbeats that they read about in the papers won't. Obviously this is more interesting as a proposal than as an actual policy, because once you do it the voters will think you're awarding the points wrong.
Good. Any system requires an ordering of applicants. Tick-boxes (i.e. a lexicographic ordering) cannot easily be adjusted in severity or laxity depending on changing immigration requirements. Points on the other hand enable trade-offs between categories, and can be scaled as required.
I don't disagree in principle, although if you're trying to look at a lot of different factors you potentially end up with a lot more admin work, both for the applicant who has to get a load of documentation for minor issues and for the bureaucrats dealing with the application. Apparently UK immigration is having a very hard time processing applications in a timely manner as it is, so you'd have to look at what you'd change in any particular category and find out whether the cost is worth the benefit.
IIUC there are some areas where the UK already operates a points system and others where Australia doesn't, so it's not an all-or-nothing thing, and like I say a little bit of discretion potentially gets you similar outcomes but with less boxes to tick.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
Surely a more likely scenario than financial companies actually upping sticks and moving to Paris or Frankfurt is that they gradually shift operations (rather than actual staff) there from London, hiring new staff at the new location while winding down their London staff.
''What trade relationship? The EU never made an FTA with the USA and looks unlikely to do so.''
Absolutely. And yet who is the villain in Obama's eyes? Protectionist, socialist France?
No, its free trade Britain.
Obama's a dead duck, and so is his TTIP deal without British support. That's why he was annoyed at the Brexit vote and still annoyed now.
Quite. We were of more use to the US inside the EU than we are to them outside of it - that's the US national interest.
The British public has just decided the British national interest - and frankly its a little ungracious of foreign heads of state to criticise them for it.....
But it's equally ungracious for the British public to be offended that our international partners are prioritising far bigger and important markets for trade deals.
No US President is going to ignore the single largest investor in his country for long......and I've seen nothing that suggests the British public have expressed views after the referendum - some, quite reasonably, took umbrage before, but that's all in the past now and it'll be 'Obama who?' in a couple of months.....its really not done to criticise the decisions of voters, of your own, or other countries....
It seems clear that Obama is taking this loss personally and it has made him bitter. He was already not particularly predisposed to the UK. His pivot to Asia was seen as a weakening of the special relationship at the time and since then he has continually weakened the US-UK relationship. Hopefully the next POTUS won't have the same underlying issues with the UK that Obama clearly has.
Friend of mine is looking to borrow £400k to start his washing machine business, Jim'll wash it. Can anybody help?
Did the alarm bells not start going off in Keith's head when the escort 'needed money for coke' that he MIGHT just possibly be involved in a set up operation ???
Perhaps this is not unusual in the world in which Vaz lives?
No second referendum protests and Regrexit angst at Chez Jack then?
I don't favour referenda except for nation forming as in SINDY.
Neither did I vote as one was medically temporarily encumbered. It would have been a 1992 general election again for me - polling booth moment. Mrs JackW was firmly for REMAIN and I knew personally a small family company that has been hard hit.
That said I'm still not sure where the pencil would have hovered ..
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
Surely a more likely scenario than financial companies actually upping sticks and moving to Paris or Frankfurt is that they gradually shift operations (rather than actual staff) there from London, hiring new staff at the new location while winding down their London staff.
Yes. True in other industries too. Hence why anyone looking at monthly PMIs for economic impact of Brexit is a numpty, as welcome as this month's figures are.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
Surely a more likely scenario than financial companies actually upping sticks and moving to Paris or Frankfurt is that they gradually shift operations (rather than actual staff) there from London, hiring new staff at the new location while winding down their London staff.
Sounds like they are actually winding UP their London staff.
People will calm down. Then think "France? Really? FRANCE?? Where there approach to negotiating is to close off the roads and set fire to lambs? Nah....."
On immigration, I'd much prefer to implement an income based system for visas, it would be less bureaucratic than a points based system and easier to implement. £36k per year gets someone a three year unlimited renewal visa, £18k per year gets someone a six month visa (renewable just once) and minimum wage jobs gets someone a three month seasonal work visa.
That's an easy system we could roll out globally and have reciprocated to British citizens looking to go overseas. If those wage barriers cause higher than expected immigration then they can be raised to cut immigration.
Also need to take into account dependants, so if someone wishes to bring a wife and two kids with them their income will need to be higher, to cover costs of services and ensure that they are net contributors to the Exchequer.
Such a system could work but only if there is an effective method of removing people at the end of their visa period, if they don't leave voluntarily. That has been a failing of our system until now. That needs to be addressed. People are more likely to be accepting of a system of temporary movement to Britain if they feel that people leave at the end and don't then claim rights to stay based on other considerations.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
''What trade relationship? The EU never made an FTA with the USA and looks unlikely to do so.''
Absolutely. And yet who is the villain in Obama's eyes? Protectionist, socialist France?
No, its free trade Britain.
Obama's a dead duck, and so is his TTIP deal without British support. That's why he was annoyed at the Brexit vote and still annoyed now.
Quite. We were of more use to the US inside the EU than we are to them outside of it - that's the US national interest.
The British public has just decided the British national interest - and frankly its a little ungracious of foreign heads of state to criticise them for it.....
But it's equally ungracious for the British public to be offended that our international partners are prioritising far bigger and important markets for trade deals.
No US President is going to ignore the single largest investor in his country for long......and I've seen nothing that suggests the British public have expressed views after the referendum - some, quite reasonably, took umbrage before, but that's all in the past now and it'll be 'Obama who?' in a couple of months.....its really not done to criticise the decisions of voters, of your own, or other countries....
It seems clear that Obama is taking this loss personally and it has made him bitter. He was already not particularly predisposed to the UK. His pivot to Asia was seen as a weakening of the special relationship at the time and since then he has continually weakened the US-UK relationship. Hopefully the next POTUS won't have the same underlying issues with the UK that Obama clearly has.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
Surely a more likely scenario than financial companies actually upping sticks and moving to Paris or Frankfurt is that they gradually shift operations (rather than actual staff) there from London, hiring new staff at the new location while winding down their London staff.
