re. Bicester Village - doesn't surprise me at all. Some years ago I brought a Chinese company's senior management to London as part of their IPO roadshow. After all the investor meetings I asked if they would like to go to see the sights - Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, Tower of London, etc? "Shopping" they replied.
It is not just popular with the Chinese, I believe the train announcements are also made in Arabic as well on that part of the line. The number of bags you see tourists lugging back is quite astounding.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It works in Canada because they have a federal system. It wouldn't work here because we don't.
What you can do is hand out more visas tied to a specific company (I forget what they're called) and reduce open visas where they can work for anyone. The problem is that the former have a tendency to lock people into jobs and so are pretty unattractive to the employee.
But Gardenwalker wants to regenerate e.g., the North East.
First, you need a functioning company in the North East with the right profile to apply for the visa.
Ultimately, Gardenwalker’s idea won’t work (even if it is legal & you can find such a company) because highly skilled migrants are by definition highly desirable, and so when Gardenwalker plonks them down in Easington or Sunderland, they can easily move.
They can easily find a company in London that will support their visa application, or freelance.
Skilled people aren’t chess pieces, so they can’t easily be hemmed in.
And in any case, who is policing all this? It is difficult enough to police the immigration and asylum system we already have without Gardenwalker making it way more complicated.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
Though it is perfectly possible for a work visa to be tied to a particular employer in a particular geography. I had such a visa when working in NZ.
I assume you were working as a doctor ?
It seems detrimental to me placing restrictions on skilled immigrants who are doing skilled work.
Now if you had stopped the medical work and become a barman that would be different.
As you're in the legal profession, can you explain to me how staying in the single market is leaving the EU if we have to accept all the same rules and pay the same membership fees?
As you're in the legal profession, can you explain to me how staying in the single market is leaving the EU if we have to accept all the same rules and pay the same membership fees?
I don't think I'm the only one confused.
This is the fundamental problem with seeking binary outcomes to multi faceted problems. Many in Norway proudly say “we are not in the E.U.”. You would probably say that (at least to some extent) they are. Many could argue that our current arrangement, sans Schengen and the Euro, isn’t fully in the E.U. - although doubtless you would disagree. Switzerland is, in Schengen terms, more in the EU than we are. It’s a far far more complex set of relationships and than the damn referendum made it out to be and Cameron should cursed forever for his reductive setting it up as an “in/out” situation, where we were already partly out and no one can sustainably argue, by reason of geography alone, we cannot be partly in.
Legally speaking being in the E.U. means being a signatory to the Treaties starting with Rome and culminating in Lisbon. Once we cease to be such we are no longer in the E.U. If you wish to take a non legalistic definition be my guest. Everyone else is.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
It is not “fantastically illiberal”. That’s absurd hyperbole. At present many visas are employer-tied. This would simply add a condition that you must be employed, say, in Birmingham.
As for the EU comment, I thought we were leaving?
But, you are a great EU-phile, banging the big EU drum relentlessly.
Freedom of movement, and all that.
I am just sorry to see you fall from your EU perch.
"Staying in the single market does not require membership of the customs union."
So we could stay in the single market and make deals with other countries? How about FOM? Membership fees? How about input into standardisation committees?
Yes, I suspect I should know this, but I'm with the great unwashed on these topics?
As member of the EEA we can make our own trade deals, or trade under the existing EU ones. Free movment of Labour would apply as it does now, membership fees will be for the propertioned cost of maintaining the single market.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
Though it is perfectly possible for a work visa to be tied to a particular employer in a particular geography. I had such a visa when working in NZ.
That’s how visas work in this part of the world too. Most expat employees have to be sponsored by their employer, who is responsible among other things for ensuring they leave the country when their employment finishes.
It does rather leave the holder in a difficult position if employer is abusive, but in Canterbury Health Board it wasn't an issue.
Yes, you also need to have a system for investigating abuse (such as the Gangmasters licensing authority in the U.K.) and a system whereby workers can transfer from one employer to another.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to ask around other countries which have lots of immigration, and see the pros and cons of each system to come up with a solution.
Sky showing Williamson video and it does not look good.
Let us see Tom Watson take action if he is to be seen to be credible
Williamson has, wittingly or probably otherwise, set himself up nicely to be the required fall guy. What a gift he offers his party, if Labour is sensible enough to take it.
Labour mp on Sky saying he has spoken to Tom Watson and he is actively seeking Williamson's suspension
Does anyone know who gets the final decision on this? Presumably it isn't Tom Watson.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
You are missing the point. Your suggestion is almost certainly counter to EU law. And it won’t work. And it can’t be regulated.
It is an obvious idea. It has occurred to many.
And there are obvious reasons (after a moment or twos thought) why it won’t work, at least in the UK.
Canada may be different because the provinces have more control over their own immigration. A Canadian province has more freedom in this regard than a European Union country.
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
It is early so I'll hold off on the name calling, you ******* *****.
