Jump to content


Photo

Brexit


  • Please log in to reply
6617 replies to this topic

#61 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0528 AM

According to The Economist, a little more than half of the recent great wave of immigration to the UK has come from outside the EU. There's a one-off special case in there - the Lumley immigrants, who've been largely non-productive, greater than average users of health care, & have mostly settled in one of the most crowded & undersupplied with housing parts of the country. But even without them, the hordes of W. African cleaners, Filipina nurses & health care assistants, teaching assistants from Kenya, Bangladeshi fast (non-Bengali) food vendors who speak almost no English, etc. do make one wonder how we're supposed to suddenly stop receiving great numbers of immigrants just from leaving the EU. If a firm with offices in Newbury stops employing local housewives working part-time to clean its offices & hires a contract cleaning firm employing Nigerians, Ivoirians, etc., & state-owned bodies launch recruiting drives in the Philippines, what difference does EU membership make?

 

And then there's the little matter of our steel industry, where the people currently in power here blocked an EU initiative to impose anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese steel, & our industry has declined more than just about any other EU steel producer. How would leaving the EU make a positive difference?

 

And so on . . .


  • 0

#62 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,421 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0535 AM

It was estimated some months ago that EU migration only accounts for about 40 percent of the immigrants we receive. If thats true (and ive no way of verifying it) then it means we are still going to have 60 percent of the same problem even outside the EU. And in fact it would likely be worse because im sure the French will just use the opportunity to empty the camp in Calais and let them get on iwth it. So essentially we solving one problem, and making the main problem even worse than it already is by dumping relations with the people whom are most able to help us deal with it (Ie the Europeans) down the toilet.

 

Im sure there is a logic there. But im buggered if Im smart enough to see it.


  • 0

#63 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0619 AM

The logic was a policy of employment instead of productivity, combined with a benefits system which despite theoretical & sometimes actual strictness is often astonishingly willing to pay out generously to people who can't be arsed to work, & crazy government education policy, happily co-operated with by education bosses.

 

Despite occasional noises, vocational education has been neglected, leading to locals being short of skills for employment. Education has become more academically focused.

 

Government has aimed to increase university places, & made universities financially dependent on student fees which are not connected to the cost of courses. Universities have responded by offering more cheap-to-run courses (i.e. not sciences, engineering, etc.), & also easier courses to attract more applicants while not reducing pass rates.

 

Schools have done much the same, offering subjects which teenagers enjoy rather than those which might help them get a well-paid (& productive, & socially useful) job. What the hell is the point of an ordinary state secondary school specialising in 'Performing Arts'. an area which in past times when anyone who wanted to get into it had to fight, & pay, for training, was notorious for the surplus of candidates & the low rate of employment of its members? Why are our taxes being used to teach teenagers to be unemployed?

 

There used to be a lot of courses which combined a solid theoretical underpinning with extensive practical training. That was how nurses were trained, & of course doctors always have been & still are. There were also the ONC, HNC & HND, popular with employers because those with them both knew their way around a lab or workshop and knew why things worked. They still exist, but one would hardly know it. Interestingly, they're now rated higher compared to A-levels & degrees than when I went to university. And nurse training is now a degree, & is, I'm told, far more academic, with complaints that newly-qualified nurses know more theory but need training on the job on wards instead of being able to work pretty much unsupervised.

 

And to make up for these shortages of skills, what do we do? Why, we recruit from overseas! Very often, from outside the EU.


  • 0

#64 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,421 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0636 AM

The logic was a policy of employment instead of productivity, combined with a benefits system which despite theoretical & sometimes actual strictness is often astonishingly willing to pay out generously to people who can't be arsed to work, & crazy government education policy, happily co-operated with by education bosses.

 

Despite occasional noises, vocational education has been neglected, leading to locals being short of skills for employment. Education has become more academically focused.

 

Government has aimed to increase university places, & made universities financially dependent on student fees which are not connected to the cost of courses. Universities have responded by offering more cheap-to-run courses (i.e. not sciences, engineering, etc.), & also easier courses to attract more applicants while not reducing pass rates.

 

Schools have done much the same, offering subjects which teenagers enjoy rather than those which might help them get a well-paid (& productive, & socially useful) job. What the hell is the point of an ordinary state secondary school specialising in 'Performing Arts'. an area which in past times when anyone who wanted to get into it had to fight, & pay, for training, was notorious for the surplus of candidates & the low rate of employment of its members? Why are our taxes being used to teach teenagers to be unemployed?