Possibly, but they have to find the staff in Paris or Frankfurt, that's not going to be easy. Magicking up 100,000 ready to go highly skilled financial workers within 3-5 years is verging on the impossible. Even if they manage to spirit a few away from London or Zurich it isn't going to be an easy task. Additionally, a lot of banks are now looking into new areas of business which might require staffing up in London as the regulations are going to be relaxed and start to diverge from Europe. It really depends on the value of the passporting business and how much they are prepared to lose in order to chase new opportunities, or if they have to lose anything.
Sunil's crown for most committed voter is taken, he didn't exactly walk on glass.....
Others went out of their way to ensure they would be able to take part. Post-graduate student Deryck Chan, 25, flew back from the UK to cast his vote -- a journey of 6,000 miles. "I made sure to book my leave to coincide with the elections," he told CNN, adding that he did not go as much out of his way as some. "There are people who literally flew to Hong Kong, landed, went to vote and then hopped on a plane back."
Friend of mine is looking to borrow £400k to start his washing machine business, Jim'll wash it. Can anybody help?
Did the alarm bells not start going off in Keith's head when the escort 'needed money for coke' that he MIGHT just possibly be involved in a set up operation ???
Perhaps this is not unusual in the world in which Vaz lives?
This is no surprise. Sarkozy is running to be the candidate next year. Expect more 'get tough' stuff along similar lines.
Slight problem with that is that all of them fail EU asylum rules in France let alone Britain. The problem is that they've let numbers grow past the point that you can send a few people in, to arrest and then deport....
I'd have thought it quite easy for the British government to say that anyone in France is in a civilized country and has no need to flee from it to Britain to claim asylum. Indeed, we would consider it an insult to our ally to think that people would need to leave it to claim asylum and, therefore, no asylum claims will be entertained from anyone reaching Britain from France. Or indeed from anyone in France.
With french investment bankers becoming economic migrants in the UK. you can understand why middle eastern and african immigrants in France wish to illegally enter Britain.
What a statement they make about the situation in France though.
And if the people don't like the deal they can kick out the Government in 2020. However, by then we will be stuck with the deal.
Quite so.
Although for all practical purposes the Conservative government is set until 2025 and accordingly we must hope PM May is able to secure the best deals available.
Friend of mine is looking to borrow £400k to start his washing machine business, Jim'll wash it. Can anybody help?
Did the alarm bells not start going off in Keith's head when the escort 'needed money for coke' that he MIGHT just possibly be involved in a set up operation ???
Perhaps this is not unusual in the world in which Vaz lives?
Honestly, I think some of you chaps are losing the plot. Who really gives a big rat's arse what a US president who will be gone in a few months said or thinks about something that can't happen until he has been out office for a couple of years?
Meanwhile, the Services PMI has been announced. 53.2 as opposed to 47.4 in July, the biggest jump in 20 years. So much for the economic armageddon that we were told would happen if we voted to leave the EU. Osborne (who his talk have to have an emergency budget, with tax and interest rate rises), HM Treasury and all those city economists, they were all wrong.
Mr L surely you, like me. have lived long enough to be wary of making snap judgments.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
And his refusal to call Islamic terrorists Islamic. Obama is weak, unfortunately whoever replaces him is going to be an even bigger disaster.
US has had a terrible run of Presidents hasn't it?
voters, eh?
I don't think I would find it too challenging to compose a sentence with the names David Cameron and Spiro Agnew.
Friend of mine is looking to borrow £400k to start his washing machine business, Jim'll wash it. Can anybody help?
Did the alarm bells not start going off in Keith's head when the escort 'needed money for coke' that he MIGHT just possibly be involved in a set up operation ???
Perhaps this is not unusual in the world in which Vaz lives?
"I know that his position is to liberalise the law on drugs, but that is not my position and nor is it that of the Committee."
Allgations of sex, sleeze, drugs. However as he's a Labour MP history might suggest that the financial allegations might be the ones that'll derail him.
All seems very murky. So much so that the BBC are carefully relegating it to a place below a random tweet from Paddy Ashdown.
What's the alternative to a "points-based system"? A ticky-boxy system?
All immigration systems are ticky-boxy but the point about a points system is that if you can't get permission to stay for one particular reason alone, but you're close for two or three or more different reasons, you can get permission on the basis of the combination of various different reasons.
In practice there's often little bit of this in any case; For example, when I applied for permanent residence in Japan I was a little bit short of the usual number of years you have to have the same visa category, but was also married to a Japanese national (but not for long enough to relevant according to the letter of the rules). They asked for some extra documentation about me being married, and I'm pretty sure they took that into account.
In itself that isn't really worthy of the ideological line that people seem to be drawing around it, but the political angle to demanding it is that if you say you're having a points system, people will tend to assume that the people they think should have visas (friends and family, and people they need for work) will have enough points, while all the criminals and deadbeats that they read about in the papers won't. Obviously this is more interesting as a proposal than as an actual policy, because once you do it the voters will think you're awarding the points wrong.
Good. Any system requires an ordering of applicants. Tick-boxes (i.e. a lexicographic ordering) cannot easily be adjusted in severity or laxity depending on changing immigration requirements. Points on the other hand enable trade-offs between categories, and can be scaled as required.
I don't disagree in principle, although if you're trying to look at a lot of different factors you potentially end up with a lot more admin work, both for the applicant who has to get a load of documentation for minor issues and for the bureaucrats dealing with the application. Apparently UK immigration is having a very hard time processing applications in a timely manner as it is, so you'd have to look at what you'd change in any particular category and find out whether the cost is worth the benefit.
IIUC there are some areas where the UK already operates a points system and others where Australia doesn't, so it's not an all-or-nothing thing, and like I say a little bit of discretion potentially gets you similar outcomes but with less boxes to tick.
The Home Office will certainly require much more money to sort out immigration applicants at Lunar House. And the Foreign Office too, in embassies etc.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
Surely a more likely scenario than financial companies actually upping sticks and moving to Paris or Frankfurt is that they gradually shift operations (rather than actual staff) there from London, hiring new staff at the new location while winding down their London staff.
Sounds like they are actually winding UP their London staff.
People will calm down. Then think "France? Really? FRANCE?? Where there approach to negotiating is to close off the roads and set fire to lambs? Nah....."
We hear this regurgitated every couple of years - and it doesn't happen. France has hideous tax rates and our buccaneering attitude has fought off Germany/All Comers.
Friend of mine is looking to borrow £400k to start his washing machine business, Jim'll wash it. Can anybody help?