Being in the EU or not being in the EU is a matter of treaty. You are either an EU member (Germany, France, the UK, for example) or not (Norway, Switzerland). Whatever provisions, laws, regulations, agreements are followed is irrelevant. You are either an EU member or you are not.
Much as you may whine and moan about what that ballot paper meant to you it does not alter the words actually written on it, which were to ask if you wanted to be an EU member or not.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It works in Canada because they have a federal system. It wouldn't work here because we don't.
What you can do is hand out more visas tied to a specific company (I forget what they're called) and reduce open visas where they can work for anyone. The problem is that the former have a tendency to lock people into jobs and so are pretty unattractive to the employee.
But Gardenwalker wants to regenerate e.g., the North East.
First, you need a functioning company in the North East with the right profile to apply for the visa.
Ultimately, Gardenwalker’s idea won’t work (even if it is legal & you can find such a company) because highly skilled migrants are by definition highly desirable, and so when Gardenwalker plonks them down in Easington or Sunderland, they can easily move.
They can easily find a company in London that will support their visa application, or freelance.
Skilled people aren’t chess pieces, so they can’t easily be hemmed in.
And in any case, who is policing all this? It is difficult enough to police the immigration and asylum system we already have without Gardenwalker making it way more complicated.
I know many migrants tied to employer visas. If they want to move they must find another employer who is willing to sponsor them.
All I am suggesting is that we add a regional dimension to the granting of such visas and over-endow - to use your example - the North East.
Since you were on here a day or so ago ranting about the backwardness of Wales, I would have thought you would welcome ideas to address the problem. But I forgot you were a crank with a weird animus toward me because I have the nerve to employ a (British) nanny.
Chris Williamson is sure making the TIGgers’ job easy for them. What impact will he have on those MPs who uneasily share a party with him and what if anything is the leadership going to do to steady the ship?
Legal logic is often a distortion of normal logic. If you can't define membership precisely, surely legal logic is failing.
A member pays membership fees for a service. You're hinting (apologies if I'm getting this wrong), that non EU members can avail themselves of service without being fully bound by membership rules and fees. We can 'pick and choose' too or can we?
Never really understood why the ERG didn't just bank the WA on offer, then say they will "do a France" - put in place a leader who will just ignore the bits they don't like. Would give them endless opportunity to continue their battle with the EU.....but from outside.
re. Bicester Village - doesn't surprise me at all. Some years ago I brought a Chinese company's senior management to London as part of their IPO roadshow. After all the investor meetings I asked if they would like to go to see the sights - Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, Tower of London, etc? "Shopping" they replied.
Is there something especially upmarket or good value about Bicester ?
Because I've never seen any groups of Chinese spending big in the York designer outlet.
If we want an international perspective on Brexit, it might be helpful to invite some journalists from outside a continent which contains less than 1 in 10 of the world’s people.
Never really understood why the ERG didn't just bank the WA on offer, then say they will "do a France" - put in place a leader who will just ignore the bits they don't like. Would give them endless opportunity to continue their battle with the EU.....but from outside.
That would have required a bit of thought and perhaps some research.
Its so much more enjoyable to have a good tantrum.
Chris Williamson is sure making the TIGgers’ job easy for them. What impact will he have on those MPs who uneasily share a party with him and what if anything is the leadership going to do to steady the ship?
Never really understood why the ERG didn't just bank the WA on offer, then say they will "do a France" - put in place a leader who will just ignore the bits they don't like. Would give them endless opportunity to continue their battle with the EU.....but from outside.
re. Bicester Village - doesn't surprise me at all. Some years ago I brought a Chinese company's senior management to London as part of their IPO roadshow. After all the investor meetings I asked if they would like to go to see the sights - Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, Tower of London, etc? "Shopping" they replied.
Is there something especially upmarket or good value about Bicester ?
Because I've never seen any groups of Chinese spending big in the York designer outlet.
Not been there myself (we unleashed the Chinese on Oxford Street) so no idea. Distance from London presumably?
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
You are missing the point. Your suggestion is almost certainly counter to EU law. And it won’t work. And it can’t be regulated.
It is an obvious idea. It has occurred to many.
And there are obvious reasons (after a moment or twos thought) why it won’t work, at least in the UK.
Canada may be different because the provinces have more control over their own immigration. A Canadian province has more freedom in this regard than a European Union country.
Please give me some actual reasons this won’t work instead of “The EU won’t allow it and as a Remainer you are not able to propose something the EU won’t allow.”
Chris Williamson is sure making the TIGgers’ job easy for them. What impact will he have on those MPs who uneasily share a party with him and what if anything is the leadership going to do to steady the ship?
F1: sounds like multiple car windows being smashed to try and nick F1 journalists' gear. Not great.
Barcelona have always had a huge problem with petty crime against visitors. I had a camera bag stolen from a restaurant there 15 years ago
A footpad tried to pull my wife's watch of her wrist in Barcelona while we were sat at a cafe. He was big bastard against whom I did not fancy my chances in a square go so I glassed him. The glass didn't break but it gave him pause for thought so he issued the proverbial Moor's Last Sigh and fled. Fucks given by the Spanish cops = 0.
