If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
Pretty much every FTA contains provisions about not using product standards as a barrier to trade, so we're going to be pretty constrained in that area.
And what was the rate of technological innovation between 1250 and 1750?
I think if you had taken an individual from 1250 and put them in 1750 they would have been mesmerised by the progress made. We look from 2020 and don't think it's so much but it was at the time and life expectancy and life quality for most was immeasurably better in 1750 than it had been 500 years earlier.
The printing press alone was a pretty seismic technological innovation. At least comparable to the creation of the personal computer.
Firearms made quite a difference to warfare as well.
Genuinely fascinating to compare rates of fire and damage resulting from fully trained longbow men cf soldiers with muskets. Muskets arguably less accurate, slower (2 to 3 shots a minute vs 10+), but men can be trained in an afternoon. Dimly recall wellington (?) wanting a company of longbow men, but could be making that up...
I think you'll find in Civ6 that musketmen rank more highly than longbow men.
On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.
This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.
You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.
If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.
If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.
Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.
It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.
As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.
Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
I think my point must have been lost in translation.
If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.
For what reason?
So we can have standards that suit us not them.
We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.
Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.
Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?
Is it all really worth it?
Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
The EU and the UK are best apart.
The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.
And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.
General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
Can't put it better than that.
Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
I must have imagined this, I guess:
Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.
Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
Exactly what I said.
My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.
I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.
London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.
Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
In many areas yes but not in all was the point I was making. I certainly voted leave and one of the reasons was immigration however my concerns over immigration were to do with quality more than quantity
What are your problems with the "quality" of immigration?
People would rather have doctors and nurses in their area than big issue sellers. It's not really controversial.
Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".
And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?
Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.
What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.
The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home.
It's not that clear cut, immigration has led to a large fall in the GDP per capita growth rate. It is part of the productivity problem the UK has had for better part of 15 years.
Productivity issues could largely be resolved by a Government that invests in the economy as opposed to cutting everything.
Our productivity has stagnated since 2010 not because of immigration but because of austerity.
Productivity has been stagnating at the bottom of the economy for much longer than that, the financial crisis just brought it to light.
Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. The government has opened up an unlimited cheap labour pool subsided by tax credits and housing benefits, businesses will always choose the path of lowest resistance which for 20 years or so has been to throw cheap labour at the problem, not investing in technology.
Have we really not invested in technology?
Gross Fixed Capital Formation (i.e. investment) has trundled around in the 16-18% of GDP range for a quarter century, but that's a consequence of our consumption heavy economy, not immigration.
Now, we haven't invested in manufacturing much in the UK, compared to our neighbours in the EU, but it's hard to conclude that that has been an unmitigated success for them.
It's more that building sites would rather hire 5 Romanian labourers than a digger and qualified digger operator because the latter is more expensive. Car washes are the other classic example where one machine has been replaced by 5 (usually illegal) labourers.
Interestingly, the makers of automatic car washing equipment have all had a terrible time in the last decade - so I don't think the trend of getting people to wash your car (instead of a machine) is one that is particularly linked to immigration.
"Do you know the NHS would have collapsed without immigration, especially EU immigration which has now fled the country, leading to a shortage."
The majority of NHS staff in England are British – EU countries contribute 5.5% Of every 1000 NHS staff working in England: 862 are British 55 are from the EU 52 are Asian 22 are African 9 are from somewhere else Source House of Commons Library - dated June 2020
This doesn't disprove what I said.
Actually it does. Not least because the % of EU citizens in the NHS has gone up since 2016 from 4.6% to 5.5%.
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
I'm not sure this works, Charles. All it does is create a non-tariff barrier for UK consumers leaving people with less choice. Major companies from overseas will love it because it will be a layer of red tape smaller companies that excludes them from the UK market which drives up prices for UK consumers without the government even taking a share via tariffs.
Tbh, I see this just becoming a rubber stamp as it will be a direct copy of CE. Nothing else makes sense.
"Do you know the NHS would have collapsed without immigration, especially EU immigration which has now fled the country, leading to a shortage."
The majority of NHS staff in England are British – EU countries contribute 5.5% Of every 1000 NHS staff working in England: 862 are British 55 are from the EU 52 are Asian 22 are African 9 are from somewhere else Source House of Commons Library - dated June 2020
This doesn't disprove what I said.
Actually it does. Not least because the % of EU citizens in the NHS has gone up since 2016 from 4.6% to 5.5%.
In the year to September 2017 the number of nurses from the EU leaving the NHS in England outweighed those joining it for the first time in at least five years. We don’t know if they left the UK or what jobs they went on to do.
It is true that nursing and midwifery numbers have dropped by around 5,000 since the referendum, and Brexit is a likely factor driving at least some of this fall.
That is correct. The number of reported other EU nationals working for the NHS in March 2019 was 65,000, of whom around 31,000 were doctors and nurses.
And what was the rate of technological innovation between 1250 and 1750?
I think if you had taken an individual from 1250 and put them in 1750 they would have been mesmerised by the progress made. We look from 2020 and don't think it's so much but it was at the time and life expectancy and life quality for most was immeasurably better in 1750 than it had been 500 years earlier.
The printing press alone was a pretty seismic technological innovation. At least comparable to the creation of the personal computer.
Firearms made quite a difference to warfare as well.
Genuinely fascinating to compare rates of fire and damage resulting from fully trained longbow men cf soldiers with muskets. Muskets arguably less accurate, slower (2 to 3 shots a minute vs 10+), but men can be trained in an afternoon. Dimly recall wellington (?) wanting a company of longbow men, but could be making that up...
I think you'll find in Civ6 that musketmen rank more highly than longbow men.
Because data coverage of NHS nationality data has improved over time, comparisons of the number of EU staff in the NHS over time should be made only with caution. In June 2016 there were 89,546 staff with unknown nationality. That has now decreased to 47,671 (a fall of almost half) while the total number of staff employed by the NHS has increased. This means that some apparent increases in staff numbers for nationalities and nationality groups are likely to be due to improved data coverage rather than genuine increases. In other words: because a greater proportion of NHS staff now have a nationality recorded, we would expect to see increases in the recorded number of staff with a given nationality, even if there were no genuine changes in the actual number of staff with that nationality.
In June 2016 there were 58,698 staff with recorded EU nationality, and in January there were over 67.000. But to present this as the full story would be misleading, because we know that there are nearly 42,000 more staff for whom nationality is known now than in 2016. It is very likely that there has been an overall increase in the number of NHS staff with EU nationality since 2016, but we can’t be sure about the scale of the change, and it would be misleading to calculate a percentage increase based on the two numbers.
Nurses and health visitors are the only staff group to record a fall in the number of recorded EU nationals since the EU referendum. EU nurses as a percentage of those with a known nationality have fallen from 7.4% of the total to 6.9%. The percentage of EU doctors has fallen to 9.1%, having risen as high as 9.9% in March 2017. In other staff groups, the percentage of EU staff has increased.
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
I'm not sure this works, Charles. All it does is create a non-tariff barrier for UK consumers leaving people with less choice. Major companies from overseas will love it because it will be a layer of red tape smaller companies that excludes them from the UK market which drives up prices for UK consumers without the government even taking a share via tariffs.
Tbh, I see this just becoming a rubber stamp as it will be a direct copy of CE. Nothing else makes sense.
On your final point I agree, it will be a complete copy of CE and it will mean we still follow the rules the EU sets but with no say over them at all. Take back control indeed
On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.
This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.
You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.
If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.
If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.
Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.
It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.
As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.
Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
I think my point must have been lost in translation.
If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.
For what reason?
So we can have standards that suit us not them.
We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.
Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.
Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?
Is it all really worth it?
Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
The EU and the UK are best apart.
The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.
