So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they own a second home in Tuscany, they will be fine - they have the money. So the likes of Lord Lawson will be able to continue to live in their French chateaux while insisting that they cannot be joined by the riff-raff. Phew. No, it will be ordinary people who have saved for years in the hope of retiring to the sun who will be affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Wouldn't have believed that at the start of the year.
I would presume that the timing of the November meeting is driven by the Article 50 deadline rather than by any sense of negotiations nearing completion.
so youre ignoring Barniers statement in early September that hes 6-8 weeks off a deal.
I get the impression even when a deal is signed half of PB will be denying it
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
What do they live in in the UK?
Yes, alternatively homeowners may sell their homes in the UK to buy one in Spain. That, of course, means their home in Spain is not a second home. Currently, they can then live in Spain and enjoy all the rights that Spanish citizens have, short of voting in certain elections.
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they own a second home in Tuscany, they will be fine - they have the money. So the likes of Lord Lawson will be able to continue to live in their French chateaux while insisting that they cannot be joined by the riff-raff. Phew. No, it will be ordinary people who have saved for years in the hope of retiring to the sun who will be affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
On topic never misunderestimate the idiocy of some Tory Eurosceptics/Leavers.
I suspect Corbyn favours a harder Brexit than May and the ERG will ally with him.
Fine, it doesn't matter how we get hard Brexit. After all, we can change the Government later but we won't be able to change the agreement with the EU (sorry Gove, but you are talking rubbish).
Spoken like a true patriot albeit a traitorous patriot who won’t have to live with the consequences of a Corbyn government, nor Brexit in fact.
If you want your kind of Brexit come to the UK otherwise shut up.
I already live with the consequences of a Corbyn Government. The Liberals are in power in Australia. There is really not much difference. Union control of almost all wages and conditions, curbs on freedom of speech, massive borrowing, bribes paid out to voters, no defence forces, political correctness run amok, schools with no competitive ethos spending their whole time teaching children left wing propaganda. JC would be right at home!
Do you have any figures (government expenditure as percentage of GDP, for example) to back that up ? And which industries have been nationalised ?
The rest sounds like the average grouse of a Telegraph reader any time in the last couple of decades.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
If they affected.
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
Exactly. Given that EU manual workers come to the UK in the expectation of better wages, why would it make sense for unskilled UK labour to travel in the other direction? It doesn't, which is why it doesn't happen. I would imagine the profile of a British worker in the EU was quite different to that of the average EU migrant to the UK.
The argument that the nasty oldies voted to stop the youngsters enjoying the wonders of working in the EU has been shot to pieces, so now the sympathy extends to older people who cant retire there! But they are the people who generally voted Leave, so they obviously aren't that bothered
What skills do you think all the young Brits employed in bars, clubs and resorts in southern Europe have?
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they own a second home in Tuscany, they will be fine - they have the money. So the likes of Lord Lawson will be able to continue to live in their French chateaux while insisting that they cannot be joined by the riff-raff. Phew. No, it will be ordinary people who have saved for years in the hope of retiring to the sun who will be affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
So we would keep more rich people but not get as many poor people ;-)
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
What do they live in in the UK?
Yes, alternatively homeowners may sell their homes in the UK to buy one in Spain. That, of course, means their home in Spain is not a second home. Currently, they can then live in Spain and enjoy all the rights that Spanish citizens have, short of voting in certain elections.
Sorry, maybe we were talking at cross purposes. I meant ordinary people who wanted to retire to Spain, not people who could afford a home in both countries.
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
I’m groaning because it means I have to spend even more time away from my family.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
If they affected.
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
Exactly. Given that EU manual workers come to the UK in the expectation of better wages, why would it make sense for unskilled UK labour to travel in the other direction? It doesn't, which is why it doesn't happen. I would imagine the profile of a British worker in the EU was quite different to that of the average EU migrant to the UK.
The argument that the nasty oldies voted to stop the youngsters enjoying the wonders of working in the EU has been shot to pieces, so now the sympathy extends to older people who cant retire there! But they are the people who generally voted Leave, so they obviously aren't that bothered
What skills do you think all the young Brits employed in bars, clubs and resorts in southern Europe have?
Perfect English which is Europe's default language....
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
If they affected.
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
Exactly. Given that EU manual workers come to the UK in the expectation of better wages, why would it make sense for unskilled UK labour to travel in the other direction? It doesn't, which is why it doesn't happen. I would imagine the profile of a British worker in the EU was quite different to that of the average EU migrant to the UK.
The argument that the nasty oldies voted to stop the youngsters enjoying the wonders of working in the EU has been shot to pieces, so now the sympathy extends to older people who cant retire there! But they are the people who generally voted Leave, so they obviously aren't that bothered
What skills do you think all the young Brits employed in bars, clubs and resorts in southern Europe have?
There is no need to emigrate to Europe to work in Europe, you can jump on an Easyjet or Ryanair flight, do your job and then come home again. The issue with this kind of short-term contracting is much more about a trade deal that includes (or doesn't include) services, than around work permits.
This week I've meetings with Banks in Denmark, New York and Vienna. For all those meetings I'm not leaving the spare room / office...