Did the alarm bells not start going off in Keith's head when the escort 'needed money for coke' that he MIGHT just possibly be involved in a set up operation ???
Perhaps this is not unusual in the world in which Vaz lives?
"I know that his position is to liberalise the law on drugs, but that is not my position and nor is it that of the Committee."
We've all known that Vaz is dodgy for some time. Question is, why the expose now? I don't buy the NEC theory.
Polish rent boys recognised him and rang the Mirror? Seems most likely. Given a rent boy recognised Mark Oaten - some are more politically engaged than even the average PB reader.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
The U.K. Was already on its last legs as the dominance of the SNP showed.
Yes, the way the SNP dominated less than half the vote for Indy showed the UK is finished.
Oh, wait...
Maybe you mean the way they dominate a majority minority of seats at Holyrood?
Usual Tory lies, it is an STV system , any idiot knows that, try the Westminster one that you seem to have forgotten. You think 56 out of 59 is not dominant
bit techy this morning malc, bit of a hangover >?
Not at all, I rarely imbibe enough to have a hangover otherwise I am up all night visiting the loo.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Perhaps better to cancel the Int Aid budget and divert it to defence, then....
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Perhaps better to cancel the Int Aid budget and divert it to defence, then....
Both. We can't just hunker down, cross our fingers and hope for the best.
Personally, i think we'll have little choice but to shave back on Health and Social Welfare spending. I doubt the benign post WWII geopolitical climate/consensus (for the West at least) will last.
The Home Office will certainly require much more money to sort out immigration applicants at Lunar House. And the Foreign Office too, in embassies etc.
That doesn't affect whether you want to keep the actual cost of processing the application reasonable; In the event that you think it's a good idea to fuck visa applicants with high fees, you'd still be better off spending on something useful rather than spending it on extra bureaucracy, if it turns out a particular change costs money but doesn't produce much benefit.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. It will surely be no harder to travel as a tourist after Brexit than now.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
No second referendum protests and Regrexit angst at Chez Jack then?
I don't favour referenda except for nation forming as in SINDY.
Neither did I vote as one was medically temporarily encumbered. It would have been a 1992 general election again for me - polling booth moment. Mrs JackW was firmly for REMAIN and I knew personally a small family company that has been hard hit.
That said I'm still not sure where the pencil would have hovered ..
You'd have gone for REMAIN... If no other reason than six month of hard labour in a spare room courtesy of Mrs W would have beckoned!
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Perhaps better to cancel the Int Aid budget and divert it to defence, then....
Both. We can't just hunker down, cross our fingers and hope for the best.
Personally, i think we'll have little choice but to shave back on Health and Social Welfare spending. I doubt the benign post WWII geopolitical climate/consensus (for the West at least) will last.
True - but proactively patrolling the Med and placing immigrant boats back on North African soil would be a better use of funds in the short, medium and long term, than trying to influence geopolitical strategy in such war torn and disparate nations.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
Surely a more likely scenario than financial companies actually upping sticks and moving to Paris or Frankfurt is that they gradually shift operations (rather than actual staff) there from London, hiring new staff at the new location while winding down their London staff.
Possibly, but they have to find the staff in Paris or Frankfurt, that's not going to be easy. Magicking up 100,000 ready to go highly skilled financial workers within 3-5 years is verging on the impossible. Even if they manage to spirit a few away from London or Zurich it isn't going to be an easy task. Additionally, a lot of banks are now looking into new areas of business which might require staffing up in London as the regulations are going to be relaxed and start to diverge from Europe. It really depends on the value of the passporting business and how much they are prepared to lose in order to chase new opportunities, or if they have to lose anything.
I haven't done the maths, but is losing financial passport > English language, centre of global time zone, potential cut in Corp tax to 15%, and deregulation in a post Brexit Britain compared to EU, and opportunities from new trade deals?
If so, then I expect a lot of restructuring in the City and significant job losses. If not, then I expect some big changes in business models and administrative arrangements, but any harm likely to be transitory and temporary.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
You can't get to the mainland without crossing the Irish Sea.
Would it be in Ireland's interest to leave the EU at the same time as the UK leaves? After all they joined at the same time and there was a reason for that.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. It will surely be no harder to travel as a tourist after Brexit than now.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
It’s quite difficult now to be a tourist from Asia if one isn’t wealthy.
I'm not sure the english language is such a bind, every young person in Paris or Frankfurt going for this sort of job will be able to speak fluent english.
Actually that might be an issue for Paris, I might be applying my experience of people from Netherlands, Scandanavia onto France here...
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
I know what you mean. We might well get back to a free travel environment one day, when nations are wealthier and more stable, and it's clear that mass migration is no longer a major issue, but not with the world being as unstable as it is at the moment.
"Almost two-thirds of UK adults are positive about a post-Brexit Britain, a poll suggests.
In a ComRes poll commissioned by BBC Radio 5 live six in ten UK adults (62%) surveyed said they are positive about Britain’s future, after the referendum in June which saw the country vote to leave the EU.
However, a quarter of those surveyed (26%) said they have now thought about leaving Britain and living elsewhere following the referendum - with the figure at around two in five (43%) for those ages between 18 and 34."
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. It will surely be no harder to travel as a tourist after Brexit than now.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
It’s quite difficult now to be a tourist from Asia if one isn’t wealthy.
Doesnt seem to stop a healthy tourist flow from Asia....
The Home Office will certainly require much more money to sort out immigration applicants at Lunar House. And the Foreign Office too, in embassies etc.
That doesn't affect whether you want to keep the actual cost of processing the application reasonable; In the event that you think it's a good idea to fuck visa applicants with high fees, you'd still be better off spending on something useful rather than spending it on extra bureaucracy, if it turns out a particular change costs money but doesn't produce much benefit.
We're going to have a major change in immigration so to get it working properly won't come free. The system is already under severe pressure.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our bordefor the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where populatioher than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. It will surely be no harder to travel as a tourist after Brexit than now.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
As I understood it, there is no date recorded on EU nationals' entry. So it is impossible to tell whether an EU national came here before June 23rd, five years ago, or last week. So there is no way an employer (the most effective target of illegal immigration) would know if the EU national applying for the job is legit or not.