And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.
General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
Can't put it better than that.
Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
I must have imagined this, I guess:
Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.
Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
Exactly what I said.
My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.
I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.
London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.
Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
In many areas yes but not in all was the point I was making. I certainly voted leave and one of the reasons was immigration however my concerns over immigration were to do with quality more than quantity
What are your problems with the "quality" of immigration?
People would rather have doctors and nurses in their area than big issue sellers. It's not really controversial.
Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".
And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?
Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.
What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.
The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home.
No you little cumstained oik, some immigrants make a positive contribution to society and our economy some dont. The fact that on the average immigrants make a slightly positive contribution is neither here or there. If we only took 300k quality immigrants it would be much better than taking 300k of which 150k are hugely positive and 150k are net takers.
Which is my whole point about quality of immigration not quantity being the issue . I don't care what race, gender or creed anyone is I just don't see why we benefit from net takers from society you dipshit and yet you consider that racist just marks you out as the fuckwit you are. Now in your words fuck off you prick
If this poster repeats this sort of behaviour, a ban is a good idea. CorrectHorseBattery is usually civil, whereas Mr Pagan also decided to garland me with the accolade of 'arse' or something similar last week in one of his unprovoked rants, which I didn't particularly think worth responding to.
Ah I see two posts in a whole week when mr Battery has been sweary on this thread all day and my first post you complain about was using the word arse? It couldn't be Mr battery is on the same side of the political spectrum as you could it? Oh why yes it is. Lets not take into account Mr battery called me a racist to provoke that response
I don't care what side of the political divide you're on, last week your response to my civil post was a mouthful of abuse. Shape up or ship out.
Yet you havent called out any of mr Battery's posts today responding to perfectly civil response. Curious
I haven't seen the whole of your discussion together, but I have seen acting you similarly when not provoked ; so you can't be described if I put the two together. If you don't attack other posters unprompted, your position won't be called into question.
Then you missed the fact that several people have been sworn at today by Mr Battery and the fact that even in my post I quoted his own words back at him. In around 800 odd posts I have been rude twice. Mr battery has done 5 or 6 times that today and with words worse than arse. Yet its me you call out. Nods
That doesn't address my point ; you swore at me last week for no reason, so if I see you swearing I'm likely to draw a similar connection. If you don't want to be condemned, don't be abusive.
"Do you know the NHS would have collapsed without immigration, especially EU immigration which has now fled the country, leading to a shortage."
The majority of NHS staff in England are British – EU countries contribute 5.5% Of every 1000 NHS staff working in England: 862 are British 55 are from the EU 52 are Asian 22 are African 9 are from somewhere else Source House of Commons Library - dated June 2020
This doesn't disprove what I said.
Actually it does. Not least because the % of EU citizens in the NHS has gone up since 2016 from 4.6% to 5.5%.
In the year to September 2017 the number of nurses from the EU leaving the NHS in England outweighed those joining it for the first time in at least five years. We don’t know if they left the UK or what jobs they went on to do.
In 2016 there were 55,000 EU citizens working in the NHS out of 1.2million. The actual numbers were 4.58% of the total staff.
Now there are 5.5% according to the NHS own numbers.
To quote numbers from 3 years ago - of just one part of the NHS - to defend your claim of a drop when the numbers have gone up substantially since then is dishonest.
On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.
This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.
You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.
If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.
If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.
Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.
It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.
As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.
Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
I think my point must have been lost in translation.
If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.
For what reason?
So we can have standards that suit us not them.
We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.
Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.
Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?
Is it all really worth it?
Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
The EU and the UK are best apart.
The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.
And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.
General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
Can't put it better than that.
Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
I must have imagined this, I guess:
Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.
Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
Exactly what I said.
My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.
I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.
London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.
Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
In many areas yes but not in all was the point I was making. I certainly voted leave and one of the reasons was immigration however my concerns over immigration were to do with quality more than quantity
What are your problems with the "quality" of immigration?
People would rather have doctors and nurses in their area than big issue sellers. It's not really controversial.
Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".
And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?
Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.
What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.
The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home.
No you little cumstained oik, some immigrants make a positive contribution to society and our economy some dont. The fact that on the average immigrants make a slightly positive contribution is neither here or there. If we only took 300k quality immigrants it would be much better than taking 300k of which 150k are hugely positive and 150k are net takers.
Which is my whole point about quality of immigration not quantity being the issue . I don't care what race, gender or creed anyone is I just don't see why we benefit from net takers from society you dipshit and yet you consider that racist just marks you out as the fuckwit you are. Now in your words fuck off you prick
If this poster repeats this sort of behaviour, a ban is a good idea. CorrectHorseBattery is usually civil, whereas Mr Pagan also decided to garland me with the accolade of 'arse' or something similar last week in one of his unprovoked rants, which I didn't particularly think worth responding to.
Ah I see two posts in a whole week when mr Battery has been sweary on this thread all day and my first post you complain about was using the word arse? It couldn't be Mr battery is on the same side of the political spectrum as you could it? Oh why yes it is. Lets not take into account Mr battery called me a racist to provoke that response
I don't care what side of the political divide you're on, last week your response to my civil post was a mouthful of abuse. Shape up or ship out.
Yet you havent called out any of mr Battery's posts today responding to perfectly civil response. Curious
I haven't seen the whole of your discussion together, but I have seen acting you similarly when not provoked ; so you can't be described if I put the two together. If you don't attack other posters unprompted, your position won't be called into question.
Then you missed the fact that several people have been sworn at today by Mr Battery and the fact that even in my post I quoted his own words back at him. In around 800 odd posts I have been rude twice. Mr battery has done 5 or 6 times that today and with words worse than arse. Yet its me you call out. Nods
I usually enjoy the political debate in this group. It’s usually far better than your average Facebook group. Sadly today has not been a vintage one, more a table wine, with one character at the centre of it all. It’s a pity. Hopeful tomorrow will be better.
First. And the question that OGH poses is central to the whole question:
"..... the efforts that Johnson made to try to impede the publication of the document highlights even more its importance. If there was nothing to hide why did he go to such lengths to defer publication?"
I don't think that question is central. It would be tempting to assume that the efforts to defer itself point to guilt, but it also might just point to the general mode of operation of the government even when it is not necessary, and therefore the squibedness of the report has to stand on its own merits, or not, not on whether the government tried to so hard to hold it back. That's crappy, but proof is proof, and crappy behaviour on publication would be a very minor part of proving anything.
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
I'm not sure this works, Charles. All it does is create a non-tariff barrier for UK consumers leaving people with less choice. Major companies from overseas will love it because it will be a layer of red tape smaller companies that excludes them from the UK market which drives up prices for UK consumers without the government even taking a share via tariffs.
Tbh, I see this just becoming a rubber stamp as it will be a direct copy of CE. Nothing else makes sense.
On your final point I agree, it will be a complete copy of CE and it will mean we still follow the rules the EU sets but with no say over them at all. Take back control indeed
Most of these standards are set outside of the EU, usually it's just an EU directive that covers the regulation.
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
I'm not sure this works, Charles. All it does is create a non-tariff barrier for UK consumers leaving people with less choice. Major companies from overseas will love it because it will be a layer of red tape smaller companies that excludes them from the UK market which drives up prices for UK consumers without the government even taking a share via tariffs.
Tbh, I see this just becoming a rubber stamp as it will be a direct copy of CE. Nothing else makes sense.
Agreed.
People are wrong to fixate on product standards, when they should be fixating on labour, environmental and agricultural standards.