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
So we would keep more rich people but not get as many poor people ;-)
No, the rich would still head off. We'd keep more people who pay less tax and use more public services.
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
So we would keep more rich people but not get as many poor people ;-)
No, the rich would still head off. We'd keep more people who pay less tax and use more public services.
In which case you should support restrictions on immigrants who pay less tax and use more public services.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they own a second home in Tuscany, they will be fine - they have the money. So the likes of Lord Lawson will be able to continue to live in their French chateaux while insisting that they cannot be joined by the riff-raff. Phew. No, it will be ordinary people who have saved for years in the hope of retiring to the sun who will be affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
So we would keep more rich people but not get as many poor people ;-)
I don't think the would-be ex-pat retirees in Spain, etc. are necessarily rich. But they will be wanting medical care and somewhere to live in the UK. Proper houses, too - they won't put up with living in shared bedsits. So more pressure on the NHS and housing.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
There is no way to guarantee a deal in perpetuity. The closest you can get to to that is to agree that the deal comes as a single, take it or leave it construction. That is what the UK will sign up to. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
I think once people - and especially MPs - focus down on what we can't do in future without asking for EU approval, then it will be very hard for that to be squared with a Brexit that means Brexit.
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It would be interesting to see the top ten for current emigrants rather than the cumulative historical top ten. It may or may not look quite different.
Of EU citizens who migrate, the UK has the lowest percentage who go to the EU.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
So we would keep more rich people but not get as many poor people ;-)
No, the rich would still head off. We'd keep more people who pay less tax and use more public services.
In which case you should support restrictions on immigrants who pay less tax and use more public services.
Not if it means we lose the immigrants who make a net tax contribution and do not use many public services - and/or who work in public services and/or who do important work that Brits will not do.
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they own a second home in Tuscany, they will be fine - they have the money. So the likes of Lord Lawson will be able to continue to live in their French chateaux while insisting that they cannot be joined by the riff-raff. Phew. No, it will be ordinary people who have saved for years in the hope of retiring to the sun who will be affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
So we would keep more rich people but not get as many poor people ;-)
I don't think the would-be ex-pat retirees in Spain, etc. are necessarily rich. But they will be wanting medical care and somewhere to live in the UK. Proper houses, too - they won't put up with living in shared bedsits. So more pressure on the NHS and housing.
And they will be spending their pensions and savings and paying taxes in Britain.
The Government has been advised not to offer EU migrants special treatment after Brexit.
Despite pressure from Brussels to offer preferential access in exchange for a free trade deal, the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has surprisingly said EU migrants should get the same access as non-EU arrivals in future.
MAC looked at the impact of migration in the UK - one of the main issues drawn out by the Leave campaign during the referendum. But despite the strength of feeling among many voters, today’s report actually suggests making it easier for highly-skilled workers to come to the UK.
On topic, I think evens is about right for 2019. The time will be ripe over the summer.
I agree that if May has delivered Brexit, that will help with some but if she has delivered Brexit, it is likely to be either on the basis of something approximating to Chequers, or No Deal at all. Either way, her political capital will be reduced. Chequers has little active support but might be tolerated on the basis of being the only option that enough can tolerate to command a majority in the Commons. All the same, the headbangers will cry 'sellout' and she'd never get over that. On the other hand, No Deal would mean that her USP of being bloody difficult but ultimately someone who can deliver is shot. Either way: what further use does the Party have for her?
There are two points I'd pick up from Mike's analysis.
Firstly, while it's true that the current rules prevent a further VoNC within 12 months if one is unsuccessful, that rule is part of those set by the 1922 Exec, not the Party constitution. As such, it could be changed at a meeting of the 1922 Exec by a simple majority and at only a few days' notice. If May had, say, 140 MPs vote against her and she refused to stand down, I'd expect a fairly rapid revision of the provision.
And secondly, well over 158 Con MPs do not want May to fight the next election as leader. They might well be sceptical of Boris or some ERG-backed candidate (if they can unite behind one, which is improbable) but as Mike rightly says, he needs the MP numbers to make it through to the members' vote (and that'd be no gimme), and he may well not have the MP numbers. While Boris is on the slide is an ideal time to move. There are enough other options.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
There is no way to guarantee a deal in perpetuity. The closest you can get to to that is to agree that the deal comes as a single, take it or leave it construction. That is what the UK will sign up to. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.
It will be enshrined in an international Treaty. That is perpetuity.
Preferential treatment of EU migrants is something Brussels will certainly demand in exchange for a free trade deal. The fact that this report offers little reason to offer that concession squeezes the PM further into a corner, which public opinion had already boxed her into.
There is no room left for any budging.
Has Canada offered preferential access for their deal?
The MAC report says there has a been small impact on wages and employment in the UK, arguing it has had “neither the large negative affects claimed by some, nor the benefits claimed by others”.
But it also argues that because “the biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves” British ministers should see preferential access to the UK labour market as “something of value to offer in the negotiations” with the EU over the UK’s exit.
Any future policy determined by the UK should favour higher skilled workers over lower skilled ones, the MAC advises, and says there should be no sector specific migration schemes except possibly for one to supply seasonal labour in agriculture.