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
Surely a more likely scenario than financial companies actually upping sticks and moving to Paris or Frankfurt is that they gradually shift operations (rather than actual staff) there from London, hiring new staff at the new location while winding down their London staff.
Yes. True in other industries too. Hence why anyone looking at monthly PMIs for economic impact of Brexit is a numpty, as welcome as this month's figures are.
Indeed - the recent PMIs are excellent news as is the rebound of sterling against the Euro - although I'm surprised that Leavers on here are so sanguine about the latter since they have hailed sterling's post-Brexit fall only a few weeks ago as great for the economy. The bitterness about Obama is comical - and why not add Japan to the wailings too for their hints about reiewing some of their investment decisions. Lord help us on here should any more 'expert' predictions come to pass. I was pleased to see May steadily bringing increasing realism to what kind of Brexit we might get and await the predictions of a UKIP surge with amusement.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Perhaps better to cancel the Int Aid budget and divert it to defence, then....
Both. We can't just hunker down, cross our fingers and hope for the best.
Personally, i think we'll have little choice but to shave back on Health and Social Welfare spending. I doubt the benign post WWII geopolitical climate/consensus (for the West at least) will last.
True - but proactively patrolling the Med and placing immigrant boats back on North African soil would be a better use of funds in the short, medium and long term, than trying to influence geopolitical strategy in such war torn and disparate nations.
To be legal this needs to be done within the 12 mile limit ofNorth Africa.
TELEGRAPH DIGITAL CHIEF ADMITS DELIBERATELY TRASHING BRAND
The video above shows Telegraph digital guru and “SEO consultant” Malcolm Coles speaking at the Brighton Search Engine Optimisation Conference last week. Coles admits – even boasts – that he has deliberately diminished the Telegraph’s brand in the pursuit of clicks from Google searches. It is what Telegraph readers and writers have long suspected, but it’s quite something for the loathed Coles to say it on camera:
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. It will surely be no harder to travel as a tourist after Brexit than now.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
It’s quite difficult now to be a tourist from Asia if one isn’t wealthy.
Doesnt seem to stop a healthy tourist flow from Asia....
It is the population fallacy.
With, for example, over a billion people, the very small proportion that come to this country and buy Bentleys can make it appear as though everyone in China is wealthy. That is far from the case, of course.
The Home Office will certainly require much more money to sort out immigration applicants at Lunar House. And the Foreign Office too, in embassies etc.
That doesn't affect whether you want to keep the actual cost of processing the application reasonable; In the event that you think it's a good idea to fuck visa applicants with high fees, you'd still be better off spending on something useful rather than spending it on extra bureaucracy, if it turns out a particular change costs money but doesn't produce much benefit.
We're going to have a major change in immigration so to get it working properly won't come free. The system is already under severe pressure.
The point I'm making is that any proposed change needs an actual cost-benefit analysis. You can't work out what system is best without actually knowing about the systems.
What's the alternative to a "points-based system"? A ticky-boxy system?
All immigration systems are ticky-boxy but the point about a points system is that if you can't get permission to stay for one particular reason alone, but you're close for two or three or more different reasons, you can get permission on the basis of the combination of various different reasons.
In practice there's often little bit of this in any case; For example, when I applied for permanent residence in Japan I was a little bit short of the usual number of years you have to have the same visa category, but was also married to a Japanese national (but not for long enough to relevant according to the letter of the rules). They asked for some extra documentation about me being married, and I'm pretty sure they took that into account.
In itself that isn't really worthy of the ideological line that people seem to be drawing around it, but the political angle to demanding it is that if you say you're having a points system, people will tend to assume that the people they think should have visas (friends and family, and people they need for work) will have enough points, while all the criminals and deadbeats that they read about in the papers won't. Obviously this is more interesting as a proposal than as an actual policy, because once you do it the voters will think you're awarding the points wrong.
Good. Any system requires an ordering of applicants. Tick-boxes (i.e. a lexicographic ordering) cannot easily be adjusted in severity or laxity depending on changing immigration requirements. Points on the other hand enable trade-offs between categories, and can be scaled as required.
I don't disagree in principle, although if you're trying to look at a lot of different factors you potentially end up with a lot more admin work, both for the applicant who has to get a load of documentation for minor issues and for the bureaucrats dealing with the application. Apparently UK immigration is having a very hard time processing applications in a timely manner as it is, so you'd have to look at what you'd change in any particular category and find out whether the cost is worth the benefit.
IIUC there are some areas where the UK already operates a points system and others where Australia doesn't, so it's not an all-or-nothing thing, and like I say a little bit of discretion potentially gets you similar outcomes but with less boxes to tick.
The Home Office will certainly require much more money to sort out immigration applicants at Lunar House. And the Foreign Office too, in embassies etc.
Not if the new rules put off applicants and the number of applications is reduced.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. It will surely be no harder to travel as a tourist after Brexit than now.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
It’s quite difficult now to be a tourist from Asia if one isn’t wealthy.
Doesnt seem to stop a healthy tourist flow from Asia....
Only citing the experience of acquaintances and extended family.
"Almost two-thirds of UK adults are positive about a post-Brexit Britain, a poll suggests.
In a ComRes poll commissioned by BBC Radio 5 live six in ten UK adults (62%) surveyed said they are positive about Britain’s future, after the referendum in June which saw the country vote to leave the EU.
However, a quarter of those surveyed (26%) said they have now thought about leaving Britain and living elsewhere following the referendum - with the figure at around two in five (43%) for those ages between 18 and 34."
1.2M Brits live in the EU27 according to Migration watch. Well over half of that number is accounted for by three countries; Spain, Ireland and France. If you add in Germany you hit the 75% mark. Add in Italy & the Netherlands and it's 80%.
We talk a good fight on freedom of movement and emigration; however, we're still much more likely to move elsewhere in the Anglosphere.
PS I'd add that the one surprise post-EUref was talk of deportations. We can argue about whether the vote itself was an act of economic self-harm (or rather, the degree of harm), but deportations would truly be cutting our economic noses off to spite our nationalist face.
I'm not sure the english language is such a bind, every young person in Paris or Frankfurt going for this sort of job will be able to speak fluent english.
Actually that might be an issue for Paris, I might be applying my experience of people from Netherlands, Scandanavia onto France here...
Most bright young things in most countries now learn English.
However, that's different to it being the official language of business.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our bordefor the complex needs of our economy.