Because data coverage of NHS nationality data has improved over time, comparisons of the number of EU staff in the NHS over time should be made only with caution. In June 2016 there were 89,546 staff with unknown nationality. That has now decreased to 47,671 (a fall of almost half) while the total number of staff employed by the NHS has increased. This means that some apparent increases in staff numbers for nationalities and nationality groups are likely to be due to improved data coverage rather than genuine increases. In other words: because a greater proportion of NHS staff now have a nationality recorded, we would expect to see increases in the recorded number of staff with a given nationality, even if there were no genuine changes in the actual number of staff with that nationality.
In June 2016 there were 58,698 staff with recorded EU nationality, and in January there were over 67.000. But to present this as the full story would be misleading, because we know that there are nearly 42,000 more staff for whom nationality is known now than in 2016. It is very likely that there has been an overall increase in the number of NHS staff with EU nationality since 2016, but we can’t be sure about the scale of the change, and it would be misleading to calculate a percentage increase based on the two numbers.
So actually your claim just now that EU NHS staff have 'fled the country' and this is leading to a shortage is wrong and you are now accepting that there has been an increase?
Edit: By the way as this seems to get forgotten it is worth repeating that I am one of those in favour of free movement and am happy to have lots of EU and Non EU immigrants here. I am just arguing about your perception of the impact of Brexit, not the merits of migration which for me are unassailable.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Can any of the hardcore remainers clinging onto this rather red straw explain just how Russia were meant to have interfered in our election. As the report notes our pencil and paper voting method is particularly difficult to 'hack'. If it's an allegation of lies and disinformation, well there are plenty here to do that job - otherwise known as electioneering and politics.
Probably laundered funding to some fringe campaign groups, and mass-bots on social media. But this is really playing at the edges.
The far more concerning thing is the big donations to the Conservative Party, and indirect links through the UK-based oligarchs that make them. Not that this meaningfully affects policy, of course.
+1
(assuming elegant touch of sarcasm in last sentence)
I wasn't actually. Outside wealth taxes (and there's meaningful movement on Conservative policy on this too) I can't see what pro-Russian policy that money has bought.
You could shout "Brexit!" of course, but that's a bit of a cop out.
What money? This is small change for Russia: less than a Chelski midfielder, let alone a nuclear missile. Benefits for Russia include a disunited and distracted Europe, less likely to object to Russian behaviour and less able to react against it. Britain is certainly weaker, not just because of Brexit and continued ructions over Scotland but also through wave after wave of defence cuts.
Now, you may say the Conservatives would have done these things anyway and were certainly not bribed, and you'd be right, so think of it as a little extra insurance to help the right side win.
Because data coverage of NHS nationality data has improved over time, comparisons of the number of EU staff in the NHS over time should be made only with caution. In June 2016 there were 89,546 staff with unknown nationality. That has now decreased to 47,671 (a fall of almost half) while the total number of staff employed by the NHS has increased. This means that some apparent increases in staff numbers for nationalities and nationality groups are likely to be due to improved data coverage rather than genuine increases. In other words: because a greater proportion of NHS staff now have a nationality recorded, we would expect to see increases in the recorded number of staff with a given nationality, even if there were no genuine changes in the actual number of staff with that nationality.
In June 2016 there were 58,698 staff with recorded EU nationality, and in January there were over 67.000. But to present this as the full story would be misleading, because we know that there are nearly 42,000 more staff for whom nationality is known now than in 2016. It is very likely that there has been an overall increase in the number of NHS staff with EU nationality since 2016, but we can’t be sure about the scale of the change, and it would be misleading to calculate a percentage increase based on the two numbers.
So actually your claim just now that EU NHS staff have 'fled the country' and this is leading to a shortage is wrong and you are now accepting that there has been an increase?
No, NHS staff have fled the country. That is exactly what the info I provided in several posts shows.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
Because data coverage of NHS nationality data has improved over time, comparisons of the number of EU staff in the NHS over time should be made only with caution. In June 2016 there were 89,546 staff with unknown nationality. That has now decreased to 47,671 (a fall of almost half) while the total number of staff employed by the NHS has increased. This means that some apparent increases in staff numbers for nationalities and nationality groups are likely to be due to improved data coverage rather than genuine increases. In other words: because a greater proportion of NHS staff now have a nationality recorded, we would expect to see increases in the recorded number of staff with a given nationality, even if there were no genuine changes in the actual number of staff with that nationality.
In June 2016 there were 58,698 staff with recorded EU nationality, and in January there were over 67.000. But to present this as the full story would be misleading, because we know that there are nearly 42,000 more staff for whom nationality is known now than in 2016. It is very likely that there has been an overall increase in the number of NHS staff with EU nationality since 2016, but we can’t be sure about the scale of the change, and it would be misleading to calculate a percentage increase based on the two numbers.
So actually your claim just now that EU NHS staff have 'fled the country' and this is leading to a shortage is wrong and you are now accepting that there has been an increase?
No, NHS staff have fled the country. That is exactly what the info I provided in several posts shows.
That was only half your claim. The other half was that this was leading to a shortage. Which is clearly untrue because for everyone that has left, apparently more than 1 has arrived to work in the NHS.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
I'm not sure this works, Charles. All it does is create a non-tariff barrier for UK consumers leaving people with less choice. Major companies from overseas will love it because it will be a layer of red tape smaller companies that excludes them from the UK market which drives up prices for UK consumers without the government even taking a share via tariffs.
Tbh, I see this just becoming a rubber stamp as it will be a direct copy of CE. Nothing else makes sense.
Agreed.
People are wrong to fixate on product standards, when they should be fixating on labour, environmental and agricultural standards.
Yes, there is a lot we could do better on a lot of those areas without the compromise of having 28 agendas and 28 different landscapes and cultures.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.
This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.
You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.
If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.
If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.
Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.
It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.
As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.
Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
I think my point must have been lost in translation.
If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.
For what reason?
So we can have standards that suit us not them.
We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.
Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.
Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?
Is it all really worth it?
Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
The EU and the UK are best apart.
The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.
And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.
General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
Can't put it better than that.
Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
I must have imagined this, I guess:
Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.
Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
Exactly what I said.
My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.
I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.
London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.
Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
In many areas yes but not in all was the point I was making. I certainly voted leave and one of the reasons was immigration however my concerns over immigration were to do with quality more than quantity
What are your problems with the "quality" of immigration?
People would rather have doctors and nurses in their area than big issue sellers. It's not really controversial.
Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".
And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?
Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.
What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.
The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home.
No you little cumstained oik, some immigrants make a positive contribution to society and our economy some dont. The fact that on the average immigrants make a slightly positive contribution is neither here or there. If we only took 300k quality immigrants it would be much better than taking 300k of which 150k are hugely positive and 150k are net takers.
Which is my whole point about quality of immigration not quantity being the issue . I don't care what race, gender or creed anyone is I just don't see why we benefit from net takers from society you dipshit and yet you consider that racist just marks you out as the fuckwit you are. Now in your words fuck off you prick
If this poster repeats this sort of behaviour, a ban is a good idea. CorrectHorseBattery is usually civil, whereas Mr Pagan also decided to garland me with the accolade of 'arse' or something similar last week in one of his unprovoked rants, which I didn't particularly think worth responding to.
Ah I see two posts in a whole week when mr Battery has been sweary on this thread all day and my first post you complain about was using the word arse? It couldn't be Mr battery is on the same side of the political spectrum as you could it? Oh why yes it is. Lets not take into account Mr battery called me a racist to provoke that response
I don't care what side of the political divide you're on, last week your response to my civil post was a mouthful of abuse. Shape up or ship out.
Yet you havent called out any of mr Battery's posts today responding to perfectly civil response. Curious
I haven't seen the whole of your discussion together, but I have seen acting you similarly when not provoked ; so you can't be described if I put the two together. If you don't attack other posters unprompted, your position won't be called into question.