I also recall Theresa May saying current protection for workers and current employee rights legislation would only remain in place "while I am leader". Part of her ability to remain is the unpleasant thought her replacement will take an axe to things like maternity and paternity leave and other worker rights once we are outside the EU.
This is where the Corbyn version of a post-EU Britain diverges from the pro-LEAVE Conservative version. Corbyn would be able, once free of EU regulation, to impose much stronger rights on Union power and provide far more protection for part-time workers as well as making it much harder to fire employees.
On the other side of the political fence we have those who think Britain would be able, once free of EU regulation, to have a bonfire of employment rules and regulations as well as shutting down rights for part-time workers.
This unholy alliance is agreed purely on the need for the UK to be clear of EU regulation.
To what extent does the drift to BINO or Chequers Minus or whatever satisfy that - I suspect there will continue to be an EU regulatory presence certainly through Transition and perhaps beyond.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
We need you back here to argue the case.
Hartlepool is nice, I hear.
Needs repopulation too – why not set up a Leaverstan homeland up there? They love it!
The small overall impacts mean that EEA migration as a whole has had neither the large negative effects claimed by some nor the clear benefits claimed by others. There are ways in which migration policy could be changed to increase the benefits and reduce the costs and our policy recommendations focus on what we believe these changes should be.
If – and this is not a MAC recommendation – immigration is not to be part of the negotiations with the EU and the UK is deciding its future migration system in isolation, we recommend moving to a system in which all migration is managed with no preferential access to EU citizens.
This would mean ending free movement but that would not make the UK unusual – for example, Canada has an open, welcoming approach to migration but no free movement agreement with any other country.
The problem with free movement is that it leaves migration to the UK solely up to migrants and UK residents have no control over the level and mix of migration. With free movement there can be no guarantee that migration is in the interests of UK residents.
As to the timing of any challenge to the Prime Minister, I think we need to consider the May 2019 local elections where the Conservatives are defending in excess of 5,000 seats won on the night Cameron won his majority.
What sort of scale of losses would be seen as disastrous and unacceptable by Conservatives? The 1995 challenge to Major came after a particularly disastrous set of local results which saw the Conservatives lose 2,000 seats in one night.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
There is no way to guarantee a deal in perpetuity. The closest you can get to to that is to agree that the deal comes as a single, take it or leave it construction. That is what the UK will sign up to. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.
It will be enshrined in an international Treaty. That is perpetuity.
Not really. In reality, the UK can pass legislation to withdraw. What then happens is that all parts of the treaty become null and void,
Preferential treatment of EU migrants is something Brussels will certainly demand in exchange for a free trade deal. The fact that this report offers little reason to offer that concession squeezes the PM further into a corner, which public opinion had already boxed her into.
There is no room left for any budging.
Has Canada offered preferential access for their deal?
Set number of visas, from memory. One of the final sticking points at the end of the negotiations was that Romania wanted more visas. The agreement on visas can also be cancelled by Canada if the crime rate from certain populations rises above set levels.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Policy recommendations 29. Free movement has the virtue of a low bureaucratic burden but at the price of losing control over both the level and type of immigration into the UK. With free movement, the decision to migrate rests solely with the migrant. Ending free movement would not make the UK unusual – for example Canada combines a relatively open policy to migration without any free movement agreement.
30. Ending free movement would not mean that visa-free travel for EEA citizens would end, just that a visa would be needed to settle in the UK for any period of time and to work as is the case for the citizens of some non-EEA countries at the moment.
31. If the UK decides on its new immigration system in isolation from the negotiations about the future relationship with the EU we do not see compelling reasons to offer a different set of rules to EEA and non-EEA citizens. A migrant’s impact depends on factors such as their skills, employment, age and use of public services, and not fundamentally on their nationality.
32. The evidence from this report points in the direction of high-skilled migrants having a clear benefit to existing residents while the same is not true for lower- skilled migrants. As a result, a policy on work migration that provided greater access for higher-skilled migration while restricting access for lower-skilled workers to enter the UK would be consistent with the available evidence.
33. Currently the main scheme for high-skilled workers from outside the EEA with a job offer in the UK is Tier 2. The two most important categories are Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) and Tier 2 (General) – for new recruit coming to work in the UK. We do not propose any change to the way the current Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) scheme works.
34. The existing Tier 2 (General) scheme can provide a useful template for a work permit scheme although criticisms of the administrative burdens the scheme imposes should be taken seriously if it is to be extended to EEA citizens.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
There is no way to guarantee a deal in perpetuity. The closest you can get to to that is to agree that the deal comes as a single, take it or leave it construction. That is what the UK will sign up to. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.
It will be enshrined in an international Treaty. That is perpetuity.
Not really. In reality, the UK can pass legislation to withdraw. What then happens is that all parts of the treaty become null and void,
Wrong I am afraid. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced. If the treaty expressly says that it cannot be denounced then you are stuck with it. In reality, you can just unilaterally denounce it but it is contrary to international law.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
We need you back here to argue the case.
Hartlepool is nice, I hear.
I am coming back next month. I understand there will be a vacancy for PM about then.