Well, BJO does live relatively near Sheffield, and has breathessly talked in the past about attending Corbyn's rallies - so he might be there for the B-list act.
But I'd better not say any more until another poster accuses me of being something to do with the NAZIs ....
Chris Williamson is sure making the TIGgers’ job easy for them. What impact will he have on those MPs who uneasily share a party with him and what if anything is the leadership going to do to steady the ship?
re. Bicester Village - doesn't surprise me at all. Some years ago I brought a Chinese company's senior management to London as part of their IPO roadshow. After all the investor meetings I asked if they would like to go to see the sights - Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, Tower of London, etc? "Shopping" they replied.
Is there something especially upmarket or good value about Bicester ?
Because I've never seen any groups of Chinese spending big in the York designer outlet.
Not been there myself (we unleashed the Chinese on Oxford Street) so no idea. Distance from London presumably?
A combination of good marketing with the Chinese tour operators and a fleet of shuttle buses running a regular service to and from central London.
Well, BJO does live relatively near Sheffield, and has breathessly talked in the past about attending Corbyn's rallies - so he might be there for the B-list act.
But I'd better not say any more until another poster accuses me of being something to do with the NAZIs ....
I seemed to remember he excitedly reported he had been to see Williamson on his "democracy" tour.
Please give me some actual reasons this won’t work instead of “The EU won’t allow it and as a Remainer you are not able to propose something the EU won’t allow.”
Highly skilled people are highly mobile.
The won’t put up with Gardenwalker saying that have to live in Blaydon.
It will eventually. In some form. Within 13 years of the Canadian Conservatives being wiped out to just 2 seats there was a Canadian Conservative PM.
The party may go but the ideas and voters are still there for a resurgence after years in opposition getting your s""t together.
Except it was not the old Canadian Progressive Conservatives who returned to power but a new Canadian Conservative Party formed from the PCs and the populist Alliance .
The equivalent would be the Tories revoking Brexit, being overtaken by Farage's Brexit Party at the next election and only returning to office after merging with the latter
So what?
The Tories aren't the original Tory party either. That ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. Doesn't stop them being called Tories either.
To a large extent they are e.g. when the Peelites split off from the Tories they formed the Liberals with the Radicals and the Whigs
They all came home - the Whigs and the Peelites as Liberal Unionists, the Radicals as National Liberals.
Not true, the majority of the Whigs and Peelites certainly stayed in the Liberals, Gladstone for example was a Peelite and after joining the Liberals never returned to the Tories. The Liberals remained the Tories' main opponents until the 1920s and universal suffrage saw Labour overtake them, indeed the Liberals won a landslide in 1906 well after the Liberal Unionists were founded
You are wrong.
But there’s no point in getting into arguments with you as you can’t accept that ever.
No I am sorry but I am right on this, you made a point 'all Peelites, Whigs and Radicals returned to the Tories' which was wrong. If it was correct even a Peelite like Gladstone would have returned to the Tories which he never did.
The Liberal Unionists were formed in 1886 and Gladstone died 12 years later in 1898 still in the Liberals
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
It is early so I'll hold off on the name calling, you ******* *****.
Being in the EU or not being in the EU is a matter of treaty. You are either an EU member (Germany, France, the UK, for example) or not (Norway, Switzerland). Whatever provisions, laws, regulations, agreements are followed is irrelevant. You are either an EU member or you are not.
Much as you may whine and moan about what that ballot paper meant to you it does not alter the words actually written on it, which were to ask if you wanted to be an EU member or not.
A good clear explanation which even he might be able to understand.
And to think these are the people that started this whole thing off by moaning that they only voted for a single market and not a political union.
Legal logic is often a distortion of normal logic. If you can't define membership precisely, surely legal logic is failing.
A member pays membership fees for a service. You're hinting (apologies if I'm getting this wrong), that non EU members can avail themselves of service without being fully bound by membership rules and fees. We can 'pick and choose' too or can we?
Pick a the legal definition of leaving - which is precise - or another definition of leaving. Really, I don’t care. The legal definition of leaving is as I said, ceasing to be a signatory of the Treaties on European Union which, as it stands, will happen on 29 March. If you want to use another one as it doesn’t satisfy you, please do, but the legal one is tolerably clear and the E.U. is a wholly legal construct. Without laws it wouldn’t exist.
I use a golf club locally on a pay as you play basis. I use the facilities but am not a member as I have not signed the membership “treaty” (or contract). Nevertheless I have to abide by most (if not all) of the club rules while on the premises. There are a number of times during the week when I’m restricted from playing. I can play elsewhere, but then again I could if I were a member as well. In any event no one would realistically call me a member however much I play there. That’s the best analogy I can think of.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
re. Bicester Village - doesn't surprise me at all. Some years ago I brought a Chinese company's senior management to London as part of their IPO roadshow. After all the investor meetings I asked if they would like to go to see the sights - Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, Tower of London, etc? "Shopping" they replied.
Is there something especially upmarket or good value about Bicester ?