Then you missed the fact that several people have been sworn at today by Mr Battery and the fact that even in my post I quoted his own words back at him. In around 800 odd posts I have been rude twice. Mr battery has done 5 or 6 times that today and with words worse than arse. Yet its me you call out. Nods
I usually enjoy the political debate in this group. It’s usually far better than your average Facebook group. Sadly today has not been a vintage one, more a table wine, with one character at the centre of it all. It’s a pity. Hopeful tomorrow will be better.
shrugs I at least apologised for my outburst to everyone else
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
I've never considered visiting one, partly because I don't care too much about a muddy car, but mainly because something smells very bad about the whole concept. They can't be paying the minimum wage given the price they charge. Why did we go to all the trouble of inventing mechanical car washes?
On another note, has anyone talked to Peter Mandelson about Russian influence recently?
Because data coverage of NHS nationality data has improved over time, comparisons of the number of EU staff in the NHS over time should be made only with caution. In June 2016 there were 89,546 staff with unknown nationality. That has now decreased to 47,671 (a fall of almost half) while the total number of staff employed by the NHS has increased. This means that some apparent increases in staff numbers for nationalities and nationality groups are likely to be due to improved data coverage rather than genuine increases. In other words: because a greater proportion of NHS staff now have a nationality recorded, we would expect to see increases in the recorded number of staff with a given nationality, even if there were no genuine changes in the actual number of staff with that nationality.
In June 2016 there were 58,698 staff with recorded EU nationality, and in January there were over 67.000. But to present this as the full story would be misleading, because we know that there are nearly 42,000 more staff for whom nationality is known now than in 2016. It is very likely that there has been an overall increase in the number of NHS staff with EU nationality since 2016, but we can’t be sure about the scale of the change, and it would be misleading to calculate a percentage increase based on the two numbers.
So actually your claim just now that EU NHS staff have 'fled the country' and this is leading to a shortage is wrong and you are now accepting that there has been an increase?
No, NHS staff have fled the country. That is exactly what the info I provided in several posts shows.
That was only half your claim. The other half was that this was leading to a shortage. Which is clearly untrue because for everyone that has left, apparently more than 1 has arrived to work in the NHS.
There is a shortage of NHS staff, particularly nurses. NHS staff from the EU are leaving the country at a rate greater than they are arriving, therefore the shortage is getting worse. Okay it didn't create a shortage, it just has worsened a shortage that was already there, happy to make that clarification and hold my hands up being wrong.
On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.
This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.
You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.
If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.
If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.
Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.
It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.
As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.
Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
I think my point must have been lost in translation.
If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.
For what reason?
So we can have standards that suit us not them.
We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.
Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.
Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?
Is it all really worth it?
Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
The EU and the UK are best apart.
The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.
And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.
General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
Can't put it better than that.
Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
I must have imagined this, I guess:
Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.
Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
Exactly what I said.
My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.
I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.
London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.
Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
In many areas yes but not in all was the point I was making. I certainly voted leave and one of the reasons was immigration however my concerns over immigration were to do with quality more than quantity
What are your problems with the "quality" of immigration?
People would rather have doctors and nurses in their area than big issue sellers. It's not really controversial.
Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".
And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?
Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.
What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.
The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home.
No you little cumstained oik, some immigrants make a positive contribution to society and our economy some dont. The fact that on the average immigrants make a slightly positive contribution is neither here or there. If we only took 300k quality immigrants it would be much better than taking 300k of which 150k are hugely positive and 150k are net takers.
Which is my whole point about quality of immigration not quantity being the issue . I don't care what race, gender or creed anyone is I just don't see why we benefit from net takers from society you dipshit and yet you consider that racist just marks you out as the fuckwit you are. Now in your words fuck off you prick
If this poster repeats this sort of behaviour, a ban is a good idea. CorrectHorseBattery is usually civil, whereas Mr Pagan also decided to garland me with the accolade of 'arse' or something similar last week in one of his unprovoked rants, which I didn't particularly think worth responding to.
Ah I see two posts in a whole week when mr Battery has been sweary on this thread all day and my first post you complain about was using the word arse? It couldn't be Mr battery is on the same side of the political spectrum as you could it? Oh why yes it is. Lets not take into account Mr battery called me a racist to provoke that response
I don't care what side of the political divide you're on, last week your response to my civil post was a mouthful of abuse. Shape up or ship out.
Yet you havent called out any of mr Battery's posts today responding to perfectly civil response. Curious
I haven't seen the whole of your discussion together, but I have seen acting you similarly when not provoked ; so you can't be described if I put the two together. If you don't attack other posters unprompted, your position won't be called into question.
Then you missed the fact that several people have been sworn at today by Mr Battery and the fact that even in my post I quoted his own words back at him. In around 800 odd posts I have been rude twice. Mr battery has done 5 or 6 times that today and with words worse than arse. Yet its me you call out. Nods
I usually enjoy the political debate in this group. It’s usually far better than your average Facebook group. Sadly today has not been a vintage one, more a table wine, with one character at the centre of it all. It’s a pity. Hopeful tomorrow will be better.
shrugs I at least apologised for my outburst to everyone else
Indeed. You’re not the character I was referring to.
Kings Fund has a good article about EU immigration and the NHS and it is pretty clearly noted that EU immigration going the way it is, is going to make shortages continually worse.
On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.
This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.
You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.
If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.
If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.
Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.
It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.
As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.
Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
I think my point must have been lost in translation.
If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.
For what reason?
So we can have standards that suit us not them.
We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.
Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.
Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?
Is it all really worth it?
Many of the benefits come not just from being on the outside but also from not being on the inside. The EU will continue to develop in a way which would be counter to our interests were we to have remained a member.
The EU and the UK are best apart.
The UK is no longer part of a project it has never had any real - a few posters on here apart - enthusiasm for.
And the EU no longer has a member that doesn't want to be there.
General De Gaulle was right, we were never the right fit for the community.
Can't put it better than that.
Many in the UK did have enthusiasm for the EU or more accurately the benefit it brought .
Not many.seemed genuinely enthusiastic to me. Some dispassionately thought it was worth having economically but little genuine enthusiasm.
I must have imagined this, I guess:
Was that after the vote? Too late then to get passionate.
Sometimes you only realise how much you love something when you lose it.
Anyway, your claims of utilitarian remainers versus idealistic brexiters certainly don't correlate with my own experience. Most of those I know who voted for brexit did so for specific, concrete reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS, etc. Sovereignty didn't figure very highly at all.
Exactly what I said.
My view is some of the Brexit side have completely reinvented history and made Brexit to have been voted for, for all of these complicated reasons.
I think it's very simple: NHS, immigration.
Except if you look where the Brexit majority was won, there are not that many immigrants. A better explanation might be austerity. Cameron's European policy was shot in the foot by Osborne's economic policy. Ask Dominic Cummings.
Perception of immigration was what I meant. I know on a factual level those areas most likely to vote to Leave had low immigration but the answer there is obvious: fear of the unknown.
London voted to remain because most people there - except the nutters I see commenting about Sadiq Khan at every stage, who I'm fairly sure don't even live in London - are exposed to immigration every day and they do not see it as a problem.
Immigration is not and will never be the cause of any of our problems.
Which is of course why places like Slough which are 36% white british voted well over 50% to leave mr Battery
I don't agree with CBH often, but there was a fairly strong mathematical correlation between areas with lots of immigration and the Remain vote.
In many areas yes but not in all was the point I was making. I certainly voted leave and one of the reasons was immigration however my concerns over immigration were to do with quality more than quantity
What are your problems with the "quality" of immigration?
People would rather have doctors and nurses in their area than big issue sellers. It's not really controversial.