...
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where populatioher than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. It will surely be no harder to travel as a tourist after Brexit than now.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
As I understood it, there is no date recorded on EU nationals' entry. So it is impossible to tell whether an EU national came here before June 23rd, five years ago, or last week. So there is no way an employer (the most effective target of illegal immigration) would know if the EU national applying for the job is legit or not.
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
You're talking about working now. Before you mentioned tourism. Which is it?
Work permits make total sense. Unless you have the right to work here, I.e. Are a British (or Irish?) national, and can prove it, or have a wrk permit, you can't work here. Not rocket science.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Perhaps better to cancel the Int Aid budget and divert it to defence, then....
Both. We can't just hunker down, cross our fingers and hope for the best.
Personally, i think we'll have little choice but to shave back on Health and Social Welfare spending. I doubt the benign post WWII geopolitical climate/consensus (for the West at least) will last.
True - but proactively patrolling the Med and placing immigrant boats back on North African soil would be a better use of funds in the short, medium and long term, than trying to influence geopolitical strategy in such war torn and disparate nations.
To be legal this needs to be done within the 12 mile limit ofNorth Africa.
I'm not sure the english language is such a bind, every young person in Paris or Frankfurt going for this sort of job will be able to speak fluent english.
Actually that might be an issue for Paris, I might be applying my experience of people from Netherlands, Scandanavia onto France here...
Most bright young things in most countries now learn English.
However, that's different to it being the official language of business.
Could be a barrier to France, less so Frankfurt or anywhere else in Europe.
The French insistence on French primacy is a big potential barrier.
I'm not sure the english language is such a bind, every young person in Paris or Frankfurt going for this sort of job will be able to speak fluent english.
Actually that might be an issue for Paris, I might be applying my experience of people from Netherlands, Scandanavia onto France here...
Most bright young things in most countries now learn English.
However, that's different to it being the official language of business.
Could be a barrier to France, less so Frankfurt or anywhere else in Europe.
The French insistence on French primacy is a big potential barrier.
The French being so insistent is the barrier to a lot of things in Europe...
It's nothing to do with "protecting our bordefor the complex needs of our economy.
...
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where populatioher than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. Ite widespread.
As I understood it, there is no date recorded on EU nationals' entry. So it is impossible to tell whether an EU national came here before June 23rd, five years ago, or last week. So there is no way an employer (the most effective target of illegal immigration) would know if the EU national applying for the job is legit or not.
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
You're talking about working now. Before you mentioned tourism. Which is it?
Work permits make total sense. Unless you have the right to work here, I.e. Are a British (or Irish?) national, and can prove it, or have a wrk permit, you can't work here. Not rocket science.
I'm talking about tracking people from the EU. Come as a tourist, like it, get a job at Starbucks. That sort of thing.
You will need a system that implements visas on all EU nationals so they can be tracked and don't try to get a job.
I hadn't thought I was making a particularly complex point.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our bordefor the complex needs of our economy.
...
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where populatioher than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant crisis...
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. Ite widespread.
As I understood it, there is no date recorded on EU nationals' entry. So it is impossible to tell whether an EU national came here before June 23rd, five years ago, or last week. So there is no way an employer (the most effective target of illegal immigration) would know if the EU national applying for the job is legit or not.
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
You're talking about working now. Before you mentioned tourism. Which is it?
Work permits make total sense. Unless you have the right to work here, I.e. Are a British (or Irish?) national, and can prove it, or have a wrk permit, you can't work here. Not rocket science.
I'm talking about tracking people from the EU. Come as a tourist, like it, get a job at Starbucks. That sort of thing.
You will need a system that implements visas on all EU nationals so they can be tracked and don't try to get a job.
I hadn't thought I was making a particularly complex point.
Except you seem to be forgetting that one has to prove to one's employer that you're eligible to work.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
And his refusal to call Islamic terrorists Islamic. Obama is weak, unfortunately whoever replaces him is going to be an even bigger disaster.
US has had a terrible run of Presidents hasn't it?
voters, eh?
I don't think I would find it too challenging to compose a sentence with the names David Cameron and Spiro Agnew.
We expect an amusing anagram
No. We don't want to go down the pandemic-organ-swive-road do we?
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our bordefor the complex needs of our economy.
...
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where populatioher than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. Ite widespread.
As I understood it, there is no date recorded on EU nationals' entry. So it is impossible to tell whether an EU national came here before June 23rd, five years ago, or last week. So there is no way an employer (the most effective target of illegal immigration) would know if the EU national applying for the job is legit or not.
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
You're talking about working now. Before you mentioned tourism. Which is it?
Work permits make total sense. Unless you have the right to work here, I.e. Are a British (or Irish?) national, and can prove it, or have a wrk permit, you can't work here. Not rocket science.
I'm talking about tracking people from the EU. Come as a tourist, like it, get a job at Starbucks. That sort of thing.
You will need a system that implements visas on all EU nationals so they can be tracked and don't try to get a job.
I hadn't thought I was making a particularly complex point.
Except you seem to be forgetting that one has to prove to one's employer that you're eligible to work.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track when you entered. Your proof of eligibility to work is your passport.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our bordefor the complex needs of our economy.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where populatioher than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. Ite widespread.
As I understood it, there is no date recorded on EU nationals' entry. So it is impossible to tell whether an EU national came here before June 23rd, five years ago, or last week. So there is no way an employer (the most effective target of illegal immigration) would know if the EU national applying for the job is legit or not.
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
You're talking about working now. Before you mentioned tourism. Which is it?
Work permits make total sense. Unless you have the right to work here, I.e. Are a British (or Irish?) national, and can prove it, or have a wrk permit, you can't work here. Not rocket science.
I'm talking about tracking people from the EU. Come as a tourist, like it, get a job at Starbucks. That sort of thing.
You will need a system that implements visas on all EU nationals so they can be tracked and don't try to get a job.
I hadn't thought I was making a particularly complex point.
Except you seem to be forgetting that one has to prove to one's employer that you're eligible to work.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track you. Your proof of eligibility is your passport.
This will have to change post-Brexit.
Why?
More likely to have EU tourism based visa waiver....
And different process for proving work eligibility....
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
Probably.
There could presumably be incentives to employ natives, however. Like reduced employers NI?
