Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters rate Bernie as an 84% chance in Nevada but level peggi

2456

Comments

  • stodgestodge Posts: 6,336
    Evening all :)

    I imagine most of the rational Conservatives have already worked out that as far as the EU is concerned, it's a case of heads we win, tails we also win.

    If a deal is done, it will be trumpeted by the Johnson faithful as a triumph for their leader and we will once again be invited to put rational discourse and scrutiny aside and "unite behind the Government".

    If no deal is done (and of course Johnson has already ruled out any form of extension no matter how practical such an extension might be) and we face WTO+ trading terms with all that flows, the pro-Johnson brigade will line up to blame the perfidious Europeans knowing that is a guaranteed vote winner.

    There is of course the possibility that the economic reality of WTO+ and its impact on business may cause our euphoria to crack round the edges.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361
    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.
    I think we're done with EU membership forever.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,495

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.
    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.
    Surely "No Deal" is all in the EU's favour? If we fail to get a deal then it is far worse for us and just highlights the benefits of membership.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,693

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Average wages exceed 2008 at last: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51543521
    ...
    .
    ...

    We want a high wage, high productivity economy. This is a strong trend in the wrong direction.

    It would be good to see a breakdown of workers in the ‘gig’ economy by nationality. I’d guess that a large proportion are EU migrants. Numbers of British citizens would be very useful.

    The U.K. productivity stats have been killed by large-scale unskilled and semi-skilled immigration over the past decade.
    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.
    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    On your last paragraph - not really. I still remember the Punjabi newspaper I found on a bus, complaining that the influx of Eastern Europeans was driving down wages for Punjabi builders. Which was quite rational. Immigrants aren't one coherent block with a loyalty to each other.
    There is nothing irrational about being an anti-immgration immigrant. Once you're safely here.
  • eadric said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnier now saying we can't have a Canada style FTA because of our 'proximity' to the EU, so essentially we have to stay in the single market and a customs union in all but name for a trade deal.

    In which case WTO+ terms looks inevitable

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

    We asupplicants.

    The EU made.

    Presumably it's possible that the whole Brexit thing will become swallowed up in a global near-disaster of disease.
    The number of deaths and new cases were both down again today. It's possible (but not certain) that we are passed the peak of this already.
    One doctor I heard said it would be over by late March as the weather warms up
    For goodness sake @HYUFD DO NOT read the latest issue of The Economist.

    Line picked at random: "...a united Ireland within a decade or so is a real - and growing - possibility."

    They didn't mention that on your Bushmills tour I bet.
    Except it isnt

    https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/less-than-third-want-a-united-ireland-reveals-study-of-voters-38966196.html?fbclid=IwAR0eysvXRgsA9NJvAIN-AGC1B5ceRk95kbwg_TVQ26QPlwobSGwvHKUcTIg
    Trying to stay polite here. Let's try an analogy.

    That female.
    Over 70% of non sectarian Alliance leaning voters back the Union as do 99% of DUP and UUP voters



    The Irish electing Sinn Fein, followed by one of their new MPs then shouting "Up the Ra!" has probably done more to save the Union than the Tory party in its entire history.

    Neutral voters in NI will abhor this, and will want to preserve the status quo, the GFA, and the Peace. = the Union

    Much of the poll was conducted before the Irish election, so there is probably more to it than the Sinn Fein surge, though that must be a factor. However, a lot will depend on what happens next, I suspect. If the government reneges on the WA, which is looking increasingly likely, then there will be a hard border on the island of Ireland; but if it doesn't, the island of Ireland will be a distinct and single customs area to GB with the rules set largely in Brussels and Dublin. Either way, you can see a potential direction of travel towards unification - especially as the poll also shows a lot of Don't Knows. We live in interesting times.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.

    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If we allowed only the higher-rate taxpayers to move to the U.K., but not the minimum wage workers, big issue sellers and benefits claimants, instead training UK citizens to upskill, would the U.K. GDP per capita be higher or lower than it is now?
    You assume competence in the immigration service even to pose the question. Quite how they are going to work out how to pick winners without an extremely intrusive process is wholly unclear. Meanwhile anyone actually highly capable is just going to choose a country that welcomes immigrants.

    At present Britain lets in a group that in aggregate greatly benefits it without putting up barriers. In all probability your barricades would leave Britain much worse off.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Average wages exceed 2008 at last: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51543521
    ...

    We want a high wage, high productivity economy. This is a strong trend in the wrong direction.