Because I've never seen any groups of Chinese spending big in the York designer outlet.
Not been there myself (we unleashed the Chinese on Oxford Street) so no idea. Distance from London presumably?
A combination of good marketing with the Chinese tour operators and a fleet of shuttle buses running a regular service to and from central London.
They don't even get the direct train from Marylebone?
F1: sounds like multiple car windows being smashed to try and nick F1 journalists' gear. Not great.
Barcelona have always had a huge problem with petty crime against visitors. I had a camera bag stolen from a restaurant there 15 years ago
A footpad tried to pull my wife's watch of her wrist in Barcelona while we were sat at a cafe. He was big bastard against whom I did not fancy my chances in a square go so I glassed him. The glass didn't break but it gave him pause for thought so he issued the proverbial Moor's Last Sigh and fled. Fucks given by the Spanish cops = 0.
In my case both the restaurant and the cops said their CCTV wasn’t working, and it look three hours for them to even give me a crime report for my insurance. Feckers.
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Parkinson’s law.
Actually no; the OP is right.
?
I was referring to your description about people focusing excessive time on small things they can understand rather than big things that matter. One of my trustees has always called it “parkinson’s law” but I don’t know if that’s just him or a more widespread thing
Well, BJO does live relatively near Sheffield, and has breathessly talked in the past about attending Corbyn's rallies - so he might be there for the B-list act.
But I'd better not say any more until another poster accuses me of being something to do with the NAZIs ....
Did we work out what NASDAQ or whatever it was actually stood for?
Please give me some actual reasons this won’t work instead of “The EU won’t allow it and as a Remainer you are not able to propose something the EU won’t allow.”
Highly skilled people are highly mobile.
The won’t put up with Gardenwalker saying that have to live in Blaydon.
Shit argument. I’m not suggesting that, as you probably know.
I am saying that some visas should be conditional on the employment being in the North East.
If, upon migrating to the country and taking up a job at, say, Sage - you wish to live in Blaydon, that’s your look-out.
Chris Williamson is sure making the TIGgers’ job easy for them. What impact will he have on those MPs who uneasily share a party with him and what if anything is the leadership going to do to steady the ship?
Chris Williamson is His Master's Voice.
He also looks like Voldemort.
The leadership will do nothing. Watson may do something.
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Parkinson’s law.
Actually no; the OP is right.
?
I was referring to your description about people focusing excessive time on small things they can understand rather than big things that matter. One of my trustees has always called it “parkinson’s law” but I don’t know if that’s just him or a more widespread thing
It is in Parkinson’s Law the book, as @Ishmael_Z says. The first half of Parkinson’s Law remains one of the finest books on business ever written.
I know many migrants tied to employer visas. If they want to move they must find another employer who is willing to sponsor them.
All I am suggesting is that we add a regional dimension to the granting of such visas and over-endow - to use your example - the North East.
Since you were on here a day or so ago ranting about the backwardness of Wales, I would have thought you would welcome ideas to address the problem. But I forgot you were a crank with a weird animus toward me because I have the nerve to employ a (British) nanny.
Wales is backward because it is colony. It is run for the benefit of another country, England.
You can employ as many nannies as you need (British or not). I like to think of you being pampered by your nannies.
I am pointing out that you have followed H.L. Mencken’s brilliant dictum.
For every complex human problem, there is a solution that is neat, simple and wrong.
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
Don’t ever mention Bicester Village on here. Bunch of shysters and ******
Now you’ve got us interested!
I had a restaurant there in an unpromising part of the Villlage. Built it up to be very profitable and acted as an anchor for the development. They thought it was great so triggered a minor clause in the agreement (it wasn’t “in keeping with the vision of the development” enough) to terminate the lease with no notice and minimal compensation because they wanted to relet on much more attractive terms.
Destroyed the chain (it was the flagship site) and put 70 people out of work
Thanks. They sound like absolute s**tbags.
£900k for a site with a 7 year lease where we were making EBITDA of £1.1m per year. F*****s
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
Except they would very likely not go to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan. They would likely go to larger metros like Birmingham or Manchester.
This is about giving those bigger metros a leg-up against London. Talent *creates* wealth. And the policy I’m suggesting is pretty much free (save extra admin costs) and doesn’t involve “Parliament moving to Stoke” which is often as far as people get in terms of thinking about these problems.
re. Bicester Village - doesn't surprise me at all. Some years ago I brought a Chinese company's senior management to London as part of their IPO roadshow. After all the investor meetings I asked if they would like to go to see the sights - Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, Tower of London, etc? "Shopping" they replied.
Is there something especially upmarket or good value about Bicester ?
Because I've never seen any groups of Chinese spending big in the York designer outlet.
Not been there myself (we unleashed the Chinese on Oxford Street) so no idea. Distance from London presumably?
A combination of good marketing with the Chinese tour operators and a fleet of shuttle buses running a regular service to and from central London.
They don't even get the direct train from Marylebone?
Nah, they’re for the Brits and the rest of the tourists.