It's nothing to do with "protecting our bordefor the complex needs of our economy.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where populatioher than being like Oxfam on acid.
Yes I agree things have changed...accession countries...migrant
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
We're really not. Ite widespread.
As I understood it, there is no date recorded on EU nationals' entry. So it is impossible to tell whether an EU national came here before June 23rd, five or not.
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
You're talking about working now. Before you mentioned tourism. Which is it?
Work permits make total sense. Unless you have the right to work here, I.e. Are a British (or Irish?) national, and can prove it, or have a wrk permit, you can't work here. Not rocket science.
I'm talking about tracking people from the EU. Come as a tourist, like it, get a job at Starbucks. That sort of thing.
You will need a system that implements visas on all EU nationals so they can be tracked and don't try to get a job.
I hadn't thought I was making a particularly complex point.
Except you seem to be forgetting that one has to prove to one's employer that you're eligible to work.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track you. Your proof of eligibility is your passport.
This will have to change post-Brexit.
Why?
More likely to have EU tourism based visa waiver....
And different process for proving work eligibility....
So an EU visa (today we don't have one) and a different process.
May is gambling a lot on the fact that Labour are too busy punching themselves in the face to provide an opposition. She will alienate a large portion of her voters with either a soft or hard brexit. Most true hard brexiters are kippers already so I would have suggested going soft brexit and playing it safe but she seems to be leaning the other way.
If Labour continue with Corbyn she can afford to lose a chunk of her voters to either UKIP or LDs, but if Labour come to their senses before 2020 she may find an election where she has spent 4 years in power with no personal mandate (for a party having spent 10 years in power) - enacting out one of the biggest, most divisive, changes to the UK since 1945 - an easily loseable one.
I think May is taking her honeymoon for granted. These pronouncements about no points based system etc are not in line with the manifesto she was elected on in 2015. She should have tried to get her own mandate before she becomes unpopular.
She may not have been a part of vote leave but I doubt the public will be that forgiving when it comes to things like vetoing the extra £100 million a week for the NHS.
Afternoon all. I've been busy over the last few days, so I'm just catching up.
It's been a rather eventful weekend politically. There's a change of mood; we're beginning to see in starker relief the political challenges which Theresa May faces. Of all the various developments, I think the open letter from the Japanese government is perhaps the most remarkable. It's a reminder - along with the PM's comments on immigration - that the sheer level of detail, and complexities of the considerations of the international counterparties we will be dealing with, make the politics and therefore the economics of the next couple of years very hard to predict.
Meanwhile, excellent PMI figures. The UK economy is holding up very well, which is one piece of very welcome news. But that's very short-term stuff, which doesn't tell us much about the bigger picture.
As for more domestic matters: Keith Vaz. Well well.
And bravo to Owen Smith for writing such an excellent early draft of the next Conservative manifesto. It looks a very appealing programme.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
I'd be happy with something like that. But the question is will EU nations reciprocate? Are all EU-27 countries going to enact a new visa system specifically for UK nationals?
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track when you entered. Your proof of eligibility to work is your passport.
This will have to change post Brexit.
Of course it will have to change, your example of someone coming as a tourist and then deciding to work in Starbucks won't be possible assuming we leave the EEA as well. EU citizens will be subject to the same rules as an American or Australian who must apply for working status from their home rather than turn up and then decide to work.
Income based work visas. That's the future. Forget skills based visas or points based ones, income based ones with a high bar for a long term one and lower ones for short term and seasonal work.
On tracking entry, well we already have a hard border with the EU and passports are required to be scanned on entry. Using that data to track a person's entry and exit probably wouldn't be that difficult.
@nickeardleybbc: Farage says he'll re-enter UK political scene if no suitable Brexit movement by 2019
@alexvtunzelmann: Doesn't want to take responsibility for the hard bit in the middle; might do some shouting if he doesn't like it tho https://t.co/Nk0UwLj6Tr
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
And his refusal to call Islamic terrorists Islamic. Obama is weak, unfortunately whoever replaces him is going to be an even bigger disaster.
US has had a terrible run of Presidents hasn't it?
voters, eh?
I don't think I would find it too challenging to compose a sentence with the names David Cameron and Spiro Agnew.
We expect an amusing anagram
No. We don't want to go down the pandemic-organ-swive-road do we?
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
I'd be happy with something like that. But the question is will EU nations reciprocate? Are all EU-27 countries going to enact a new visa system specifically for UK nationals?
As I mentioned down thread, we need about half a dozen or so in order to cover pretty much all the bases. All those countries have more of their nationals here than vice versa (though France is ~ a wash).
If you're suggesting that they'll be forced to treat us en bloc, there may be an issue.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
I'd be happy with something like that. But the question is will EU nations reciprocate? Are all EU-27 countries going to enact a new visa system specifically for UK nationals?
The EU as a whole won't reciprocate but individual countries probably would. The issue is ensuring tariff free trade with the EU as a whole since countries minded to reciprocate our new immigration system wouldn't be able to negotiate individual trade deals. Again it is a bit stupid that the EU wants to tie trade to immigration, yet doesn't control immigration for the bloc.
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track when you entered. Your proof of eligibility to work is your passport.
This will have to change post Brexit.
Of course it will have to change, your example of someone coming as a tourist and then deciding to work in Starbucks won't be possible assuming we leave the EEA as well. EU citizens will be subject to the same rules as an American or Australian who must apply for working status from their home rather than turn up and then decide to work.
Income based work visas. That's the future. Forget skills based visas or points based ones, income based ones with a high bar for a long term one and lower ones for short term and seasonal work.
On tracking entry, well we already have a hard border with the EU and passports are required to be scanned on entry. Using that data to track a person's entry and exit probably wouldn't be that difficult.
Shush Max, Topping wants to be hard, so won't listen to a word said otherwise....
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track when you entered. Your proof of eligibility to work is your passport.
This will have to change post Brexit.
Of course it will have to change, your example of someone coming as a tourist and then deciding to work in Starbucks won't be possible assuming we leave the EEA as well. EU citizens will be subject to the same rules as an American or Australian who must apply for working status from their home rather than turn up and then decide to work.
Income based work visas. That's the future. Forget skills based visas or points based ones, income based ones with a high bar for a long term one and lower ones for short term and seasonal work.