Precisely the point, we have a strong polish cohort here and while I have no problem with polish people I know one woman personally who is running a cafe and getting friends over employing them for 16 hours each and they are then all claiming tax credits and give her a small cut....apparently its quite a common thing according to my polish friends. Not sure I see how that benefits Britain exactly. Those poles I know doing better quality jobs such as plumber and electrician are just as fed up with it as we all should be.
Ah the old "I'm not racist because I know some Polish people".
And how many British people sit around all day and do sod all?
Immigrants make a NET contribution, there are always bad apples and as a country we can send them home after three months under EU law yet we never bothered to use this power.
What my problem with the immigration debate is that you can pick out bad people and then apply that to all immigrants yet I never see the same treatment happen to all the British people who sit and claim benefits.
The reality is, we need immigration and it's been a net benefit to our country. The care sector is in an utter state right now because the EU immigrants feel so unwelcome they left the country and went home.
No you little cumstained oik, some immigrants make a positive contribution to society and our economy some dont. The fact that on the average immigrants make a slightly positive contribution is neither here or there. If we only took 300k quality immigrants it would be much better than taking 300k of which 150k are hugely positive and 150k are net takers.
Which is my whole point about quality of immigration not quantity being the issue . I don't care what race, gender or creed anyone is I just don't see why we benefit from net takers from society you dipshit and yet you consider that racist just marks you out as the fuckwit you are. Now in your words fuck off you prick
If this poster repeats this sort of behaviour, a ban is a good idea. CorrectHorseBattery is usually civil, whereas Mr Pagan also decided to garland me with the accolade of 'arse' or something similar last week in one of his unprovoked rants, which I didn't particularly think worth responding to.
Ah I see two posts in a whole week when mr Battery has been sweary on this thread all day and my first post you complain about was using the word arse? It couldn't be Mr battery is on the same side of the political spectrum as you could it? Oh why yes it is. Lets not take into account Mr battery called me a racist to provoke that response
I don't care what side of the political divide you're on, last week your response to my civil post was a mouthful of abuse. Shape up or ship out.
Yet you havent called out any of mr Battery's posts today responding to perfectly civil response. Curious
I haven't seen the whole of your discussion together, but I have seen acting you similarly when not provoked ; so you can't be described if I put the two together. If you don't attack other posters unprompted, your position won't be called into question.
Then you missed the fact that several people have been sworn at today by Mr Battery and the fact that even in my post I quoted his own words back at him. In around 800 odd posts I have been rude twice. Mr battery has done 5 or 6 times that today and with words worse than arse. Yet its me you call out. Nods
I usually enjoy the political debate in this group. It’s usually far better than your average Facebook group. Sadly today has not been a vintage one, more a table wine, with one character at the centre of it all. It’s a pity. Hopeful tomorrow will be better.
shrugs I at least apologised for my outburst to everyone else
Indeed. You’re not the character I was referring to.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There's an interesting set of evidence here. Some is clearly biased (check out who it is by), but the one by Prof. Ian Clark seemed pretty balanced.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail bars and the sex work industry
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There's an interesting set of evidence here. Some is clearly biased (check out who it is by), but the one by Prof. Ian Clark seemed pretty balanced.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail bars and the sex work industry
It always irritates me that the government did such a terrible job of removing illegal immigrants. We're supposed to incentivise people playing by the rules.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There's an interesting set of evidence here. Some is clearly biased (check out who it is by), but the one by Prof. Ian Clark seemed pretty balanced.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail bars and the sex work industry
Thanks Rob, looks like I'll have to concede I'm wrong on that point then, well played @MaxPB.
In regards to the more general point, it must be tackled but again I don't see how that is resolved with Brexit.
Well you may both be wrong. It doesn't saying anything about if they are migrant workers or not. I was about to wonder why we've gone backwards in this area, but it's because you can pay someone cheaper than it costs to maintain a machine.
It always irritates me that the government did such a terrible job of removing illegal immigrants. We're supposed to incentivise people playing by the rules.
Odd how people now trust the Tories to deal with immigration
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I've recently played a lot of late night Civ 6.
(I'm about to win a large map on King level difficulty as Rome. The only question I have is whether to go for a cultural victory or use my massive fleet of jet bombers to get a quick, but not as satisfying, domination victory.)
Done deity level yet?
Hint: try Vikings....
Nope.
I had three quick wins as Rome, Norway and Russia on Prince, and am now about to manage a King win with Rome.
I tend to go for a very money focused strategy: lots of cities, lots of trade routes. Done right, you have a lot of money from quite early in the game. And if you're smart you keep your units as early types so you can upgrade them in a hurry if you need, but you don't get weighed down by big maintenance costs.
It always irritates me that the government did such a terrible job of removing illegal immigrants. We're supposed to incentivise people playing by the rules.
Yes well, I think there's a lot of inertia and vested interests in not removing them. Visa overstayers should be extremely easy to remove.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Max is right.
I have anecdotal evidence through my wife's work that these car washes operate like national chains. The "chain" in question was owned by Kurds. I suspect an organised crime gang. Post sixteen girls from sink estates in Wales (and presumably across England) were conscripted to work in the car washes, work as housekeeper/ concubines and ultimately marry to achieve spousal immigration status. It's basically a non-Sicilian "mafia" operation. These car washes tend to be just one aspect from a suite of business opportunities.
I am not hostile to immigration, but I detest the exploitation and criminality that preys on the desire for a better life.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There's an interesting set of evidence here. Some is clearly biased (check out who it is by), but the one by Prof. Ian Clark seemed pretty balanced.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail bars and the sex work industry
Thanks Rob, looks like I'll have to concede I'm wrong on that point then, well played @MaxPB.
In regards to the more general point, it must be tackled but again I don't see how that is resolved with Brexit.
Well you may both be wrong. It doesn't saying anything about if they are migrant workers or not. I was about to wonder why we've gone backwards in this area, but it's because you can pay someone cheaper than it costs to maintain a machine.
The machine also doesn't vacuum the inside of your car or apply wax.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Max is right.
I have anecdotal evidence through my wife's work that these car washes operate like national chains. The "chain" in question was owned by Kurds. I suspect an organised crime gang. Post sixteen girls from sink estates in Wales (and presumably across England) were conscripted to work in the car washes, work as housekeeper/ concubines and ultimately marry to achieve spousal immigration status. It's basically a non-Sicilian "mafia" operation. These car washes tend to be just one aspect from a suite of business opportunities.
I am not hostile to immigration, but I detest the exploitation and criminality that preys on the desire for a better life.
Please see above, I admitted I was wrong but happy to do so again
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There's an interesting set of evidence here. Some is clearly biased (check out who it is by), but the one by Prof. Ian Clark seemed pretty balanced.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail bars and the sex work industry
Thanks Rob, looks like I'll have to concede I'm wrong on that point then, well played @MaxPB.
In regards to the more general point, it must be tackled but again I don't see how that is resolved with Brexit.
Well you may both be wrong. It doesn't saying anything about if they are migrant workers or not. I was about to wonder why we've gone backwards in this area, but it's because you can pay someone cheaper than it costs to maintain a machine.
Yes, and it's also cheaper to hire a bunch of labourers to do some digging than rent a digger and pay a licenced operator. Hence the nation's productivity issue at the bottom of the Labour market.
On standards, if we want to trade with the EU won't we have to follow their standards anyway and hence our goods will have to be CE compliant.
This is why I've found this idea of setting our own standards and our own requirements very odd since day one, as anyone we trade with will be deciding that.
You can't seriously tell me the EU are going to accept our standards, we're a tiny island.
No that is wrong. That is not how trade works.
If we want to trade with the EU then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with the USA then exports will have to follow their standards. If we want to trade with Japan then exports will have to follow their standards.