Remember that the vast majority of the Chinese are on very organised tours, so they basically go where they’re told by the guides. The Bicester Village ShoppingExpress(r) coach will pick them up from their hotel in the morning and drop them (and all their bags!) back at the end of the day. https://travel.bicestervillage.com/en/guest-services/chic-travel/shop/shopping-express
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
Except they would very likely not go to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan. They would likely go to larger metros like Birmingham or Manchester.
This is about giving those bigger metros a leg-up against London. Talent *creates* wealth. And the policy I’m suggesting is pretty much free (save extra admin costs) and doesn’t involve “Parliament moving to Stoke” which is often as far as people get in terms of thinking about these problems.
Gosh, amazing.
A super shiny solution that is free, and has no downsides. It even makes money.
It regenerates parts of the UK that politicians have been trying to regenerate for decades.
I wonder why no-one ever though of it before.
Making skilled migrants into indentured serfs, who can’t move, it is so .... smart, so ... liberal, so ... Gardenwalker.
Legal logic is often a distortion of normal logic. If you can't define membership precisely, surely legal logic is failing.
A member pays membership fees for a service. You're hinting (apologies if I'm getting this wrong), that non EU members can avail themselves of service without being fully bound by membership rules and fees. We can 'pick and choose' too or can we?
Pick a the legal definition of leaving - which is precise - or another definition of leaving. Really, I don’t care. The legal definition of leaving is as I said, ceasing to be a signatory of the Treaties on European Union which, as it stands, will happen on 29 March. If you want to use another one as it doesn’t satisfy you, please do, but the legal one is tolerably clear and the E.U. is a wholly legal construct. Without laws it wouldn’t exist.
I use a golf club locally on a pay as you play basis. I use the facilities but am not a member as I have not signed the membership “treaty” (or contract). Nevertheless I have to abide by most (if not all) of the club rules while on the premises. There are a number of times during the week when I’m restricted from playing. I can play elsewhere, but then again I could if I were a member as well. In any event no one would realistically call me a member however much I play there. That’s the best analogy I can think of.
You will need to find a different analogy. The legal status of your use of that golf club is very likely to be that of a "temporary member" for the day because that means that the club will be exempt from paying VAT on your green fee. There is case law, following an unsuccessful challenge by HMRC to the ability of golf clubs to classify green fee payers in that way.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
Except they would very likely not
Gosh. amazing.
A super shiny solution that is free, and has no downsides. It even makes money.
It regenerates parts of the UK that politicians have been trying to regenerate for decades.
I wonder why no-one ever though of it before.
Making skilled migrants into indentured serfs, who can’t move, it is so .... smart, so ... liberal, so ... Gardenwalker.
I will point out again that many migrants are ALREADY here though employer-sponsored visas. I don’t believe anyone would describe them as “indentured serfs”.
You still haven’t given me an actual reason why this won’t work. Although you’ve given me plenty of personal abuse.
Legal logic is often a distortion of normal logic. If you can't define membership precisely, surely legal logic is failing.
A member pays membership fees for a service. You're hinting (apologies if I'm getting this wrong), that non EU members can avail themselves of service without being fully bound by membership rules and fees. We can 'pick and choose' too or can we?
Pick a the legal definition of leaving - which is precise - or another definition of leaving. Really, I don’t care. The legal definition of leaving is as I said, ceasing to be a signatory of the Treaties on European Union which, as it stands, will happen on 29 March. If you want to use another one as it doesn’t satisfy you, please do, but the legal one is tolerably clear and the E.U. is a wholly legal construct. Without laws it wouldn’t exist.
I use a golf club locally on a pay as you play basis. I use the facilities but am not a member as I have not signed the membership “treaty” (or contract). Nevertheless I have to abide by most (if not all) of the club rules while on the premises. There are a number of times during the week when I’m restricted from playing. I can play elsewhere, but then again I could if I were a member as well. In any event no one would realistically call me a member however much I play there. That’s the best analogy I can think of.
You will need to find a different analogy. The legal status of your use of that golf club is very likely to be that of a "temporary member" for the day because that means that the club will be exempt from paying VAT on your green fee. There is case law, following an unsuccessful challenge by HMRC to the ability of golf clubs to classify green fee payers in that way.
Forgot the first rule of the Internet - you should NEVER use analogies in certain places, such as forums. The problem is all analogies break down at a certain level of comparison (they have at least one weakness). On a forum, as here,there are always people who will advance their assertion by discrediting yours. You prove your point by analogy and instead of defending their point, they attack your analogy in the weak spot(s). There is no analogy ever made that cannot be attacked in a forum, derailed, and be made to discredit the author. It allows people to escape defending their assertions.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
Except they would very likely not go to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan. They would likely go to larger metros like Birmingham or Manchester.
This is about giving those bigger metros a leg-up against London. Talent *creates* wealth. And the policy I’m suggesting is pretty much free (save extra admin costs) and doesn’t involve “Parliament moving to Stoke” which is often as far as people get in terms of thinking about these problems.
So how do you give the likes of Doncaster, Nuneaton and Wigan a leg-up against the bigger metros which you want to give a leg-up against London ?