On tracking entry, well we already have a hard border with the EU and passports are required to be scanned on entry. Using that data to track a person's entry and exit probably wouldn't be that difficult.
Shush Max, Topping wants to be hard, so won't listen to a word said otherwise....
TOPPING: The immigration system will need a huge overhaul. Mortimer & Max: The immigration system will need a huge overhaul
@nickeardleybbc: Farage says he'll re-enter UK political scene if no suitable Brexit movement by 2019
@alexvtunzelmann: Doesn't want to take responsibility for the hard bit in the middle; might do some shouting if he doesn't like it tho https://t.co/Nk0UwLj6Tr
If May makes Nige a member of the Lords and appoints him to the government, then he could take responsibility for the hard bit in the middle.
TELEGRAPH DIGITAL CHIEF ADMITS DELIBERATELY TRASHING BRAND
The video above shows Telegraph digital guru and “SEO consultant” Malcolm Coles speaking at the Brighton Search Engine Optimisation Conference last week. Coles admits – even boasts – that he has deliberately diminished the Telegraph’s brand in the pursuit of clicks from Google searches. It is what Telegraph readers and writers have long suspected, but it’s quite something for the loathed Coles to say it on camera:
Which is stupid because the Google algorithm targets high-quality, information-packed, regularly-updated web pages. Trashing the brand would reduce the Telegraph in the search rankings.
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track when you entered. Your proof of eligibility to work is your passport.
This will have to change post Brexit.
Of course it will have to change, your example of someone coming as a tourist and then deciding to work in Starbucks won't be possible assuming we leave the EEA as well. EU citizens will be subject to the same rules as an American or Australian who must apply for working status from their home rather than turn up and then decide to work.
Income based work visas. That's the future. Forget skills based visas or points based ones, income based ones with a high bar for a long term one and lower ones for short term and seasonal work.
On tracking entry, well we already have a hard border with the EU and passports are required to be scanned on entry. Using that data to track a person's entry and exit probably wouldn't be that difficult.
Shush Max, Topping wants to be hard, so won't listen to a word said otherwise....
TOPPING: The immigration system will need a huge overhaul. Mortimer & Max: The immigration system will need a huge overhaul
= me wanting to be hard.
K
Not really a huge overhaul, we already have the ability to track people entering and exiting the EU and working visas for non-EU citizens already exist. There will be a few changes necessary, but nothing like a huge overhaul. What will require a very large change is eligibility criteria for EU and non-EU alike, but that's not really going to change the practicalities.
@nickeardleybbc: Farage says he'll re-enter UK political scene if no suitable Brexit movement by 2019
@alexvtunzelmann: Doesn't want to take responsibility for the hard bit in the middle; might do some shouting if he doesn't like it tho https://t.co/Nk0UwLj6Tr
If May makes Nige a member of the Lords and appoints him to the government, then he could take responsibility for the hard bit in the middle.
No. Today if you come from the EU to the UK there is no mechanism to track when you entered. Your proof of eligibility to work is your passport.
This will have to change post Brexit.
Of course it will have to change, your example of someone coming as a tourist and then deciding to work in Starbucks won't be possible assuming we leave the EEA as well. EU citizens will be subject to the same rules as an American or Australian who must apply for working status from their home rather than turn up and then decide to work.
Income based work visas. That's the future. Forget skills based visas or points based ones, income based ones with a high bar for a long term one and lower ones for short term and seasonal work.
On tracking entry, well we already have a hard border with the EU and passports are required to be scanned on entry. Using that data to track a person's entry and exit probably wouldn't be that difficult.
Shush Max, Topping wants to be hard, so won't listen to a word said otherwise....
TOPPING: The immigration system will need a huge overhaul. Mortimer & Max: The immigration system will need a huge overhaul
= me wanting to be hard.
K
Not really a huge overhaul, we already have the ability to track people entering and exiting the EU and working visas for non-EU citizens already exist. There will be a few changes necessary, but nothing like a huge overhaul. What will require a very large change is eligibility criteria for EU and non-EU alike, but that's not really going to change the practicalities.
Do we have a system for checking to see who is leaving, let alone recording it? I didn't think we did, but it has been a couple of years since I have been abroad. Wasn't there supposed to be a wonderful new computer system, e-borders or some such scheme, which got cancelled by, I think Teresa May, because it was hopeless late, over budget and no one could get it to work?
A new set of criteria for immigration will be needed and passport stamps for all entering plus a system of work permits should be easy enough to do. Providing we have the ability to chuck people out. Until we have that any discussion about who we let in seems a bit pointless.
Comments
File under PriceWorthPaying.....
I say let the market decide and just do it by income.
IIUC there are some areas where the UK already operates a points system and others where Australia doesn't, so it's not an all-or-nothing thing, and like I say a little bit of discretion potentially gets you similar outcomes but with less boxes to tick.
This is just wow.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/04/asia/hong-kong-legco-election/index.html
Neither did I vote as one was medically temporarily encumbered. It would have been a 1992 general election again for me - polling booth moment. Mrs JackW was firmly for REMAIN and I knew personally a small family company that has been hard hit.
That said I'm still not sure where the pencil would have hovered ..
People will calm down. Then think "France? Really? FRANCE?? Where there approach to negotiating is to close off the roads and set fire to lambs? Nah....."
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Others went out of their way to ensure they would be able to take part. Post-graduate student Deryck Chan, 25, flew back from the UK to cast his vote -- a journey of 6,000 miles.
"I made sure to book my leave to coincide with the elections," he told CNN, adding that he did not go as much out of his way as some.
"There are people who literally flew to Hong Kong, landed, went to vote and then hopped on a plane back."
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-01-20b.1437.2#g1453.1
"I know that his position is to liberalise the law on drugs, but that is not my position and nor is it that of the Committee."
What a statement they make about the situation in France though.
Although for all practical purposes the Conservative government is set until 2025 and accordingly we must hope PM May is able to secure the best deals available.
All seems very murky. So much so that the BBC are carefully relegating it to a place below a random tweet from Paddy Ashdown.
All a bit predictable.
He needs Vanish now.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
so I suppose it is inevitable it's just a shame (or I think it is) that against the trend of ever-decreasing travel barriers globally, we are about to get very barrier-y for anyone who fancies coming here to see Madame Tussauds and visit the Cotswolds.