If any of them want to trade with us then their exports will have to follow our standards.
Exports don't have to follow domestic standards of the nation that produces them, they need to follow the standards of the nation they are being exported to. Changes of spec are entirely possible.
It doesn't matter if the EU accepts our standards or not. Our "tiny island" can set whatever standards that suit us and all imports must follow our standards. If we have reason to diverge from CE then fine that suits us.
As an example have a look at left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive vehicles. In the UK our cars are different and always have been different to "standard" European cars. No reason that can't be true in other industries too.
Well said. If you look at literature from the 20th century, they are full of references to various standards of products including 'export' products. It's not especially complex and is managed all the time elsewhere, just not here for a short time.
Once again I think we are failing to use the relatively recent past as a reference point.
The point is it's an extra layer of red tape. For what?
I think my point must have been lost in translation.
If we are sending goods to the EU, they will need to comply with EU standards. If we harmonise our standards the whole exercise is pointless, if we don't it's red tape for small businesses who today don't have these problems.
For what reason?
So we can have standards that suit us not them.
We're not going to have meaningfully different product standards to the EU, or - for that matter - the US or Canada or Australia. Most product standards are set at the ISO level and then implemented into law by various national and multinational bodies.
Where we might have very different regulations is around labour and environmental standards, or around agriculture.
Indeed. Occasionally we may have differing standards on certain things - like for instance our using plugs that aren't used on the continent (though are in Ireland and Malta and outside of the EU much of the Caribbean, Middle East and South East Asia), or using Right Hand Drive vehicles.
Not much will differ but if it doesn't differ its moot. If it does differ, its because we've chosen so.
And is it really, really worth it to leave the club which we wanted to join so much and which has provided so much benefit so that if we decide in future (clue: we won't) to institute a UK standard for four-pin plugs we will be able to?
Is it all really worth it?
Yes. Because the people voted for it and democracy is worth more than all the tin in Cornwall
If only we lived in a proper one
Impossible. There aren’t any left. We used up all the tin in th...
Imagine if Boris had taken a million quid from Bernie within weeks of getting into Downing Street, eh Al?
Since when was Bernie a Russian Oligarch financed by the Kremlin?
Well, he’s a Socialist, isn’t he?
Although I can’t imagine he’d want to pay over a million to the Tories.
I thought he had previously donated to the Tories. Bernie was persuaded Blair was a good guy by his chum, who just happened to be the son of the former Leader of British Fascism, but that's a different story.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There's an interesting set of evidence here. Some is clearly biased (check out who it is by), but the one by Prof. Ian Clark seemed pretty balanced.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail bars and the sex work industry
Thanks Rob, looks like I'll have to concede I'm wrong on that point then, well played @MaxPB.
In regards to the more general point, it must be tackled but again I don't see how that is resolved with Brexit.
Well you may both be wrong. It doesn't saying anything about if they are migrant workers or not. I was about to wonder why we've gone backwards in this area, but it's because you can pay someone cheaper than it costs to maintain a machine.
The machine also doesn't vacuum the inside of your car or apply wax.
I paid £40 for a full valet but I trust the provider, I'm not sure I'd have the local Albanian car wash do a full valet.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Ok, go to your local carwash and ask to see everyone's passports, see how quickly you're chased away from premises.
What a ludicrous response.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
There's an interesting set of evidence here. Some is clearly biased (check out who it is by), but the one by Prof. Ian Clark seemed pretty balanced.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail bars and the sex work industry
Thanks Rob, looks like I'll have to concede I'm wrong on that point then, well played @MaxPB.
In regards to the more general point, it must be tackled but again I don't see how that is resolved with Brexit.
Well you may both be wrong. It doesn't saying anything about if they are migrant workers or not. I was about to wonder why we've gone backwards in this area, but it's because you can pay someone cheaper than it costs to maintain a machine.
The machine also doesn't...apply wax.
You need a Brazilian to do that properly, of course.
Imagine if Boris had taken a million quid from Bernie within weeks of getting into Downing Street, eh Al?
Since when was Bernie a Russian Oligarch financed by the Kremlin?
Well, he’s a Socialist, isn’t he?
Although I can’t imagine he’d want to pay over a million to the Tories.
I thought he had previously donated to the Tories. Bernie was persuaded Blair was a good guy by his chum, who just happened to be the son of the former Leader of British Fascism, but that's a different story.
Really? I thought he was Jewish?
And when did Bernie give money to the Tories? As an American, surely he would be banned?
Edit - I have now twigged that you are talking about Bernie Ecclestone, not Bernie Sanders...
And what was the rate of technological innovation between 1250 and 1750?
I think if you had taken an individual from 1250 and put them in 1750 they would have been mesmerised by the progress made. We look from 2020 and don't think it's so much but it was at the time and life expectancy and life quality for most was immeasurably better in 1750 than it had been 500 years earlier.
The printing press alone was a pretty seismic technological innovation. At least comparable to the creation of the personal computer.
Firearms made quite a difference to warfare as well.
Genuinely fascinating to compare rates of fire and damage resulting from fully trained longbow men cf soldiers with muskets. Muskets arguably less accurate, slower (2 to 3 shots a minute vs 10+), but men can be trained in an afternoon. Dimly recall wellington (?) wanting a company of longbow men, but could be making that up...
I think you'll find in Civ6 that musketmen rank more highly than longbow men.
No: the range of the English longbow is greater than any other unit up until artillery. You can put a couple one hex out of range of a city and bombard it until you send in a knight to capture it. In fact on the Earth map it is possible to hit France from England with a longbow.
I’m not sure that is completely accurate with respect to real life...
And what was the rate of technological innovation between 1250 and 1750?
I think if you had taken an individual from 1250 and put them in 1750 they would have been mesmerised by the progress made. We look from 2020 and don't think it's so much but it was at the time and life expectancy and life quality for most was immeasurably better in 1750 than it had been 500 years earlier.
The printing press alone was a pretty seismic technological innovation. At least comparable to the creation of the personal computer.
Firearms made quite a difference to warfare as well.
Genuinely fascinating to compare rates of fire and damage resulting from fully trained longbow men cf soldiers with muskets. Muskets arguably less accurate, slower (2 to 3 shots a minute vs 10+), but men can be trained in an afternoon. Dimly recall wellington (?) wanting a company of longbow men, but could be making that up...
I think you'll find in Civ6 that musketmen rank more highly than longbow men.
No: the range of the English longbow is greater than any other unit up until artillery. You can put a couple one hex out of range of a city and bombard it until you send in a knight to capture it. In fact on the Earth map it is possible to hit France from England with a longbow.
I’m not sure that is completely accurate with respect to real life...
What an arrow going for at least 25 miles! Even the Russians havn't invented a drug to give to an archer to make that happen
Imagine if Boris had taken a million quid from Bernie within weeks of getting into Downing Street, eh Al?
Since when was Bernie a Russian Oligarch financed by the Kremlin?
Well, he’s a Socialist, isn’t he?
Although I can’t imagine he’d want to pay over a million to the Tories.
I thought he had previously donated to the Tories. Bernie was persuaded Blair was a good guy by his chum, who just happened to be the son of the former Leader of British Fascism, but that's a different story.
Really? I thought he was Jewish?
And when did Bernie give money to the Tories? As an American, surely he would be banned?
Edit - I have now twigged that you are talking about Bernie Ecclestone, not Bernie Sanders...
Imagine if Boris had taken a million quid from Bernie within weeks of getting into Downing Street, eh Al?
Since when was Bernie a Russian Oligarch financed by the Kremlin?
Well, he’s a Socialist, isn’t he?
Although I can’t imagine he’d want to pay over a million to the Tories.