 

There used to be a lot of courses which combined a solid theoretical underpinning with extensive practical training. That was how nurses were trained, & of course doctors always have been & still are. There were also the ONC, HNC & HND, popular with employers because those with them both knew their way around a lab or workshop and knew why things worked. They still exist, but one would hardly know it. Interestingly, they're now rated higher compared to A-levels & degrees than when I went to university. And nurse training is now a degree, & is, I'm told, far more academic, with complaints that newly-qualified nurses know more theory but need training on the job on wards instead of being able to work pretty much unsupervised.

 

And to make up for these shortages of skills, what do we do? Why, we recruit from overseas! Very often, from outside the EU.

 

Someone related the same problem, we were importing Polish brickies as a cheaper option than training our own. Not that I object to European immigration. But that the starting point ought to be training our own people BEFORE we fill in the gap in skills that cannot be filled.

 

I note with interest in America they teach auto shop in their high schools. Practical skills like that I was never taught at school, and we are talking 30 years ago now. You are right, its all academically focussed. Both main parties have been guilty of this, so again, its not down to politics, its just an absence of common sense. Why not teach them something useful like how to build a wall, or fix the plumbing whilst they are at it?

 

Importing outside the EU has the effect we are recruiting nurses and doctors from some of the most deprived places on earth, which we then make up for by giving them lots of investment to improve their lot. You cant help wonder why we dont put more money into training and cut out the middle man. But again, thats probably a very radical view. :)


  • 0

#65 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,205 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0651 AM

So should they stay or should they go?  Inquiring minds want to know. 


  • 0

#66 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,421 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0656 AM

Well lets put it this way, ive seen many excellent arguments to stay in, and not a single good one to leave that didnt include a large dollop of jingoism and a large amount of handwavium. So I have to stay in, and keep handbagging the EU to reform.

 

Besides, West Europeans are like 12 year olds. If we left, can you imagine the bloody mess they would make of the place? :)


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 04 April 2016 - 0657 AM.

  • 0

#67 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,640 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0722 AM

I'm not really seeing any compelling arguments on either side.

 

None of the politicians has any interest in actually telling the truth, either way. It's all either hyperbole or outright fabrication.

 

The BBC has been "fact checking" some of the statements made by both sides, which is not a bad effort, but I can't help but think that they're hobbled by both their heart-on-sleeve claim to impartiality and the subtext of their own champagne socialism undercurrent.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rendum-35603388

 

(Reality Check link)


  • 0

#68 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,640 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0919 AM

When international companies decide they want to bring pressure to bear, they just do it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rendum-35958693

 

(Airbus says that exit "may" influence (future) investment in the UK elements of its group). Remember that "Airbus" is what EADS was, not just the civil airliner company.


  • 0

#69 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,946 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0924 AM

Someone related the same problem, we were importing Polish brickies as a cheaper option than training our own. Not that I object to European immigration. But that the starting point ought to be training our own people BEFORE we fill in the gap in skills that cannot be filled.


A lot of businesses here would go out of business, if they had to pay American wages to Americans (or legal immigrants), not to mention taxes, benefits, etc. Illegals are simply one leg of the black economy barstool.

 

I find it ironic that if 4 college students try to live in a 2 BR apartment, armed authorities show up to evict. 15 illegals in a 1 BR? No problem. Amusingly, Undocumented Americans™ and Repurposed Americans™ with assumed names and SSNs are universally underemployed, because few seem to work enough to earn benefits.
 

I suspect that an honest evaluation of legal and illegal immigrant employment would show that if the rate is higher than some threshold, the regulatory and tax burden is not sustainable.


  • 0

#70 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,421 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0925 AM

They were warning this in the Bristol area some months ago. In fairness, there isnt a lot of point keeping Filton open now they are building on the Runway. From their point of view they may as well move to Toulouse and cut down on transportation costs.


  • 0

#71 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,946 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0927 AM


Dang it, deja vu all over again.
  • 0

#72 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,421 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 0933 AM

Im not sure if we have the same problem with illegals here as America has, but I was interested to read some months ago that Indian resturants in the UK were starting to go bust. The reason? Due to the clamp down on immigration, they were not finding it so easy to bring their relatives in from India to work in the Kitchen, and were evidently unwilling to train anyone (Indian community would strike me as a good start) from this country in order to make up the manpower. Go figure.


  • 0

#73 BillB

BillB

    Scooter Trash Gunphobic, apparently

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,278 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 1354 PM

So should they stay or should they go?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

We need to go primarily on the grounds of sovereignty; since 1973 when Heath took the UK into the EEC on the back of deliberate lies politicians of all stripes have blithely handed over our freedoms purchased at great cost by previous generations to a degree that would see folk on your side of the Pond reaching for the guns & nooses...