The general election last year shows that Theresa May can do something different from what was previously advertised. When she does go, if she’s not pushed, it will be very sudden. Evens for next year looks about right to me.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
As to the timing of any challenge to the Prime Minister, I think we need to consider the May 2019 local elections where the Conservatives are defending in excess of 5,000 seats won on the night Cameron won his majority.
What sort of scale of losses would be seen as disastrous and unacceptable by Conservatives? The 1995 challenge to Major came after a particularly disastrous set of local results which saw the Conservatives lose 2,000 seats in one night.
The Tories are bound to lose seats next year as they were 7% ahead in 2015 last time they were up. More important is the voteshare, provided the Tories are not too far behind Labour or even tied or ahead on the headline vote May should be OK.
In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats and got just 25%, 22% behind Labour on 47%. However bad it gets for May it is unlikely to be as bad as Major had it then which led to Redwood challenging him for the leadership
If there were an election tomorrow, it flatters Labour, as UKIP would have but a handful of candidates.....and those without a candidate who bothered to vote would vote disproportionately for the Conservatives. Stick a couple of points on the gap - and the Tories have a workable majority.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
There is no way to guarantee a deal in perpetuity. The closest you can get to to that is to agree that the deal comes as a single, take it or leave it construction. That is what the UK will sign up to. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.
It will be enshrined in an international Treaty. That is perpetuity.
Not really. In reality, the UK can pass legislation to withdraw. What then happens is that all parts of the treaty become null and void,
Wrong I am afraid. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced. If the treaty expressly says that it cannot be denounced then you are stuck with it. In reality, you can just unilaterally denounce it but it is contrary to international law.
Things that are contrary to international law happen all the time. If the UK wants to withdraw from a treaty it can. The EU will not invade us if we do, they will merely say none of the treaty is applicable.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
We need you back here to argue the case.
Hartlepool is nice, I hear.
I am coming back next month. I understand there will be a vacancy for PM about then.
Permanently or will you be back to bothering kangaroos again?
If they own a second home in Tuscany, they will be fine - they have the money. So the likes of Lord Lawson will be able to continue to live in their French chateaux while insisting that they cannot be joined by the riff-raff. Phew. No, it will be ordinary people who have saved for years in the hope of retiring to the sun who will be affected.
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
Exactly. Given that EU manual workers come to the UK in the expectation of better wages, why would it make sense for unskilled UK labour to travel in the other direction? It doesn't, which is why it doesn't happen. I would imagine the profile of a British worker in the EU was quite different to that of the average EU migrant to the UK.
The argument that the nasty oldies voted to stop the youngsters enjoying the wonders of working in the EU has been shot to pieces, so now the sympathy extends to older people who cant retire there! But they are the people who generally voted Leave, so they obviously aren't that bothered
Plenty of even semi-skilled Europeans have some, if very sketchy, English. The opposite.... semi or unskilled Brits having sketchy French, German and so on doesn’t apply. The exceptions of course are young people who are prepared to do bar etc work in ‘international’ resorts, where they can manage, temporarily at least, on very limited Spanish and French.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
We need you back here to argue the case.
Hartlepool is nice, I hear.
I am coming back next month. I understand there will be a vacancy for PM about then.
I'm not sure you'll be in the running. But I suppose it might make Ruth D. change her mind about having a crack at it.
Isn't the bigger impact of freedom of movement on training? i.e. domestic lower-skilled workers don't get to become higher-skilled workers, because it's much cheaper to import those trained elsewhere, in both the public and private sectors.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
We need you back here to argue the case.
Hartlepool is nice, I hear.
I am coming back next month. I understand there will be a vacancy for PM about then.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Makes sense. The other thing to throw into the equation, though, is many of the lower paid jobs are in public and social services. Thus, there is a wider contribution to factor in - and an increased future cost in reducing such immigration given current employment levels and demographics. Ideally, we want higher skilled immigration without low skilled immigration. But if the first only comes with the second, my view is we have to accept that.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Wrong I am afraid. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced. If the treaty expressly says that it cannot be denounced then you are stuck with it. In reality, you can just unilaterally denounce it but it is contrary to international law.
Things that are contrary to international law happen all the time. If the UK wants to withdraw from a treaty it can. The EU will not invade us if we do, they will merely say none of the treaty is applicable.
Hang on a minute. You are suggesting that the UK deliberately deceive the EU and break international law by signing a treaty that, with no withdrawal provision, is intended to be permanent and then reneging on that commitment later??
How about, you know, insisting on a withdrawal provision now? And if the EU refuse, then support the position of the UK Government in refusing to sign such an inappropriate agreement? Yes?
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
Exactly. Given that EU manual workers come to the UK in the expectation of better wages, why would it make sense for unskilled UK labour to travel in the other direction? It doesn't, which is why it doesn't happen. I would imagine the profile of a British worker in the EU was quite different to that of the average EU migrant to the UK.