I thought he had previously donated to the Tories. Bernie was persuaded Blair was a good guy by his chum, who just happened to be the son of the former Leader of British Fascism, but that's a different story.
Really? I thought he was Jewish?
And when did Bernie give money to the Tories? As an American, surely he would be banned?
Edit - I have now twigged that you are talking about Bernie Ecclestone, not Bernie Sanders...
A pair not often confused!
Unlike the pair running to be President, who both seem to be permanently confused.
Imagine if Boris had taken a million quid from Bernie within weeks of getting into Downing Street, eh Al?
Since when was Bernie a Russian Oligarch financed by the Kremlin?
Well, he’s a Socialist, isn’t he?
Although I can’t imagine he’d want to pay over a million to the Tories.
I thought he had previously donated to the Tories. Bernie was persuaded Blair was a good guy by his chum, who just happened to be the son of the former Leader of British Fascism, but that's a different story.
Really? I thought he was Jewish?
And when did Bernie give money to the Tories? As an American, surely he would be banned?
Edit - I have now twigged that you are talking about Bernie Ecclestone, not Bernie Sanders...
A pair not often confused!
I do like the idea of Bernie Sanders as an F1 boss, and Bernie Ecclestone as the big hope of the American grassroots college Left.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Yet it's a known hotspot for labour traffickers and slavery, there isn't an app that has a list of good ones for no reason. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.
No I'm not saying it doesn't happen, my contention is with your claim that they're usually illegal. No evidence provided.
Max is right.
I have anecdotal evidence through my wife's work that these car washes operate like national chains. The "chain" in question was owned by Kurds. I suspect an organised crime gang. Post sixteen girls from sink estates in Wales (and presumably across England) were conscripted to work in the car washes, work as housekeeper/ concubines and ultimately marry to achieve spousal immigration status. It's basically a non-Sicilian "mafia" operation. These car washes tend to be just one aspect from a suite of business opportunities.
I am not hostile to immigration, but I detest the exploitation and criminality that preys on the desire for a better life.
Please see above, I admitted I was wrong but happy to do so again
I am sure there are good ones. There are a couple of Kurds who run the Arc automated carwash concession near me. They seem relatively legit.
I know facts seem annoying for the supporters of the government but no 10 have put out a series of lies as to why the report couldn’t have been released before the election . Who actually decided on the criteria for what election or referendum to look into . Why would you look at the Scottish ref in 2014 but not look at the EU ref in 2016. Clearly the government instructed MI5 and others to avoid the EU ref as they didn’t want the risk of Brexit being called into question.
The stench surrounding this government gets worse by the day.
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
In this case the “hello sir” was because I used to teach him...
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
I'd be interested to read one of those if you have any handy. It doesn't make sense on the face of it but I could see that whole life care costs more for people who live into the 90s than it does for those who don't.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
I'd be interested to read one of those if you have any handy. It doesn't make sense on the face of it but I could see that whole life care costs more for people who live into the 90s than it does for those who don't.
Probably cost more in terms of pensions but not sure about health care at all
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
If you think we trade with the French now on a level playing field, I've a bridge to sell you. Most of what I do at work is notionally regulated by the EU Pressure Equipment Directive. The UK stuff we do complies with this, and is regularly checked and signed off by a large engineering surveyors who are a UK notified body under the PED.
The French have managed an interpretation of the PED so different that they won't accept our stuff without a ream of extra unnecessary paper, and of course if their stuff is being repaired in our UK workshops, it would be completely impossible to use a UK based engineering surveyor, instead one must be flown in from France. Their actual standards of inspection are lower than ours; we're regularly sent items to from France for repair which should have been withdrawn from service long before they were, and which had become thoroughly dangerous.
Naturally this doesn't work the same the other way around - if our French competition want to sell into the UK, they just say "PED compliant" and we let them carry on.
The PED has also wasted lots of time and money for my UK clients, mostly because it insists on design reviews for pressure vessels even when they are a historically proven design, if the design is not CE marked because it is too old. We mostly supply custom built identical replacements for pre-CE mark era stuff which is worn out - the extra design time usually puts 10% on the cost of the job to "prove" what has often been practically demonstrated by over 50 years of actual service life.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
I'd be interested to read one of those if you have any handy. It doesn't make sense on the face of it but I could see that whole life care costs more for people who live into the 90s than it does for those who don't.
Probably cost more in terms of pensions but not sure about health care at all
It really depends on dementia rates as people get older, care costs are huge part of it.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
I'd be interested to read one of those if you have any handy. It doesn't make sense on the face of it but I could see that whole life care costs more for people who live into the 90s than it does for those who don't.
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
In this case the “hello sir” was because I used to teach him...
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
Surely, ‘as they pursue a vein hunt for the correct blood vessel?’
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
I'd be interested to read one of those if you have any handy. It doesn't make sense on the face of it but I could see that whole life care costs more for people who live into the 90s than it does for those who don't.
Probably cost more in terms of pensions but not sure about health care at all
while those that drink, smoke or obese tend to have health complications they dont tend to live long with them I think is the crux linked an article at 9:15
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
In this case the “hello sir” was because I used to teach him...
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
Surely, ‘as they pursue a vein hunt for the correct blood vessel?’
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
I'd be interested to read one of those if you have any handy. It doesn't make sense on the face of it but I could see that whole life care costs more for people who live into the 90s than it does for those who don't.
Probably cost more in terms of pensions but not sure about health care at all
while those that drink, smoke or obese tend to have health complications they dont tend to live long with them I think is the crux linked an article at 9:15
as I remember the study was a collaboration between scientists in holland and norway....notoriuos hot beds of the alt right but may have misremembered
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
Oh dear does repeating what the left and right have both said as an excuse for raising pension ages upset you mr battery? hands you a kleenex
What you said is that people that people should eat McDonalds as it will mean they live less long and that's a good thing. You're wishing an early death on people.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
Will Civ 7 have a covid-19 handle ?
My preferred method of dealing with public health crises leading to public disorder (usually a result of overcrowding admittedly) was to be slave society and work a whole bunch of people to death on vanity public works projects.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
What is vile about it? It may be incorrect, it may not be based on fact, but it is not vile. You are far too easily upset. Have a cup of tea and a rolo.
Here is the less re-assuring aspect. Western governments allowed Putin's regime to get on as if it is some ubiquitous outfit. Leading in this I give you the Obama administration and Germany. Successive UK governments haven't been great (and Johnson has in the past been a joke on this issue) but nothing compared to those two mentioned.
We shy away in this country and others of taking on dictatorships who threaten our values and position. We shouldn't. Liberal democracy and its values is not weedy but our political class in much of Europe, here included, are weedy and this is where it gets you.
Apologies for snipping some of this, my friend. As always, a thought provoking contribution.
For nearly 50 years the USSR was "the threat" which could justify anything and everything. I grew up watching Threads and The Day After and hoped against hope the horror of the consequence of their use would be the ultimate deterrence to nuclear warfare.
In 1989, Russia was pushed back several hundred miles out of Europe and NATO surged into the gap. The problem is "the threat" is easy when it's a hundred fully equipped armoured divisions two hours drive from the Rhine - it's not so easy when it's so distant.
Is it "worth" the collapse of civilisation to secure Riga or Tallinn or Vilnius? It's not so easy now.
We also see the long-predicted shift of global power to the Pacific - China, India, the Korean Peninsula, the flash-points in the South China Sea. Even Russia looks to China now.
The world is round but we are on the wrong side - perhaps in some small way our detachment from the EU is an explicit recognition that Europe is a backwater and the future of the world has shifted to the Pacific.