    It would be good to see a breakdown of workers in the ‘gig’ economy by nationality. I’d guess that a large proportion are EU migrants. Numbers of British citizens would be very useful.

    The U.K. productivity stats have been killed by large-scale unskilled and semi-skilled immigration over the past decade.
    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.
    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If we allowed only the higher-rate taxpayers to move to the U.K., but not the minimum wage workers, big issue sellers and benefits claimants, instead training UK citizens to upskill, would the U.K. GDP per capita be higher or lower than it is now?
    There's also the question of sustainability.

    If we implemented compulsory contraception, then fewer babies would be born, and GDP per Head would rise, and we wouldn't be wasting a bunch of resources on health and education for kids.

    But it wouldn't be sustainable, because eventually the ratio of workers to retirees would get worse. And worse. And worse.

    So any analysis of "per head" must include long-term demographics.
  • The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.
    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.
    Surely "No Deal" is all in the EU's favour? If we fail to get a deal then it is far worse for us and just highlights the benefits of membership.

    I think so, but many others disagree. We are going to have to find out who is right, I suspect, before we get anywhere.

  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The ‘problem’ is that companies would rather employ a trained EU citizen than train up a UK citizen, which costs them more money. Said untrained UK citizens then find themselves part of a large and growing underclass, and vote for Brexit.

    Ummm...

    This is where I get confused. We don't want skilled migrants, because we want British companies to train people up.

    But then we definitely don't want unskilled migrants. Yet, if we've trained all the Brits up, then they're probably not going to want to work as baristas or house cleaners or nannies or care workers.

    You see, this is why I like "the market". Rather than the government saying "we want x thousand people with these skills, and y thousand with those", we simply say "migrants to the UK pay £x,000/year for compulsory health insurance".

    This means that a skilled EU worker will need to be sufficiently skilled to effectively overcome the additional tax. And the unskilled will be discouraged, but not banned. Effectively, Brits are automatically £x,000 cheaper to employ. You'll choose them in preference. But if the Labour market is really tight, then at those times you can import people - which is preferable to moving production off-shore. It's naturally self balancing.

    And the value of "x" can be changed. If we find we're struggling to attract people, it can be moved down. And if we find that there is pressure on services, it can be moved up.
    I 100% agree with you, but with one exception. If we are struggling to recruit for certain key areas that are of strategic national importance (eg the NHS) then we can waive that fee. But if we're struggling to recruit for that area we should be looking to the whole world and not relying on free European migration to fill those vacancies.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102

    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.

    You've just proved why you're wrong.

    IF just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax and IF you wish to maximise income tax then aggregate is the worst possible metric to use. Instead a system to maximise the proportion of high tax payers would be the right motive. 98.6% of potential migrants are not contributing via that, if that is your incentive.
    Spectacular logic fail.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211
    edited February 18
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The ‘problem’ is that companies would rather employ a trained EU citizen than train up a UK citizen, which costs them more money. Said untrained UK citizens then find themselves part of a large and growing underclass, and vote for Brexit.

    Ummm...

    This is where I get confused. We don't want skilled migrants, because we want British companies to train people up.

    But then we definitely don't want unskilled migrants. Yet, if we've trained all the Brits up, then they're probably not going to want to work as baristas or house cleaners or nannies or care workers.

    You see, this is why I like "the market". Rather than the government saying "we want x thousand people with these skills, and y thousand with those", we simply say "migrants to the UK pay £x,000/year for compulsory health insurance".

    This means that a skilled EU worker will need to be sufficiently skilled to effectively overcome the additional tax. And the unskilled will be discouraged, but not banned. Effectively, Brits are automatically £x,000 cheaper to employ. You'll choose them in preference. But if the Labour market is really tight, then at those times you can import people - which is preferable to moving production off-shore. It's naturally self balancing.

    And the value of "x" can be changed. If we find we're struggling to attract people, it can be moved down. And if we find that there is pressure on services, it can be moved up.
    I think that there‘s level of income at which one is a net contributor to society, and immigrants individually should either be earning more than this level or provide a key skill for which demand has been identified.

    Selling the Big Issue, while claiming tax credits and housing benefit in central London does not meet this threshold.

    IMO the last decade has seen high immigration levels both holding down wages among the low skilled and increasing demand on public services such as roads, healthcare and housing.

    I like your market-based approach, provided it’s enforceable - and doesn’t discriminate between citizens of different countries.
  • eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,495
    edited February 18

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,387
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.
    The EEC managed to get along pretty well without us for 15 years before 1973.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK

    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.

    Your final statement makes absolute sense.