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
Except they would very likely not go to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan. They would likely go to larger metros like Birmingham or Manchester.
This is about giving those bigger metros a leg-up against London. Talent *creates* wealth. And the policy I’m suggesting is pretty much free (save extra admin costs) and doesn’t involve “Parliament moving to Stoke” which is often as far as people get in terms of thinking about these problems.
So how do you give the likes of Doncaster, Nuneaton and Wigan a leg-up against the bigger metros which you want to give a leg-up against London ?
Don’t know. That’s looks to be quite challenging, and what I’m suggesting on migration is not really intended to help them.
If I’m honest their best bet is to serve as commuter towns for Sheffield, Birmingham and Manchester respectively. However, they need those cities to live up to their role as job creators, or there won’t be enough jobs to commute *to*.
I will point out again that many migrants are ALREADY here though employer-sponsored visas. I don’t believe anyone would describe them as “indentured serfs”.
You still haven’t given me an actual reason why this won’t work. Although you’ve given me plenty of personal abuse.
Readers will make up their own minds.
I know that because I have hired (in my research team) many highly skilled people through employer-sponsored visas over the tears.
If the employee is good (and all mine are superb), they can easily move to a new employer if they are not happy.
There are plenty of people who want to hire them. They are highly mobile. They don’t have to put up with Gardenwalker and his illiberal residency restrictions.
I can’t make it any clearer why your idea won't work.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
Except they would very likely not go to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan. They would likely go to larger metros like Birmingham or Manchester.
This is about giving those bigger metros a leg-up against London. Talent *creates* wealth. And the policy I’m suggesting is pretty much free (save extra admin costs) and doesn’t involve “Parliament moving to Stoke” which is often as far as people get in terms of thinking about these problems.
Gosh, amazing.
A super shiny solution that is free, and has no downsides. It even makes money.
It regenerates parts of the UK that politicians have been trying to regenerate for decades.
I wonder why no-one ever though of it before.
Making skilled migrants into indentured serfs, who can’t move, it is so .... smart, so ... liberal, so ... Gardenwalker.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
It is legal in many countries. I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
So your idea is that we announce that the IT whizz-kids of the world can come to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan (places with cheap housing costs and good communications) and we'll get mini Silicon valleys along the motorways ?
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
Except they would very likely not go to Doncaster, Nuneaton or Wigan. They would likely go to larger metros like Birmingham or Manchester.
This is about giving those bigger metros a leg-up against London. Talent *creates* wealth. And the policy I’m suggesting is pretty much free (save extra admin costs) and doesn’t involve “Parliament moving to Stoke” which is often as far as people get in terms of thinking about these problems.
Gosh, amazing.
A super shiny solution that is free, and has no downsides. It even makes money.
It regenerates parts of the UK that politicians have been trying to regenerate for decades.
I wonder why no-one ever though of it before.
Making skilled migrants into indentured serfs, who can’t move, it is so .... smart, so ... liberal, so ... Gardenwalker.
I will point out again that many migrants are ALREADY here though employer-sponsored visas. I don’t believe anyone would describe them as “indentured serfs”.
You still haven’t given me an actual reason why this won’t work. Although you’ve given me plenty of personal abuse.
Readers will make up their own minds.
I know that because I have hired (in my research team) many highly skilled people through employer-sponsored visas over the tears.
If the employee is good (and all mine are superb), they can easily move to a new employer if they are not happy.
There are plenty of people who want to hire them. They are highly mobile. They don’t have to put up with Gardenwalker and his illiberal residency restrictions.
I can’t make it any clearer why your idea won't work.
You will know them that visas are only provided assuming a job pays over a certain threshold, and that there is a government mandated cap on such visas, ie they are “scarce”.
I am not making any residency restrictions. That is a figment of your imagination. I am suggesting that certain regions be over-indowed when it comes to visa applications.
In the case of your long suffering employees, they would be free to move to another employer, but the system would nudge them toward opportunities outside London because there would be relatively more visas available there.
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
It is early so I'll hold off on the name calling, you ******* *****.
Being in the EU or not being in the EU is a matter of treaty. You are either an EU member (Germany, France, the UK, for example) or not (Norway, Switzerland). Whatever provisions, laws, regulations, agreements are followed is irrelevant. You are either an EU member or you are not.
Much as you may whine and moan about what that ballot paper meant to you it does not alter the words actually written on it, which were to ask if you wanted to be an EU member or not.
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
It is early so I'll hold off on the name calling, you ******* *****.
Being in the EU or not being in the EU is a matter of treaty. You are either an EU member (Germany, France, the UK, for example) or not (Norway, Switzerland). Whatever provisions, laws, regulations, agreements are followed is irrelevant. You are either an EU member or you are not.
Much as you may whine and moan about what that ballot paper meant to you it does not alter the words actually written on it, which were to ask if you wanted to be an EU member or not.
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Parkinson’s law.
Actually no; the OP is right.
?
