Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

So in summary it's the UK's immigration system discriminating those people. We are the ones making it more difficult to enter the country for those outside of the EU.

I really don't see how this can be pinned on the EU being discriminatory. You might not like FOM which is fair enough dependant on your views of immigration, but to say this is the fault of the EU being discriminatory is extremely unfair.

You also seem to forget that we have higher net immigration into the country from non EU countries than we do with EU countries.

Nope - respectfully you have that mostly wrong

But about to take off so catch up later

 

[hilts]

Going off the last few pages I see this thread is still in the twilight zone. Anyhow :-

Big Ben ringing is a ridiculous idea

Stopping foreign aid is a ridiculous idea

Lilly Allen is a ridiculous person

Carry on

 

[Ban-jani]

Going off the last few pages I see this thread is still in the twilight zone. Anyhow :-

Big Ben ringing is a ridiculous idea

Who gives a fuck, really?

Stopping foreign aid is a ridiculous idea

It should be trimmed down and not given to countries who can afford space programmes. Being specific and targeting people who are going to have their lives saved is better. How about ending homelessness in the UK first?

Lilly Allen is a ridiculous person

She is. The epitome of the unintelligent “woke” alt social liberalism we see plaguing our society today, ruining families and our culture. And a pretty shit music “artist” too.

Carry on

 

[hilts]

Ringing a bell in triumph is both childish and somewhat premature

Being concerned about how money is being spent is sound but that just means you can spend the same amount on more noble things. No trimming for me.

Although we agree on Allen it's always worth mentioning what a tit she is a second time.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Ok - happy to discuss this in as much detail as you like. Apologies if I was coming across a bit dismissive yesterday - I thought that you were just being deliberately obtuse - as some are wont to be

Any way - brief response as just travelling to one of the EU's other members - while there are no restrictions;-)

Our exchange started because you posted:

2. Net immigration is higher from the rest of the world than the EU, shouldn't we look to control this first?

To which I asked if:
You do understand that FOM commits member states to acting with discrimination don't you?

At the time there were pages of debate about the rights of UK citizens moving to the EU after Brexit so I found this question not receiving agreement particularly puzzling.

But just a quick bit of context and I will pick up later when at the other end.

1. If I am a fully qualified clinician from Dubai have I exactly the same opportunity to come and work and settle in the UK as if I was an equally qualified clinician from an EU country? ?

2. If I am a fully qualified clinician from Dubai have I exactly the same opportunity to come and work and settle in the UK as if I was a wholly unqualified individual from an EU country ??

3. If the infrastructure of an EU nation places a finite limit on the total number of immigrants that can be accommodated, but the nation must adhere to FOM - where will the focus of cuts be ?? (there is obviously a clue in your question above)

I will pick it up with you later

​

Oh dear ..... we don't subscribe to FOM ... thats Schengen .... only Freedom of movement of Labour.

Dunning Kruger effect in full effect here.

 

[Ban-jani]

Ringing a bell in triumph is both childish and somewhat premature

Being concerned about how money is being spent is sound but that just means you can spend the same amount on more noble things. No trimming for me.

Although we agree on Allen it's always worth mentioning what a tit she is a second time.

It’s neither there nor here for me, I really don’t care if we ring a bell.

I’m more than happy to send money to save lives, I do so myself to Save the Children, a charity focusing on African children and children in other areas of the world. My point is I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the British taxpayer to give money to countries that are more preoccupied with getting someone into space, than feeding their poverty-stricken population.

I’ll just say a third time that she’s a raving loony idiot.

 

[Vic]

nice use of language to exaggerate a point.

reduce v remove.

How much would you reduce it by? Anyway it's more about "diversion" to Duncan Smith's "worthier causes" like helping British business (recover from Brexit). He's shameless - he thinks cutting immigration will force British firms to invest in training, but that doesn't happen unless you incentivise businesses (so they're not just training people who then find they're better qualified to get a better job elsewhere). You could of course have a national system, like industrial training boards, but the Tories largely killed them off in the 80s. Labour's view at the time? "At a time of unparalleled technological change, it will not only damage training in Britain but undermine our competitive position even further. When unemployment overall and school leaver unemployment in particular stand at record levels and output has already been reduced by 17½ per cent. since the Government came to power, what possible reason can there be to demolish a large section of our training arrangements?"

 

[Vic]

...

2. If I am a fully qualified clinician from Dubai have I exactly the same opportunity to come and work and settle in the UK as if I was a wholly unqualified individual from an EU country ??
​

Probably.
I doubt that we've turned away many qualified clinicians wherever they're from, and the unqualified EU citizen isn't going to be working as a bloody doctor.
Get a grip.

 

[Ban-jani]

How much would you reduce it by? Anyway it's more about "diversion" to Duncan Smith's "worthier causes" like helping British business (recover from Brexit). He's shameless - he thinks cutting immigration will force British firms to invest in training, but that doesn't happen unless you incentivise businesses (so they're not just training people who then find they're better qualified to get a better job elsewhere). You could of course have a national system, like industrial training boards, but the Tories largely killed them off in the 80s. Labour's view at the time? "At a time of unparalleled technological change, it will not only damage training in Britain but undermine our competitive position even further. When unemployment overall and school leaver unemployment in particular stand at record levels and output has already been reduced by 17½ per cent. since the Government came to power, what possible reason can there be to demolish a large section of our training arrangements?"

The government does incentivise on training, they offer the apprentice levy, which I’m currently doing a management course through.

It’s free for a business to use and the government takes the funding off businesses if it’s not used.

 

[BlueAnorak]

But how will it affect the real issues?