    PB Leavers and I suspect similarly minded politicians seem to still be fighting a war they have just won.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,317
    edited February 18
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The ‘problem’ is that companies would rather employ a trained EU citizen than train up a UK citizen, which costs them more money. Said untrained UK citizens then find themselves part of a large and growing underclass, and vote for Brexit.

    Ummm...

    This is where I get confused. We don't want skilled migrants, because we want British companies to train people up.

    But then we definitely don't want unskilled migrants. Yet, if we've trained all the Brits up, then they're probably not going to want to work as baristas or house cleaners or nannies or care workers.

    You see, this is why I like "the market". Rather than the government saying "we want x thousand people with these skills, and y thousand with those", we simply say "migrants to the UK pay £x,000/year for compulsory health insurance".

    This means that a skilled EU worker will need to be sufficiently skilled to effectively overcome the additional tax. And the unskilled will be discouraged, but not banned. Effectively, Brits are automatically £x,000 cheaper to employ. You'll choose them in preference. But if the Labour market is really tight, then at those times you can import people - which is preferable to moving production off-shore. It's naturally self balancing.

    And the value of "x" can be changed. If we find we're struggling to attract people, it can be moved down. And if we find that there is pressure on services, it can be moved up.
    I think that there‘s level of income at which one is a net contributor to society, and immigrants individually should either be earning more than this level or provide a key skill for which demand has been identified.

    Selling the Big Issue, while claiming tax credits and housing benefit in central London does not meet this threshold.

    IMO the last decade has seen high immigration levels both holding down wages among the low skilled and increasing demand on public services such as roads, healthcare and housing.

    I like your market-based approach, provided it’s enforceable.
    Germany has seen higher immigration over the last decade, and wages continue to be higher ; and most EU migrants have been contributors, rather than takers from the economy.

    Many high-paid and higher-rate taxpayer EU migrants have already left.
  • Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.

    You've just proved why you're wrong.

    IF just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax and IF you wish to maximise income tax then aggregate is the worst possible metric to use. Instead a system to maximise the proportion of high tax payers would be the right motive. 98.6% of potential migrants are not contributing via that, if that is your incentive.
    Spectacular logic fail.
    Yours is the logic fail. If 1.4% are relevant and 98.6% are irrelevant then why look at the aggregate rather than the individual?
  • eadriceadric Posts: 2,004

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102

    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.

    You've just proved why you're wrong.

    IF just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax and IF you wish to maximise income tax then aggregate is the worst possible metric to use. Instead a system to maximise the proportion of high tax payers would be the right motive. 98.6% of potential migrants are not contributing via that, if that is your incentive.
    Spectacular logic fail.
    Yours is the logic fail. If 1.4% are relevant and 98.6% are irrelevant then why look at the aggregate rather than the individual?
    You’re confusing percentages and absolute amounts. I’m honestly embarrassed for you.
  • Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.

    You've just proved why you're wrong.

    IF just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax and IF you wish to maximise income tax then aggregate is the worst possible metric to use. Instead a system to maximise the proportion of high tax payers would be the right motive. 98.6% of potential migrants are not contributing via that, if that is your incentive.
    Spectacular logic fail.
    Yours is the logic fail. If 1.4% are relevant and 98.6% are irrelevant then why look at the aggregate rather than the individual?
    You’re confusing percentages and absolute amounts. I’m honestly embarrassed for you.
    No I'm not.
  • The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK

    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.

    Your final statement makes absolute sense.

    PB Leavers and I suspect similarly minded politicians seem to still be fighting a war they have just won.

    That's how it feels. We're out. Now what? We have regained control, we can't complain that others are acting in their best interests when that is exactly what Brexit is supposed to allow us to do.

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,061

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.
    I think we're done with EU membership forever.
    A bold rather silly statement
  • eadric said:

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."

    Yep, yoiu're right. There are exemptions to the Singapore ban:

    https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1847899/singapore-to-suspend-entry-to-travellers-including-transit-passengers

    The Japanese one is regional:

    https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/5481d14af447-urgent-japan-extends-entry-ban-to-visitors-from-chinas-zhejiang-province.html

    I guess the Russia move may lead to similar ones elsewhere.



  • eadriceadric Posts: 2,004

    eadric said:

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."

    Yep, yoiu're right. There are exemptions to the Singapore ban:

    https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1847899/singapore-to-suspend-entry-to-travellers-including-transit-passengers

    The Japanese one is regional:

    https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/5481d14af447-urgent-japan-extends-entry-ban-to-visitors-from-chinas-zhejiang-province.html

    I guess the Russia move may lead to similar ones elsewhere.