The argument that the nasty oldies voted to stop the youngsters enjoying the wonders of working in the EU has been shot to pieces, so now the sympathy extends to older people who cant retire there! But they are the people who generally voted Leave, so they obviously aren't that bothered
Plenty of even semi-skilled Europeans have some, if very sketchy, English. The opposite.... semi or unskilled Brits having sketchy French, German and so on doesn’t apply. The exceptions of course are young people who are prepared to do bar etc work in ‘international’ resorts, where they can manage, temporarily at least, on very limited Spanish and French.
Hence the MAC recommendation - "unlimited" skilled immigration (irrespective of origin) for salaries over £30,000. No low skilled immigration, but use 'youth mobility scheme' for those sectors - possibly have agricultural scheme - but not other sectors or public service.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Makes sense. The other thing to throw into the equation, though, is many of the lower paid jobs are in public and social services. Thus, there is a wider contribution to factor in - and an increased future cost in reducing such immigration given current employment levels and demographics. Ideally, we want higher skilled immigration without low skilled immigration. But if the first only comes with the second, my view is we have to accept that.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
Wrong I am afraid. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced. If the treaty expressly says that it cannot be denounced then you are stuck with it. In reality, you can just unilaterally denounce it but it is contrary to international law.
Things that are contrary to international law happen all the time. If the UK wants to withdraw from a treaty it can. The EU will not invade us if we do, they will merely say none of the treaty is applicable.
Hang on a minute. You are suggesting that the UK deliberately deceive the EU and break international law by signing a treaty that, with no withdrawal provision, is intended to be permanent and then reneging on that commitment later??
How about, you know, insisting on a withdrawal provision now? And if the EU refuse, then support the position of the UK Government in refusing to sign such an inappropriate agreement? Yes?
Nope - I will not indulge the hard-right fantasies of an ex-pat who will not be affected by the disastrous Brexit such a position would lead to.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
Mesut Ozil is paying a shitload of tax, not because he's a world class footballer (he isn't), but because he plays for a team in the Premier League which rakes it in from TV revenues, shirt sponsorship and other income.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Perhaps you'd like to point to the consistent enforcement of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would indicate walking away would be any kind of problem in real life.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Makes sense. The other thing to throw into the equation, though, is many of the lower paid jobs are in public and social services. Thus, there is a wider contribution to factor in - and an increased future cost in reducing such immigration given current employment levels and demographics. Ideally, we want higher skilled immigration without low skilled immigration. But if the first only comes with the second, my view is we have to accept that.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
That is also very fair. And I would have no problem in paying more taxes to ensure it happens. But then I am a well-off lefty and so my principles and my purse make this a very easy choice for me.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Makes sense. The other thing to throw into the equation, though, is many of the lower paid jobs are in public and social services. Thus, there is a wider contribution to factor in - and an increased future cost in reducing such immigration given current employment levels and demographics. Ideally, we want higher skilled immigration without low skilled immigration. But if the first only comes with the second, my view is we have to accept that.
In economics terms, that implies the marginal immigrant isn't a net benefit to the country, so the overall level is too high. It can very easily (and obviously) be true that there is a net benefit to immigration as a whole, and yet not for certain immigrants themselves.
This holds unless either (a) you can't identify the likely contribution of each immigrant or (b) as Southam says, you can't get one without the other. I don't think either are true: other countries manage.
It is true that there is a wider contribution to factor in, but then there is also the impact on our lower-skilled workers to consider, both in terms of wages and in training.
As ever this really comes down to identity and in-group solidarity. No-one (except maybe @rcs1000 on one of his libertarian flights of fancy) is suggesting unrestricted immigration from the whole world, for fairly obvious economic reasons (never mind the cultural arguments). So where do you draw the geographical boundaries of entitlement, and where do you draw the economic boundaries of permission?
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
Mesut Ozil is paying a shitload of tax, not because he's a world class footballer (he isn't), but because he plays for a team in the Premier League which rakes it in from TV revenues, shirt sponsorship and other income.
Allegedly Ozil has not being paying as much tax as he should.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
Mesut Ozil is paying a shitload of tax, not because he's a world class footballer (he isn't), but because he plays for a team in the Premier League which rakes it in from TV revenues, shirt sponsorship and other income.
Allegedly Ozil has not being paying as much tax as he should.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Most other countries (ex-EU) focus on skilled immigration - why can't the UK?
It can. But that will need to come with a much less bureaucratic and welcoming system than we have currently - and higher spending on wages and training in the public sector. I am all for that.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
How much is a social worker "worth"? The problem is most Councils can't afford to pay the Private Sector rate and that is why there are key skills shortages. For example, an experienced property surveyor isn't going to join a Council when he or she can earn so much more in the West End or Docklands.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
Exactly. Given that EU manual workers come to the UK in the expectation of better wages, why would it make sense for unskilled UK labour to travel in the other direction? It doesn't, which is why it doesn't happen. I would imagine the profile of a British worker in the EU was quite different to that of the average EU migrant to the UK.
The argument that the nasty oldies voted to stop the youngsters enjoying the wonders of working in the EU has been shot to pieces, so now the sympathy extends to older people who cant retire there! But they are the people who generally voted Leave, so they obviously aren't that bothered
Plenty of even semi-skilled Europeans have some, if very sketchy, English. The opposite.... semi or unskilled Brits having sketchy French, German and so on doesn’t apply. The exceptions of course are young people who are prepared to do bar etc work in ‘international’ resorts, where they can manage, temporarily at least, on very limited Spanish and French.