I was referring to your description about people focusing excessive time on small things they can understand rather than big things that matter. One of my trustees has always called it “parkinson’s law” but I don’t know if that’s just him or a more widespread thing
As someone else says, it may be later in the book. I always understood PL to be "work expands...", which doesn't fit this particular bill.
Can I start by thanking all the respondents to my questions, some deliberately provocative. It's much clearer now. I used to answer questions on scientific matters from members of the public, and the first thing I learned is to answer the question they ask, not the one you think they should be asking.
Elsewhere, I learned to treat lawyers questions and answers with caution. they are often advocates, and they seek not so much to clarify as to promote, but generally the members of this website are reasonably reliable.
My conclusion (with my bias). The UK voted narrowly to Leave but what sort of Leave? Not the legal definition.
But the EU was being disingenuous when it asked "What do you want?" It meant "What is the bare minimum we can get away with offering commensurate with keeping the four freedoms intact?"
That question surely should have been asked only of the Leave voters alone despite Remain voters queueing up to give their views on what Leave actually means?
Had we asked the for single market membership, the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals, freedom to set out our own immigration needs, and no more payments to the EU, they would have called us totally unreasonable.
Reasonable negotiators would have exchanged red lines and begun discussion on them. There's no earthly reason why new trade relationships could not have been discussed in parallel. What red lines becomes the crucial issue for both sets of negotiators.
But this was politics from the off, with its heady mix of proving points and narrow party advantage. Mr's May, or whoever was chosen to lead for the UK, should never have been a Remainer, for the reason I've mentioned above. On the EU side, they would always choose someone with instructions to be negative and to slow things. They were well aware of the UK Parliament's reluctance to leave and it would be moronic of them not to play on it.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the EU will play hardball. Their aim is to teach us a lesson and discourage others from leaving without harming themselves too much. Although we started with one foot shot off, we do have some advantages. We still retain some goodwill (not in France, though) and from my meagre knowledge of the EU systems I suspect a fudgey sort of compromise will eventually arrive.
Comments
First, you need a functioning company in the North East with the right profile to apply for the visa.
Ultimately, Gardenwalker’s idea won’t work (even if it is legal & you can find such a company) because highly skilled migrants are by definition highly desirable, and so when Gardenwalker plonks them down in Easington or Sunderland, they can easily move.
They can easily find a company in London that will support their visa application, or freelance.
Skilled people aren’t chess pieces, so they can’t easily be hemmed in.
And in any case, who is policing all this? It is difficult enough to police the immigration and asylum system we already have without Gardenwalker making it way more complicated.
It seems detrimental to me placing restrictions on skilled immigrants who are doing skilled work.
Now if you had stopped the medical work and become a barman that would be different.
"I suggest you go ask those non-EU countries that are in it."
So does FOM apply to them too? If not, it won't apply to us either?
Legally speaking being in the E.U. means being a signatory to the Treaties starting with Rome and culminating in Lisbon. Once we cease to be such we are no longer in the E.U. If you wish to take a non legalistic definition be my guest. Everyone else is.
I don’t know if it would be here, but if it is not we should change the law.
You are missing the point I think of the original post which is about improving the lot of provincial cities. Yes immigrants go to where the jobs are, but they also create jobs. Toronto’s start up scene is booming because they are attracting the right migrants. Imagine if that was Cardiff or Liverpool.
Freedom of movement, and all that.
I am just sorry to see you fall from your EU perch.
It's less than 5:1 - I know standards of numeracy are generally low among journalists (and politicians) but that's really poor.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to ask around other countries which have lots of immigration, and see the pros and cons of each system to come up with a solution.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1100686451514183680?s=21
It is an obvious idea. It has occurred to many.
And there are obvious reasons (after a moment or twos thought) why it won’t work, at least in the UK.
Canada may be different because the provinces have more control over their own immigration. A Canadian province has more freedom in this regard than a European Union country.
Being in the EU or not being in the EU is a matter of treaty. You are either an EU member (Germany, France, the UK, for example) or not (Norway, Switzerland). Whatever provisions, laws, regulations, agreements are followed is irrelevant. You are either an EU member or you are not.
Much as you may whine and moan about what that ballot paper meant to you it does not alter the words actually written on it, which were to ask if you wanted to be an EU member or not.
All I am suggesting is that we add a regional dimension to the granting of such visas and over-endow - to use your example - the North East.
Since you were on here a day or so ago ranting about the backwardness of Wales, I would have thought you would welcome ideas to address the problem. But I forgot you were a crank with a weird animus toward me because I have the nerve to employ a (British) nanny.
Legal logic is often a distortion of normal logic. If you can't define membership precisely, surely legal logic is failing.
A member pays membership fees for a service. You're hinting (apologies if I'm getting this wrong), that non EU members can avail themselves of service without being fully bound by membership rules and fees. We can 'pick and choose' too or can we?
Because I've never seen any groups of Chinese spending big in the York designer outlet.
Its so much more enjoyable to have a good tantrum.
But I'd better not say any more until another poster accuses me of being something to do with the NAZIs ....