House prices
Diana was murdered
Maddy found
Brrrr blizzards on the way
Phew heatwave BBQ summer

That's what the express readers want to know

Don't forget when WW3 is going to start!

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

How much would you reduce it by? Anyway it's more about "diversion" to Duncan Smith's "worthier causes" like helping British business (recover from Brexit). He's shameless - he thinks cutting immigration will force British firms to invest in training, but that doesn't happen unless you incentivise businesses (so they're not just training people who then find they're better qualified to get a better job elsewhere). You could of course have a national system, like industrial training boards, but the Tories largely killed them off in the 80s. Labour's view at the time? "At a time of unparalleled technological change, it will not only damage training in Britain but undermine our competitive position even further. When unemployment overall and school leaver unemployment in particular stand at record levels and output has already been reduced by 17½ per cent. since the Government came to power, what possible reason can there be to demolish a large section of our training arrangements?"

I would not but if there is hardship in the U.K. it’s arguable that some of the U.K. taxes should be used here rather than overseas . However we should always maintain some overseas aid

 

[grunge]

I would not but if there is hardship in the U.K. it’s arguable that some of the U.K. taxes should be used here rather than overseas . However we should always maintain some overseas aid

The EU has a fund for aiding poor children/homeless etc in the EU, the Conservatives returned our portion unused. this issue is bigger than just funds unfortunately.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ee/news-parliament-2017/european-fund-letter/

Especially when they refuse to admit there is a problem

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48503170

 

[chedlee]

The delusion of control...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...at-unless-iran-stance-changes-says-trump-ally

This is a very excellent blog on the whole Brexit process:
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com

The latest post: https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2020/01/were-beginning-to-see-what-taking-back.html addresses the future somewhat.

Interestingly, towards the end he writes:

"From the outset of this blog I’ve been arguing – like many, many others – that the core problem with the Brexit Referendum was that it was a vote against something, EU membership, without being a vote for anything that had been defined. That has been the underlying truth in all the years that have followed. But, now, something is beginning to change. For with the ineluctable passage of events the meaning of Brexit is, gradually, starting to be defined.

But that definition is not being decided primarily by internal British political debate about what kind of country we want to be and what a post-Brexit economic and geo-political strategy would look like. Every opportunity to do that – during the Referendum campaign, as a post-referendum consensus-building process, or in the 2017 or 2019 General Elections – has been squandered. And Johnson’s ‘just get it done’ approach to Brexit compounds that error, making a virtue of the refusal to take the time and create the process to plan it. Not so much oven-ready as half-baked.

So instead, as we come within weeks of leaving the EU, Brexit is being defined for us by others whether in the EU or beyond. We don’t know what it will end up looking like - except for being economically poorer, politically weaker, and culturally meaner - and we won’t have very much say in it, although domestic choices can make it more or less bad. In ‘taking back control’ we have, in some fundamental way, lost control of our future. Over and over again we refused, collectively, to get real. Now we’re going to be made to do so."
​

 

[MCFC1993]

Last thing this country needs is the dick waving contest that is ringing the bell:

1) Brexit will still be a long way from being done, in fact we'll still have to fall in line with the EU for at least the next year.
2) We still have no deal and no solid deal on the table.
3) Just what is the point? The country is divided on this pretty much 50/50 give or take a few % either way, all this will do is divide us further.
4) Better things to spend it on, go and get a pint instead for fuck sake.

 

[Vic]

The government does incentivise on training, they offer the apprentice levy, which I’m currently doing a management course through.

It’s free for a business to use and the government takes the funding off businesses if it’s not used.

And they don't use it because.... ?

 

[journolud]

Lily Allen might be an idiot but it’s a bit harsh blaming her and her ilk for ruining families and our culture unless you can quantify that. What aspect of our culture is it you are bemoaning the ruination of? Maybe fox hunting, pearly kings and queens, the royal family, the streets full of homeless, the Union Jack and the bulldog?

 

[Ban-jani]

And they don't use it because.... ?

Laziness mostly.

It’s essentially the government giving money back to businesses, to train their staff and new recruits. Any company who has staff costs of over £3m are entitled to 95%-100% of costs for apprenticeship courses.

I’m currently doing one in how to manage a larger team.

 

[Ban-jani]

Lily Allen might be an idiot but it’s a bit harsh blaming her and her ilk for ruining families and our culture unless you can quantify that. What aspect of our culture is it you are bemoaning the ruination of? Maybe fox hunting, pearly kings and queens, the royal family, the streets full of homeless, the Union Jack and the bulldog?

In a word to your ridiculous points - no.

PS - learn to quote.

 

[journolud]

In a word to your ridiculous points - no.

PS - learn to quote.

Well seeing as you buried your responses in the original quote I couldn’t quote that so don’t need any lessons on it from you.

Care to quantify how Lily Allen’s woke was has broken up families and ruined our culture or was it an attempt at humour?

 

[Ban-jani]

Well seeing as you buried your responses in the original quote I couldn’t quote that so don’t need any lessons on it from you.

Care to quantify how Lily Allen’s woke was has broken up families and ruined our culture or was it an attempt at humour?

Well if you’d read any of my posts recently you’d know that I’m against fox hunting and I’m happy to have a referendum on the Royals once the Queen goes. The comments about a bulldog and a flag are cheap and ridiculous and an insult to critical thinking.

I didn’t say Allen was responsible, I said she epitomises modern liberalism that is. With their systematic policies of eradicating the family unit, one example being 4th wave corporate feminism and the insistence of turning women into wage slaves. If you want an example from Allen, her hysterical virtue signalling when she visited the Calais Jungle is one.

Any more questions?