Hence the MAC recommendation - "unlimited" skilled immigration (irrespective of origin) for salaries over £30,000. No low skilled immigration, but use 'youth mobility scheme' for those sectors - possibly have agricultural scheme - but not other sectors or public service.
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
I suspect those numbers would look very different if you were to take out the top 0.1% by income. Footballers and CEOs are a big distortion to mean contribution figures.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
How much is a social worker "worth"? The problem is most Councils can't afford to pay the Private Sector rate and that is why there are key skills shortages. For example, an experienced property surveyor isn't going to join a Council when he or she can earn so much more in the West End or Docklands.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
The correct salary is the minimum amount required to attract and retain good employees. There's no mystery to it.
Brits are far more likely to dream of a life in Sydney or N York than Milan or Vienna.
Yes, the second home owners of Tuscany will be fine anyway, as you say, but from these stats how many ordinary electricians and plasterers or estate agents for that matter are actually availing themselves of the right to work in the EU? Not that many it appears.
Look at TSE's rather telling groan down thread that he's spending a week in Germany. His words don't seem to me to be leaping off the page with joy and anticipation.
The EU just ain't sexy.
Exactly. Given that EU manual workers come to the UK in the expectation of better wages, why would it make sense for unskilled UK labour to travel in the other direction? It doesn't, which is why it doesn't happen. I would imagine the profile of a British worker in the EU was quite different to that of the average EU migrant to the UK.
The argument that the nasty oldies voted to stop the youngsters enjoying the wonders of working in the EU has been shot to pieces, so now the sympathy extends to older people who cant retire there! But they are the people who generally voted Leave, so they obviously aren't that bothered
Plenty of even semi-skilled Europeans have some, if very sketchy, English. The opposite.... semi or unskilled Brits having sketchy French, German and so on doesn’t apply. The exceptions of course are young people who are prepared to do bar etc work in ‘international’ resorts, where they can manage, temporarily at least, on very limited Spanish and French.
Hence the MAC recommendation - "unlimited" skilled immigration (irrespective of origin) for salaries over £30,000. No low skilled immigration, but use 'youth mobility scheme' for those sectors - possibly have agricultural scheme - but not other sectors or public service.
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Expect lots of complaining (especially from EU countries eager to export their unemployed...)
The salient finding is that, outside of the EU and by comparison with what we have now, it is confirmed that migration policy can be changed to increase the benefits and reduce the costs to the UK.
Re Vienna Convention.The WA will be binding in international law but under A 50 it only sets out the arrangements for withdrawal. No-one really knows what the additional A 50 words "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" mean, but it can't mean that the details of our long term relationship are sorted or finalised under the WA. That can only happen later and once we have left.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Most other countries (ex-EU) focus on skilled immigration - why can't the UK?
It can. But that will need to come with a much less bureaucratic and welcoming system than we have currently - and higher spending on wages and training in the public sector. I am all for that.
If freedom of movement ends, the migration of EEA workers will become harder. Our proposals for changes to the Tier 2 visa system – removing the cap, widening the range of jobs permitted, and reducing bureaucracy - mean that the change would be less for medium-skilled workers than low-skilled workers and less still for high-skilled workers. For non-EEA workers, our Tier 2 proposals would make it easier to hire migrants into high and medium-skilled jobs but make no change for lower- skilled.
I think there are a few considerations in analysing this conclusion:
1. Has the impact of low skilled immigration on productivity been included? If you can obtain endless low cost labour, or even imported skilled labour, this must act as a disincentive to invest in training and employees. And productivity growth has flatlined since large scale immigration started. 2. Since a large amount of unskilled labour is in the cash economy (in particular trades) how sure can we be that the downward pressure on wages is being correctly picked up? 3. Has the impact on infrastructure been considered?
Overall, if there is negligable net benefit or loss in immigration that would suggest that we should not have it. There is an obvious cost in social cohesion.
So, of the top 10 expat destinations, 6 already require paperwork, one will be unaffected by any immigration change and three will be affected.
This 'people who want to go and work in Europe' figures more highly in some minds than it does in the minds of expats.
It features very prominently in the minds of people who might want to live and work in Europe. If my maths is right, France, Germany and Spain combined comes to around 560,000. That looks like a pretty large number to me. Then there are 23 other European countries to factor in, which would probably take us to at least the Canadian figure.
Spain and France are more likely retirees than workers.
Without doubt. And in the future both will revert to being what they were previously: countries in which rich Brits could settle down and live out their twilight years, but which average punters could only visit. Unless, of course, they also have Irish passports ;-)
thats sort of the state of play today though. Only well off brits can buy a second house or afford to move out there. Eveybody else just visits for a holiday.
Cant your wife get a paddy passport ?
I am a wealthy Brit. I am going to be fine. In any case, I am aiming for somewhere by the sea here when I finally stop funding the next generation and helping to look after my mother-in-law, who shows every sign of living to 100!
My guess is that the average retiree in Spain does not own a second home there. Instead, they will have sold their home in the UK to raise the funds to buy a place on the Costa.
