You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
Linking migration to salary is a stupid idea. It is biased towards London where salaries would be higher so a programmer in London could be deemed essentially whereas a programmer in Leeds would not. It would mean nurses aren't deemed vital for migration.
As seen on Twitter, this seems to paraphrase the new migration policy, right?
The idea is that if companies cannot get the highly skilled people they need in order to function and be competitive, the new policy won't prevent them from recruiting from overseas.
Given the strength of feeling displayed that immigrants were keeping wages low and stealing working class jobs, this policy, together with new training programmes for the indigenous population, is exactly the right thing to do. Our people will be properly trained and the lack of immigrant labour should increase wages.
As long as the good old British have sufficient motivation to get off their backsides and work for their money, and I'm sure they will the policy should work.
---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Linking migration to salary is a stupid idea. It is biased towards London where salaries would be higher so a programmer in London could be deemed essentially whereas a programmer in Leeds would not. It would mean nurses aren't deemed vital for migration.
The reason wages and salaries are more expensive in London is the shortage of local labour.
---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx
How about an immigration system where you can come here if you have a job. If you do not have a job, you must be wholly self supporting including comprehensive health insurance?
How will this address the issue that was so often raised at the referendum that immigrants were stealing lower paid jobs and pushing wage levels down?
How will this address the issue that was so often raised at the referendum that immigrants were stealing lower paid jobs and pushing wage levels down?
The problem is that the evidence seems to suggest that the drive down of wages is very small and less than a couple of percent for the lowest skilled jobs only. The effect on high skilled workers is to push wages up. As is often the case, it's feelings over evidence that wins.
Of course, you have to ask why immigration levels have been so high where we do control immigration? Also, why have we not made any effort to control immigration of EU migrants using the rules available to us? Is it lack of will, lack of money or do successive governments approve of the levels secretly?
If it's will, we have to question the competence of successive governments. If it's lack of money, the post Brexit arrangements will cost more so that doesn't solve anything. If our governments over the years internally want immigration, we strongly have to ask what benefit this is to the UK and what might we lose without free movement.
The core of the economic argument is that the UK is so deeply integrated with the EU at the practical level that leaving on WTO terms will severely knock us back.
The core of the democratic argument is that the UK should be sovereign and free from the EU's shackles (to the extent they exist - which is where there is debate).
The piggy in the middle is the Irish border and the EU are playing that n order to undemocratically shackle us to the Customs Union and split the UK into two.
In these circumstances, sovereignty trumps economics and we should take the hit if it comes and build from there.
I see the EASA (European Air Safety Agency) has started preparations for a no deal Brexit by inviting UK operators to start the application process for approval as a third country - https://www.easa.europa.eu/brexit
The core of the economic argument is that the UK is so deeply integrated with the EU at the practical level that leaving on WTO terms will severely knock us back.
The core of the democratic argument is that the UK should be sovereign and free from the EU's shackles (to the extent they exist - which is where there is debate).
The piggy in the middle is the Irish border and the EU are playing that n order to undemocratically shackle us to the Customs Union and split the UK into two.
In these circumstances, sovereignty trumps economics and we should take the hit if it comes and build from there
As the late great Christopher Hitchens once said:
Quote:
There you have it ladies and gentleman — there you have it, you see how far the termites have spread and how long and well they’ve dined
The option never presented to the people of the UK: the Leave option that makes you poorer in all sorts of ways. The final play of the Great Democracy Swindle.
Oh, and let's drop the child-like "Project Fear" rubbish shall we? If he is wrong, say why he is wrong and articulate the reasons that No Deal is not as damaging as he fears.
The constant use of this banal retort is just lazy ..
__________________
Unifi Express + BT Whole Home WiFi | VM 1Gbps
Services: 1 Gbps; Hub 4 MM; ASUS RT-AX88U; Ultimate VOLT. BT Infinity2; Devolo 1200AV
Posts: 11,955
Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
As the late great Christopher Hitchens once said:
The option never presented to the people of the UK: the Leave option that makes you poorer in all sorts of ways. The final play of the Great Democracy Swindle.
Oh, and let's drop the child-like "Project Fear" rubbish shall we? If he is wrong, say why he is wrong and articulate the reasons that No Deal is not as damaging as he fears.
The constant use of this banal retort is just lazy ..
You have read more into my brief Project Fear remark than was appropriate. I didn't say he was wrong - although I could pick holes in part. if I wanted to bore you all
My point was that sovereignty trumps economics when you consider the democracy aspect.
With regard to Project Fear, stop insulting me with accusations of banality. I'm very precise and deliberate. The entire tenet of the guvmin's circular to each home can very reasonably described as Project Fear - it was intended to instil fear in its readers so that a Remain vote would result.
"Sovereignty trumps economics" - easy to say if you’re comfortably off. Not so easy if you are one of those negatively affected.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Services: 1 Gbps; Hub 4 MM; ASUS RT-AX88U; Ultimate VOLT. BT Infinity2; Devolo 1200AV
Posts: 11,955
Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
"Sovereignty trumps economics" - easy to say if you’re comfortably off. Not so easy if you are one of those negatively affected.
So, you're saying that we must be shackled to an undemocratic entity just so that the less "comfortably off" are not negatively affected. Why is that good? The dictatorship wins.
So, you're saying that we must be shackled to an undemocratic entity just so that the less "comfortably off" are not negatively affected. Why is that good? The dictatorship wins.
There is no dictatorship. Otherwise, surely we would have the Euro and not the Pound.
Thoughtful piece today about Europe.
Quote:
The great difference is that, in their bones, the English mostly lack fear. Most continentals do not. On the European mainland, only Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland survived the second world war unconquered. What was the sovereignty of the Netherlands worth in 1940? Four days. As an Irish minister told me after the Brexit referendum, first of all the EU is a peace project. But it is not built on fear alone. It is also built on hope — of a prosperous, integrated Europe able to speak up in the world.
It is legitimate to reject this project. Brexiters do. It is legitimate to believe the EU has over-reached. On monetary union, I agree. It is legitimate to believe the EU has under-reached. On defence, I also agree. But it is illegitimate for a sane person to despise the EU’s goals or hope that it will collapse into chaos.
Join CF
You are here: 
the policy should work.