    Really sad. In London Chinese restaurants are reporting a 40-50% drop in business.

    The ripple effects are endless. If it goes on much longer the world will surely tip into recession.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The ‘problem’ is that companies would rather employ a trained EU citizen than train up a UK citizen, which costs them more money. Said untrained UK citizens then find themselves part of a large and growing underclass, and vote for Brexit.

    Ummm...

    This is where I get confused. We don't want skilled migrants, because we want British companies to train people up.

    But then we definitely don't want unskilled migrants. Yet, if we've trained all the Brits up, then they're probably not going to want to work as baristas or house cleaners or nannies or care workers.

    You see, this is why I like "the market". Rather than the government saying "we want x thousand people with these skills, and y thousand with those", we simply say "migrants to the UK pay £x,000/year for compulsory health insurance".

    This means that a skilled EU worker will need to be sufficiently skilled to effectively overcome the additional tax. And the unskilled will be discouraged, but not banned. Effectively, Brits are automatically £x,000 cheaper to employ. You'll choose them in preference. But if the Labour market is really tight, then at those times you can import people - which is preferable to moving production off-shore. It's naturally self balancing.

    And the value of "x" can be changed. If we find we're struggling to attract people, it can be moved down. And if we find that there is pressure on services, it can be moved up.
    I think that there‘s level of income at which one is a net contributor to society, and immigrants individually should either be earning more than this level or provide a key skill for which demand has been identified.

    Selling the Big Issue, while claiming tax credits and housing benefit in central London does not meet this threshold.

    IMO the last decade has seen high immigration levels both holding down wages among the low skilled and increasing demand on public services such as roads, healthcare and housing.

    I like your market-based approach, provided it’s enforceable.
    It's easily enforceable on people who are law-abiding.

    And those that are not law-abiding (such as Albanians working as illegal car washers), the problem exists with or without this plan.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.

    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If we allowed only the higher-rate taxpayers to move to the U.K., but not the minimum wage workers, big issue sellers and benefits claimants, instead training UK citizens to upskill, would the U.K. GDP per capita be higher or lower than it is now?
    You assume competence in the immigration service even to pose the question. Quite how they are going to work out how to pick winners without an extremely intrusive process is wholly unclear. Meanwhile anyone actually highly capable is just going to choose a country that welcomes immigrants.

    At present Britain lets in a group that in aggregate greatly benefits it without putting up barriers. In all probability your barricades would leave Britain much worse off.
    We take it out of the hands of the immigration services and leave it to businesses to pick winners and pay any associated fee like @rcs1000 suggested.

    Liverpool have successfully recruited players from the UK, EU and elsewhere without needing "immigration service" to select them. Virgil Van Dijk is here pushing up the UK's average wages not because the immigration service chose him, nor because of free movement, but instead because he was recruited.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    I don't have access to the same amount of telepathy as everybody on here seems to possess, so I can't tell you what the EU's motives are. However I can tell you what its actions are. And in the seven years we have been negotiating with the EU, three things have been constant.

    1.) It does not care what UK voters think.
    2.) It does care what the UK PM thinks.
    3.) It does not respond to approaches to individual countries.

    In short, it is a cohesive entity that deals at government level or above.

    Given that, I don't think your prognosis is correct. It won't change its approach to curry favour with the electorate, and it won't split into bits at our entreaties.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."

    Yep, yoiu're right. There are exemptions to the Singapore ban:

    https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1847899/singapore-to-suspend-entry-to-travellers-including-transit-passengers

    The Japanese one is regional:

    https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/5481d14af447-urgent-japan-extends-entry-ban-to-visitors-from-chinas-zhejiang-province.html

    I guess the Russia move may lead to similar ones elsewhere.



    Really sad. In London Chinese restaurants are reporting a 40-50% drop in business.

    The ripple effects are endless. If it goes on much longer the world will surely tip into recession.
    And everyone said Cameron was just blethering on with Project Fear...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.
    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.
    Surely "No Deal" is all in the EU's favour? If we fail to get a deal then it is far worse for us and just highlights the benefits of membership.
    There is no "we" or "us" as far as you're concerned.

    You've scarpered to Ireland and now display your allegiance accordingly.

    So, having voted with your feet, your views can be heavily discounted.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK

    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.

    They don't believe No Deal is in their interests. Not in the slightest, it would scupper any chance of a European recovery for several years and greatly sour the geopolitical milk across Europe for defence and security purposes.