Absolutely correct - many are living on savings and pensions both of which have been depleted significantly by the fall in the £. There are many thousands who in theory could be forced back to the UK lacking much in the way of funds for housing, etc.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Most other countries (ex-EU) focus on skilled immigration - why can't the UK?
It can. But that will need to come with a much less bureaucratic and welcoming system than we have currently - and higher spending on wages and training in the public sector. I am all for that.
If freedom of movement ends, the migration of EEA workers will become harder. Our proposals for changes to the Tier 2 visa system – removing the cap, widening the range of jobs permitted, and reducing bureaucracy - mean that the change would be less for medium-skilled workers than low-skilled workers and less still for high-skilled workers. For non-EEA workers, our Tier 2 proposals would make it easier to hire migrants into high and medium-skilled jobs but make no change for lower- skilled.
Yes - it would mean a lot more bureaucracy for EU citizens than is currently the case. We would be competing with 26 other countries for their talents while making it much more difficult to come. If you are going to face such bureaucracy why go to the UK instead of, say, the US, Australia or Canada?
Comments
I get the impression even when a deal is signed half of PB will be denying it
And which industries have been nationalised ?
The rest sounds like the average grouse of a Telegraph reader any time in the last couple of decades.
Thanks Brexiteers.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is why Michael Gove is such a lying scumbag. If the UK signs the NI backstop potentially there will never be any way to change the relationship with the EU in the future because they can always pull out the backstop. And the WA stands even if the trade agreement is never finalised.
This is why I think when May comes home with any 'deal' it will be fine for a few days of spin; then people will be able to see the problems in black and white. The text will be there for all to see and May won't be able to deny what she has given away. Hence in the end there won't be support in Parliament for such a deal.
But there could be a majority in Parliament for it. Also possible a majority seeks a second referendum.
*cough* Some of us predicted that we'd get a deliberately shit deal negotiated so the electorate could be asked if they wanted to remain after all...
Cheerio, Theresa at that point.
The Government has been advised not to offer EU migrants special treatment after Brexit.
Despite pressure from Brussels to offer preferential access in exchange for a free trade deal, the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has surprisingly said EU migrants should get the same access as non-EU arrivals in future.
MAC looked at the impact of migration in the UK - one of the main issues drawn out by the Leave campaign during the referendum. But despite the strength of feeling among many voters, today’s report actually suggests making it easier for highly-skilled workers to come to the UK.
http://www.itv.com/news/2018-09-18/government-advised-not-to-offer-eu-migrants-special-treatment-after-brexit/
I agree that if May has delivered Brexit, that will help with some but if she has delivered Brexit, it is likely to be either on the basis of something approximating to Chequers, or No Deal at all. Either way, her political capital will be reduced. Chequers has little active support but might be tolerated on the basis of being the only option that enough can tolerate to command a majority in the Commons. All the same, the headbangers will cry 'sellout' and she'd never get over that. On the other hand, No Deal would mean that her USP of being bloody difficult but ultimately someone who can deliver is shot. Either way: what further use does the Party have for her?
There are two points I'd pick up from Mike's analysis.
Firstly, while it's true that the current rules prevent a further VoNC within 12 months if one is unsuccessful, that rule is part of those set by the 1922 Exec, not the Party constitution. As such, it could be changed at a meeting of the 1922 Exec by a simple majority and at only a few days' notice. If May had, say, 140 MPs vote against her and she refused to stand down, I'd expect a fairly rapid revision of the provision.
And secondly, well over 158 Con MPs do not want May to fight the next election as leader. They might well be sceptical of Boris or some ERG-backed candidate (if they can unite behind one, which is improbable) but as Mike rightly says, he needs the MP numbers to make it through to the members' vote (and that'd be no gimme), and he may well not have the MP numbers. While Boris is on the slide is an ideal time to move. There are enough other options.
Preferential treatment of EU migrants is something Brussels will certainly demand in exchange for a free trade deal. The fact that this report offers little reason to offer that concession squeezes the PM further into a corner, which public opinion had already boxed her into.
There is no room left for any budging.
Has Canada offered preferential access for their deal?
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1041977053992640512
The MAC report says there has a been small impact on wages and employment in the UK, arguing it has had “neither the large negative affects claimed by some, nor the benefits claimed by others”.
But it also argues that because “the biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves” British ministers should see preferential access to the UK labour market as “something of value to offer in the negotiations” with the EU over the UK’s exit.
Any future policy determined by the UK should favour higher skilled workers over lower skilled ones, the MAC advises, and says there should be no sector specific migration schemes except possibly for one to supply seasonal labour in agriculture.
'Securing the long term grip of the left on the party' would probably be nearer the mark.
I also recall Theresa May saying current protection for workers and current employee rights legislation would only remain in place "while I am leader". Part of her ability to remain is the unpleasant thought her replacement will take an axe to things like maternity and paternity leave and other worker rights once we are outside the EU.
This is where the Corbyn version of a post-EU Britain diverges from the pro-LEAVE Conservative version. Corbyn would be able, once free of EU regulation, to impose much stronger rights on Union power and provide far more protection for part-time workers as well as making it much harder to fire employees.