I don't buy he idea that the European nations as part of what we would call the traditional liberal democratic order, the US, Western Europe, the ANZACS etc are a nothing, in fact they could be a hugely powerful bloc. The problem is that they are weak and don't want to take hard decisions nor truly stand on a world stage. In that regard the EU hacks me off no end and the situation in the Balkans back in the early 90's ultimately did it for me when they couldn't get their act together to prevent mass murder on their doorstep.
Russia can be readily dealt with and put on a leash if the will was there. China is many times the problem because its trying to do it via economics backed by military force. They can still be put on the back foot and balance achieved but a key player in this should be the European nations. Will the EU bother? Will they heck. To busy with the cheap goods and outsourcing their emissions out east.
If it sounds like old fashioned global power politics, it is and that is just a fact. I'd much rather than liberal democracies at the top of the tree than the Chinese Communist Party
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
Oh dear does repeating what the left and right have both said as an excuse for raising pension ages upset you mr battery? hands you a kleenex
What you said is that people that people should eat McDonalds as it will mean they live less long and that's a good thing. You're wishing an early death on people.
Vile.
P.S. Thought you weren't responding anymore?
I never said people should eat mcDonalds I said I avoided it. Show me where I encouraged people to eat mcDonalds? I merely implied if people want to eat it let them
Comments
The former certainly has advantages
Tbh, I see this just becoming a rubber stamp as it will be a direct copy of CE. Nothing else makes sense.
In the year to September 2017 the number of nurses from the EU leaving the NHS in England outweighed those joining it for the first time in at least five years. We don’t know if they left the UK or what jobs they went on to do.
It is true that nursing and midwifery numbers have dropped by around 5,000 since the referendum, and Brexit is a likely factor driving at least some of this fall.
That is correct. The number of reported other EU nationals working for the NHS in March 2019 was 65,000, of whom around 31,000 were doctors and nurses.
Because data coverage of NHS nationality data has improved over time, comparisons of the number of EU staff in the NHS over time should be made only with caution. In June 2016 there were 89,546 staff with unknown nationality. That has now decreased to 47,671 (a fall of almost half) while the total number of staff employed by the NHS has increased. This means that some apparent increases in staff numbers for nationalities and nationality groups are likely to be due to improved data coverage rather than genuine increases. In other words: because a greater proportion of NHS staff now have a nationality recorded, we would expect to see increases in the recorded number of staff with a given nationality, even if there were no genuine changes in the actual number of staff with that nationality.
In June 2016 there were 58,698 staff with recorded EU nationality, and in January there were over 67.000. But to present this as the full story would be misleading, because we know that there are nearly 42,000 more staff for whom nationality is known now than in 2016. It is very likely that there has been an overall increase in the number of NHS staff with EU nationality since 2016, but we can’t be sure about the scale of the change, and it would be misleading to calculate a percentage increase based on the two numbers.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-nhs-staff/
Now there are 5.5% according to the NHS own numbers.
To quote numbers from 3 years ago - of just one part of the NHS - to defend your claim of a drop when the numbers have gone up substantially since then is dishonest.
I usually enjoy the political debate in this group. It’s usually far better than your average Facebook group. Sadly today has not been a vintage one, more a table wine, with one character at the centre of it all. It’s a pity. Hopeful tomorrow will be better.
People are wrong to fixate on product standards, when they should be fixating on labour, environmental and agricultural standards.
Edit: By the way as this seems to get forgotten it is worth repeating that I am one of those in favour of free movement and am happy to have lots of EU and Non EU immigrants here. I am just arguing about your perception of the impact of Brexit, not the merits of migration which for me are unassailable.
There is little agreement about how many hand car washes there are in the UK. Estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000. Less still is known about how many of these may be guilty of infringements.
Now, you may say the Conservatives would have done these things anyway and were certainly not bribed, and you'd be right, so think of it as a little extra insurance to help the right side win.
On another note, has anyone talked to Peter Mandelson about Russian influence recently?
Kings Fund has a good article about EU immigration and the NHS and it is pretty clearly noted that EU immigration going the way it is, is going to make shortages continually worse.
Like I said above, I am not saying it doesn't happen, or it isn't a problem, just that my contention is with your post that they are "usually illegal". There is no way you can prove that claim reasonably.
In regards to the general point you made, I tend to agree but I don't see how Brexit is going to solve that.
Our research found no extreme cases of forced labour or modern slavery and
more over the exploitation of workers at hand car washes started once they
arrived in the UK. The majority of hand car washes indulge in some form of labour
exploitation but we would suggest that there is not a clear cut link to human
trafficking in the same way as there is for workers engaged in cannabis farms, nail
bars and the sex work industry
Edit: would help if I had added the link: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2017/hand-car-washes-evidence-publication-17-19/
In regards to the more general point, it must be tackled but again I don't see how that is resolved with Brexit.
McDonalds reopening
I had three quick wins as Rome, Norway and Russia on Prince, and am now about to manage a King win with Rome.
I tend to go for a very money focused strategy: lots of cities, lots of trade routes. Done right, you have a lot of money from quite early in the game. And if you're smart you keep your units as early types so you can upgrade them in a hurry if you need, but you don't get weighed down by big maintenance costs.
I have anecdotal evidence through my wife's work that these car washes operate like national chains. The "chain" in question was owned by Kurds. I suspect an organised crime gang. Post sixteen girls from sink estates in Wales (and presumably across England) were conscripted to work in the car washes, work as housekeeper/ concubines and ultimately marry to achieve spousal immigration status. It's basically a non-Sicilian "mafia" operation. These car washes tend to be just one aspect from a suite of business opportunities.
I am not hostile to immigration, but I detest the exploitation and criminality that preys on the desire for a better life.
Although I can’t imagine he’d want to pay over a million to the Tories.
Ah, my coat.
And when did Bernie give money to the Tories? As an American, surely he would be banned?
Edit - I have now twigged that you are talking about Bernie Ecclestone, not Bernie Sanders...
In fact on the Earth map it is possible to hit France from England with a longbow.
I’m not sure that is completely accurate with respect to real life...
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
The stench surrounding this government gets worse by the day.
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
The French have managed an interpretation of the PED so different that they won't accept our stuff without a ream of extra unnecessary paper, and of course if their stuff is being repaired in our UK workshops, it would be completely impossible to use a UK based engineering surveyor, instead one must be flown in from France. Their actual standards of inspection are lower than ours; we're regularly sent items to from France for repair which should have been withdrawn from service long before they were, and which had become thoroughly dangerous.
Naturally this doesn't work the same the other way around - if our French competition want to sell into the UK, they just say "PED compliant" and we let them carry on.
The PED has also wasted lots of time and money for my UK clients, mostly because it insists on design reviews for pressure vessels even when they are a historically proven design, if the design is not CE marked because it is too old. We mostly supply custom built identical replacements for pre-CE mark era stuff which is worn out - the extra design time usually puts 10% on the cost of the job to "prove" what has often been practically demonstrated by over 50 years of actual service life.
the article has a link to the science study from memory
UK targets up to 12 Covid-19 vaccines from around the world
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/21/uk-targets-12-covid-19-vaccines-from-around-the-world
The lower risk backstops for next year make sense.
Vile.
P.S. Thought you weren't responding anymore?
Russia can be readily dealt with and put on a leash if the will was there. China is many times the problem because its trying to do it via economics backed by military force. They can still be put on the back foot and balance achieved but a key player in this should be the European nations. Will the EU bother? Will they heck. To busy with the cheap goods and outsourcing their emissions out east.
If it sounds like old fashioned global power politics, it is and that is just a fact. I'd much rather than liberal democracies at the top of the tree than the Chinese Communist Party
They tried to make an up to date version: “Beyond Earth”. Much flashier graphics but not a patch on it as far as playing the game was concerned.