I also understand decreasing travel barriers might have been a first world, late 20th Century thing. But it is a shame nevertheless.
Personally, i think we'll have little choice but to shave back on Health and Social Welfare spending.
I doubt the benign post WWII geopolitical climate/consensus (for the West at least) will last.
It might be harder to move one's entire family to work elsewhere, and will almost certainly be harder to claim state aid when one arrives here. Which is surely a good thing if it encourages immigration of those skills we lack and cannot easily train here.
It should also improve business funded/interest in better education of native Britons - I'm appalled at how this has been allowed to slip since the freedom of movement become widespread.
The Greens' subtitles team should do all party conferences. See this from Saturday's sketch
https://t.co/Z1eIpMxT7P https://t.co/ngsR6iHEMy
If so, then I expect a lot of restructuring in the City and significant job losses. If not, then I expect some big changes in business models and administrative arrangements, but any harm likely to be transitory and temporary.
'Poppers... Hookers... Coke... Keith Vaz... Somehow you just aren't surprised are you?
Has Jim surfaced yet or still sorting out the spin dryer ?
I'm not sure the english language is such a bind, every young person in Paris or Frankfurt going for this sort of job will be able to speak fluent english.
Actually that might be an issue for Paris, I might be applying my experience of people from Netherlands, Scandanavia onto France here...
"Almost two-thirds of UK adults are positive about a post-Brexit Britain, a poll suggests.
In a ComRes poll commissioned by BBC Radio 5 live six in ten UK adults (62%) surveyed said they are positive about Britain’s future, after the referendum in June which saw the country vote to leave the EU.
However, a quarter of those surveyed (26%) said they have now thought about leaving Britain and living elsewhere following the referendum - with the figure at around two in five (43%) for those ages between 18 and 34."
That will of course have to change. If only to put a tourist visa on and the, as is being discussed, elsewhere, that is a whole world of bureaucratic pain to institute a visa system where previously there was none.
(Aside: did the chopper come down on June 23rd as IDS intimated shortly after the vote or can EU nationals still come here and stay for as long as they want?)
Guido
"Media Guido
TELEGRAPH DIGITAL CHIEF ADMITS DELIBERATELY TRASHING BRAND
The video above shows Telegraph digital guru and “SEO consultant” Malcolm Coles speaking at the Brighton Search Engine Optimisation Conference last week. Coles admits – even boasts – that he has deliberately diminished the Telegraph’s brand in the pursuit of clicks from Google searches. It is what Telegraph readers and writers have long suspected, but it’s quite something for the loathed Coles to say it on camera:
http://order-order.com/2016/09/05/telegraph-digital-chief-admits-trashing-brand/
How long can this meaningless mantra last.
May is sounding like a Hare Krishna convert in the centre of York.
With, for example, over a billion people, the very small proportion that come to this country and buy Bentleys can make it appear as though everyone in China is wealthy. That is far from the case, of course.
What we get on top of that is up for discussion but I think May has heard the immigration message.
We talk a good fight on freedom of movement and emigration; however, we're still much more likely to move elsewhere in the Anglosphere.
PS I'd add that the one surprise post-EUref was talk of deportations. We can argue about whether the vote itself was an act of economic self-harm (or rather, the degree of harm), but deportations would truly be cutting our economic noses off to spite our nationalist face.
However, that's different to it being the official language of business.
Work permits make total sense. Unless you have the right to work here, I.e. Are a British (or Irish?) national, and can prove it, or have a wrk permit, you can't work here. Not rocket science.
The French insistence on French primacy is a big potential barrier.
You will need a system that implements visas on all EU nationals so they can be tracked and don't try to get a job.
I hadn't thought I was making a particularly complex point.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
This will have to change post Brexit.
More likely to have EU tourism based visa waiver....
And different process for proving work eligibility....
There could presumably be incentives to employ natives, however. Like reduced employers NI?
Depends on whether we stay in the EEA, restrictions are likely to be more geared towards visible means of support
Which was my original point.
If Labour continue with Corbyn she can afford to lose a chunk of her voters to either UKIP or LDs, but if Labour come to their senses before 2020 she may find an election where she has spent 4 years in power with no personal mandate (for a party having spent 10 years in power) - enacting out one of the biggest, most divisive, changes to the UK since 1945 - an easily loseable one.
I think May is taking her honeymoon for granted. These pronouncements about no points based system etc are not in line with the manifesto she was elected on in 2015. She should have tried to get her own mandate before she becomes unpopular.
She may not have been a part of vote leave but I doubt the public will be that forgiving when it comes to things like vetoing the extra £100 million a week for the NHS.
It's been a rather eventful weekend politically. There's a change of mood; we're beginning to see in starker relief the political challenges which Theresa May faces. Of all the various developments, I think the open letter from the Japanese government is perhaps the most remarkable. It's a reminder - along with the PM's comments on immigration - that the sheer level of detail, and complexities of the considerations of the international counterparties we will be dealing with, make the politics and therefore the economics of the next couple of years very hard to predict.
Meanwhile, excellent PMI figures. The UK economy is holding up very well, which is one piece of very welcome news. But that's very short-term stuff, which doesn't tell us much about the bigger picture.
As for more domestic matters: Keith Vaz. Well well.
And bravo to Owen Smith for writing such an excellent early draft of the next Conservative manifesto. It looks a very appealing programme.
Income based work visas. That's the future. Forget skills based visas or points based ones, income based ones with a high bar for a long term one and lower ones for short term and seasonal work.
On tracking entry, well we already have a hard border with the EU and passports are required to be scanned on entry. Using that data to track a person's entry and exit probably wouldn't be that difficult.
@alexvtunzelmann: Doesn't want to take responsibility for the hard bit in the middle; might do some shouting if he doesn't like it tho https://t.co/Nk0UwLj6Tr
Angry French truckers strike over migrant threat
Politico - 2 hours ago
Angry French truckers strike over migrant threat. Sometimes violent migrants at 'The Jungle' ...
If you're suggesting that they'll be forced to treat us en bloc, there may be an issue.
Mortimer & Max: The immigration system will need a huge overhaul
= me wanting to be hard.
K
A new set of criteria for immigration will be needed and passport stamps for all entering plus a system of work permits should be easy enough to do. Providing we have the ability to chuck people out. Until we have that any discussion about who we let in seems a bit pointless.