On the other side of the political fence we have those who think Britain would be able, once free of EU regulation, to have a bonfire of employment rules and regulations as well as shutting down rights for part-time workers.
This unholy alliance is agreed purely on the need for the UK to be clear of EU regulation.
To what extent does the drift to BINO or Chequers Minus or whatever satisfy that - I suspect there will continue to be an EU regulatory presence certainly through Transition and perhaps beyond.
Hartlepool is nice, I hear.
Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
If – and this is not a MAC recommendation – immigration is not to be part of the negotiations with the EU and the UK is deciding its future migration system in isolation, we recommend moving to a system in which all migration is managed with no preferential access to EU citizens.
This would mean ending free movement but that would not make the UK unusual – for example, Canada has an open, welcoming approach to migration but no free movement agreement with any other country.
The problem with free movement is that it leaves migration to the UK solely up to migrants and UK residents have no control over the level and mix of migration. With free movement there can be no guarantee that migration is in the interests of UK residents.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/740991/Final_EEA_report_to_go_to_WEB.PDF
What sort of scale of losses would be seen as disastrous and unacceptable by Conservatives? The 1995 challenge to Major came after a particularly disastrous set of local results which saw the Conservatives lose 2,000 seats in one night.
The poor should be grateful that we pay for their benefits.
29. Free movement has the virtue of a low bureaucratic burden but at the price of losing control over both the level and type of immigration into the UK. With free movement, the decision to migrate rests solely with the migrant. Ending free movement would not make the UK unusual – for example Canada combines a relatively open policy to migration without any free movement agreement.
30. Ending free movement would not mean that visa-free travel for EEA citizens would end, just that a visa would be needed to settle in the UK for any period of time and to work as is the case for the citizens of some non-EEA countries at the moment.
31. If the UK decides on its new immigration system in isolation from the negotiations about the future relationship with the EU we do not see compelling reasons to offer a different set of rules to EEA and non-EEA citizens. A migrant’s impact depends on factors such as their skills, employment, age and use of public services, and not fundamentally on their nationality.
32. The evidence from this report points in the direction of high-skilled migrants having a clear benefit to existing residents while the same is not true for lower- skilled migrants. As a result, a policy on work migration that provided greater access for higher-skilled migration while restricting access for lower-skilled workers to enter the UK would be consistent with the available evidence.
33. Currently the main scheme for high-skilled workers from outside the EEA with a job offer in the UK is Tier 2. The two most important categories are Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) and Tier 2 (General) – for new recruit coming to work in the UK. We do not propose any change to the way the current Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) scheme works.
34. The existing Tier 2 (General) scheme can provide a useful template for a work permit scheme although criticisms of the administrative burdens the scheme imposes should be taken seriously if it is to be extended to EEA citizens.
In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats and got just 25%, 22% behind Labour on 47%. However bad it gets for May it is unlikely to be as bad as Major had it then which led to Redwood challenging him for the leadership
What they would do with that majority, though....
No representation unless you’re a net contributor to the Exchequer.
But I suppose it might make Ruth D. change her mind about having a crack at it.
[I've not had a chance to read the report yet.]
Foreigner-wise I'd avoid London.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
How about, you know, insisting on a withdrawal provision now? And if the EU refuse, then support the position of the UK Government in refusing to sign such an inappropriate agreement? Yes?
This holds unless either (a) you can't identify the likely contribution of each immigrant or (b) as Southam says, you can't get one without the other. I don't think either are true: other countries manage.
It is true that there is a wider contribution to factor in, but then there is also the impact on our lower-skilled workers to consider, both in terms of wages and in training.
As ever this really comes down to identity and in-group solidarity. No-one (except maybe @rcs1000 on one of his libertarian flights of fancy) is suggesting unrestricted immigration from the whole world, for fairly obvious economic reasons (never mind the cultural arguments). So where do you draw the geographical boundaries of entitlement, and where do you draw the economic boundaries of permission?
https://metro.co.uk/2016/12/02/arsenal-star-mesut-ozil-implicated-in-tax-fraud-case-from-time-with-real-madrid-6298401/
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1041989072695242752
No I’m not Theresa May’s jokewriter.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
If freedom of movement ends, the migration of EEA workers will become harder. Our proposals for changes to the Tier 2 visa system – removing the cap, widening the range of jobs permitted, and reducing bureaucracy - mean that the change would be less for medium-skilled workers than low-skilled workers and less still for high-skilled workers. For non-EEA workers, our Tier 2 proposals would make it easier to hire migrants into high and medium-skilled jobs but make no change for lower- skilled.
1. Has the impact of low skilled immigration on productivity been included? If you can obtain endless low cost labour, or even imported skilled labour, this must act as a disincentive to invest in training and employees. And productivity growth has flatlined since large scale immigration started.
2. Since a large amount of unskilled labour is in the cash economy (in particular trades) how sure can we be that the downward pressure on wages is being correctly picked up?
3. Has the impact on infrastructure been considered?
Overall, if there is negligable net benefit or loss in immigration that would suggest that we should not have it. There is an obvious cost in social cohesion.