The won’t put up with Gardenwalker saying that have to live in Blaydon.
Gladstone’s views evolved over time
And to think these are the people that started this whole thing off by moaning that they only voted for a single market and not a political union.
I use a golf club locally on a pay as you play basis. I use the facilities but am not a member as I have not signed the membership “treaty” (or contract). Nevertheless I have to abide by most (if not all) of the club rules while on the premises. There are a number of times during the week when I’m restricted from playing. I can play elsewhere, but then again I could if I were a member as well. In any event no one would realistically call me a member however much I play there. That’s the best analogy I can think of.
Its a nice idea but I'm a bit doubtful.
What is really troubling is that democratic discourse is dissolving into partisan whataboutery in what is almost exclusively a culture war.
Everyone is spending so much time speech-policing that no time is spent on actual issues that affect people’s lives.
I am not making an original point, but we need to find another paradigm.
I was referring to your description about people focusing excessive time on small things they can understand rather than big things that matter. One of my trustees has always called it “parkinson’s law” but I don’t know if that’s just him or a more widespread thing
I’m not suggesting that, as you probably know.
I am saying that some visas should be conditional on the employment being in the North East.
If, upon migrating to the country and taking up a job at, say, Sage - you wish to live in Blaydon, that’s your look-out.
He also looks like Voldemort.
The leadership will do nothing. Watson may do something.
https://twitter.com/skwawkbox/status/1100387532339073024
You can employ as many nannies as you need (British or not). I like to think of you being pampered by your nannies.
I am pointing out that you have followed H.L. Mencken’s brilliant dictum.
For every complex human problem, there is a solution that is neat, simple and wrong.
This is about giving those bigger metros a leg-up against London. Talent *creates* wealth. And the policy I’m suggesting is pretty much free (save extra admin costs) and doesn’t involve “Parliament moving to Stoke” which is often as far as people get in terms of thinking about these problems.
Remember that the vast majority of the Chinese are on very organised tours, so they basically go where they’re told by the guides. The Bicester Village ShoppingExpress(r) coach will pick them up from their hotel in the morning and drop them (and all their bags!) back at the end of the day.
https://travel.bicestervillage.com/en/guest-services/chic-travel/shop/shopping-express
A super shiny solution that is free, and has no downsides. It even makes money.
It regenerates parts of the UK that politicians have been trying to regenerate for decades.
I wonder why no-one ever though of it before.
Making skilled migrants into indentured serfs, who can’t move, it is so .... smart, so ... liberal, so ... Gardenwalker.
You still haven’t given me an actual reason why this won’t work. Although you’ve given me plenty of personal abuse.
Readers will make up their own minds.
If I’m honest their best bet is to serve as commuter towns for Sheffield, Birmingham and Manchester respectively. However, they need those cities to live up to their role as job creators, or there won’t be enough jobs to commute *to*.
If the employee is good (and all mine are superb), they can easily move to a new employer if they are not happy.
There are plenty of people who want to hire them. They are highly mobile. They don’t have to put up with Gardenwalker and his illiberal residency restrictions.
I can’t make it any clearer why your idea won't work.
I am not making any residency restrictions. That is a figment of your imagination.
I am suggesting that certain regions be over-indowed when it comes to visa applications.
In the case of your long suffering employees, they would be free to move to another employer, but the system would nudge them toward opportunities outside London because there would be relatively more visas available there.
https://twitter.com/David__Osland/status/1100696769275617283
Elsewhere, I learned to treat lawyers questions and answers with caution. they are often advocates, and they seek not so much to clarify as to promote, but generally the members of this website are reasonably reliable.
My conclusion (with my bias). The UK voted narrowly to Leave but what sort of Leave? Not the legal definition.
But the EU was being disingenuous when it asked "What do you want?" It meant "What is the bare minimum we can get away with offering commensurate with keeping the four freedoms intact?"
That question surely should have been asked only of the Leave voters alone despite Remain voters queueing up to give their views on what Leave actually means?
Had we asked the for single market membership, the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals, freedom to set out our own immigration needs, and no more payments to the EU, they would have called us totally unreasonable.
Reasonable negotiators would have exchanged red lines and begun discussion on them. There's no earthly reason why new trade relationships could not have been discussed in parallel. What red lines becomes the crucial issue for both sets of negotiators.
But this was politics from the off, with its heady mix of proving points and narrow party advantage. Mr's May, or whoever was chosen to lead for the UK, should never have been a Remainer, for the reason I've mentioned above. On the EU side, they would always choose someone with instructions to be negative and to slow things. They were well aware of the UK Parliament's reluctance to leave and it would be moronic of them not to play on it.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the EU will play hardball. Their aim is to teach us a lesson and discourage others from leaving without harming themselves too much. Although we started with one foot shot off, we do have some advantages. We still retain some goodwill (not in France, though) and from my meagre knowledge of the EU systems I suspect a fudgey sort of compromise will eventually arrive.
But I might be totally wrong.
Tories just don’t have the footsoldiers. I think that will sway more votes where it matters than expensive facebook ads and leaflets.