 

BillB


  • 0

#74 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,497 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 1412 PM

Im not sure if we have the same problem with illegals here as America has, but I was interested to read some months ago that Indian resturants in the UK were starting to go bust. The reason? Due to the clamp down on immigration, they were not finding it so easy to bring their relatives in from India to work in the Kitchen, and were evidently unwilling to train anyone (Indian community would strike me as a good start) from this country in order to make up the manpower. Go figure.

 

Currygate? :o :blink: :o
 


  • 0

#75 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 1559 PM

It's not so much relatives, as properly trained cooks. They're reluctant to train because (1) it's difficult & costs money & (2) it's hard to recruit trainees in the UK because the pay & working conditions when they're trained are poor. They're offering burger flipper pay for skilled cooks, & British-born Indians, Bangladeshis,  etc. want more.

 

Basically, the standard business model for Indian restaurants in the UK depends on paying too little to sustain recruitment & training of decent cooks in the UK. It requires recruitment & training somewhere cheaper & with much lower pay, such as Bangladesh.

 

There are restaurants that don't follow that model, but any that are both cheap & selling half-decent food probably do.


  • 0

#76 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,401 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 1626 PM

 

So should they stay or should they go?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

We need to go primarily on the grounds of sovereignty; since 1973 when Heath took the UK into the EEC on the back of deliberate lies politicians of all stripes have blithely handed over our freedoms purchased at great cost by previous generations to a degree that would see folk on your side of the Pond reaching for the guns & nooses...

 

BillB

 

 

I was under the impression that GB was chock full of silly rules and regulations restricting freedom.


  • 0

#77 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,421 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 0227 AM

It's not so much relatives, as properly trained cooks. They're reluctant to train because (1) it's difficult & costs money & (2) it's hard to recruit trainees in the UK because the pay & working conditions when they're trained are poor. They're offering burger flipper pay for skilled cooks, & British-born Indians, Bangladeshis,  etc. want more.

 

Basically, the standard business model for Indian restaurants in the UK depends on paying too little to sustain recruitment & training of decent cooks in the UK. It requires recruitment & training somewhere cheaper & with much lower pay, such as Bangladesh.

 

There are restaurants that don't follow that model, but any that are both cheap & selling half-decent food probably do.

Perhaps, but if they all cooperated to fund a college place for it, then it wouldnt be an issue. Or get the Government to help fund it as part of regional development.

 

Ultimately bringing in cheap labour from India is unsustainable. They should have been able to see that this would one day change years ago, but who has shown any interest in dealing with it?


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 05 April 2016 - 0239 AM.

  • 0

#78 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,421 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 0228 AM

 

 

So should they stay or should they go?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

We need to go primarily on the grounds of sovereignty; since 1973 when Heath took the UK into the EEC on the back of deliberate lies politicians of all stripes have blithely handed over our freedoms purchased at great cost by previous generations to a degree that would see folk on your side of the Pond reaching for the guns & nooses...

 

BillB

 

 

I was under the impression that GB was chock full of silly rules and regulations restricting freedom.

 

Indeed. We are too fond of blaming our continental friends for all kinds of silliness. We are a European leader in the ministry of silly rules.

http://www.telegraph...estershire.html


  • 0

#79 BillB

BillB

    Scooter Trash Gunphobic, apparently

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,278 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 0416 AM

 

 

So should they stay or should they go?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

We need to go primarily on the grounds of sovereignty; since 1973 when Heath took the UK into the EEC on the back of deliberate lies politicians of all stripes have blithely handed over our freedoms purchased at great cost by previous generations to a degree that would see folk on your side of the Pond reaching for the guns & nooses...

 

BillB

 

 

I was under the impression that GB was chock full of silly rules and regulations restricting freedom.

 

Quite possibly, altho I very much doubt you could prove that is an exclusively GB trait among First World countries. However, as I thought ought to have been clear from my comment, I wasn't talking about pettifogging internal bureaucracy, I was referring to the loss of national sovereignty, which is not the same thing at all.

 

BillB


  • 0

#80 BillB

BillB

    Scooter Trash Gunphobic, apparently

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,278 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 0419 AM

 

 

 

So should they stay or should they go?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

We need to go primarily on the grounds of sovereignty; since 1973 when Heath took the UK into the EEC on the back of deliberate lies politicians of all stripes have blithely handed over our freedoms purchased at great cost by previous generations to a degree that would see folk on your side of the Pond reaching for the guns & nooses...

 

BillB

 

 

I was under the impression that GB was chock full of silly rules and regulations restricting freedom.

 

Indeed. We are too fond of blaming our continental friends for all kinds of silliness. We are a European leader in the ministry of silly rules.

http://www.telegraph...estershire.html

 

Quite so, the EU provides a very convenient camouflage for home grown incompetence and meddling so a Brexit would remove that camouflage and expose the reality for scrutiny and censure at the ballot box.  :)

 

BillB


  • 0