    They are overplaying their hand in their belief Boris will fold (and they think he kind of did in October last year) to their Deal at the last minute.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,317
    edited February 18

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK

    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.

    They don't believe No Deal is in their interests. Not in the slightest, it would scupper any chance of a European recovery for several years and greatly sour the geopolitical milk across Europe for defence and security purposes.

    They are overplaying their hand in their belief Boris will fold (and they think he kind of did in October last year) to their Deal at the last minute.
    It would scupper a European recovery, but quite possibly cause a depression in the UK. Thus out of the two parties acting dangerously, Boris is the one overplaying his hand to the greater extent.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361
    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.
    I think we're done with EU membership forever.
    A bold rather silly statement
    A quick return would suit me, but it certainly isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

    If Brexit is dreadful, Boris and the Conservatives are not going to hold their hands up. The best you can hope for is a very close alignment, but we will remain technically out. That too I suspect is wishful thinking.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.

    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If wthan it is now?
    You immigrants.

    At present Britain lets in a group that in aggregate greatly benefits it without putting up barriers. In all probability your barricades would leave Britain much worse off.
    We take it out of the hands of the immigration services and leave it to businesses to pick winners and pay any associated fee like @rcs1000 suggested.

    Liverpool have successfully recruited players from the UK, EU and elsewhere without needing "immigration service" to select them. Virgil Van Dijk is here pushing up the UK's average wages not because the immigration service chose him, nor because of free movement, but instead because he was recruited.

    He originally came to the UK in 2013 to play for Celtic thanks to free movement. He then moved to Southampton and from there to Liverpool

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.
  • nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.
    I think we're done with EU membership forever.
    A bold rather silly statement
    A quick return would suit me, but it certainly isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

    If Brexit is dreadful, Boris and the Conservatives are not going to hold their hands up. The best you can hope for is a very close alignment, but we will remain technically out. That too I suspect is wishful thinking.

    Now we're out, no-one serious is going to propose going back in for a very long time. There are many other more important things to be doing. The only way we go back in from here in my lifetime is if Brexit is an absolute catastrophe of epochal proportions. And that is not going to happen.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnier now saying we can't have a Canada style FTA because of our 'proximity' to the EU, so essentially we have to stay in the single market and a customs union in all but name for a trade deal.

    In which case WTO+ terms looks inevitable

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

    We are going to get this crap every week until the end of June, when the EU side realise that the deadline isn’t going to be extended and the UK is prepared to walk away if the EU continue to see the UK as supplicants.
    Actually, we will get this crap until October when both sides absentmindedly waltz to no deal because they are both very arrogant and think the other side will blink.

    I hope the EU know what risks they’re running. The Euro might not survive another nasty recession.
    This is classic Stephen R Covey stuff.

    Both the UK and the EU are aiming for win-lose deals, for political purposes, rather than win-win. The EU arrangement might work if the UK had co-decision making capability and votes as part of a broader European "common market only" approach (what we voted for originally) but the EU isn't interested in flexibility. The UK is too interested in being seen to defeat the EU in turn.

    So the result is that we'll get lose-lose (ie. no deal).
    Not sure that’s true re: win-lose. The problem is what they see as their starting point. Which doesn’t seem to be the same. The U.K. starting point is no deal. The EU appears to be something closer to the existing transition period position.
    The EU want to bring the UK to heel on their terms, pour encourager les autres and to avoid any threat on their flank. They want to use the leverage of the cliff-edge end of the transition to achieve that win. It's entirely negative, and depends on the UK folding in a number of areas - there's no thought of a constructive win-win relationship for the long-term.

    So that's called a win-lose strategy.
  • If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,495

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.
    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.
    Surely "No Deal" is all in the EU's favour? If we fail to get a deal then it is far worse for us and just highlights the benefits of membership.
    There is no "we" or "us" as far as you're concerned.

    You've scarpered to Ireland and now display your allegiance accordingly.

    So, having voted with your feet, your views can be heavily discounted.
    Actually, I get to play both sides of the fence if it suits me. :tongue:
  • viewcode said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    I don't have access to the same amount of telepathy as everybody on here seems to possess, so I can't tell you what the EU's motives are. However I can tell you what its actions are. And in the seven years we have been negotiating with the EU, three things have been constant.

    1.) It does not care what UK voters think.
    2.) It does care what the UK PM thinks.
    3.) It does not respond to approaches to individual countries.

    In short, it is a cohesive entity that deals at government level or above.

    Given that, I don't think your prognosis is correct. It won't change its approach to curry favour with the electorate, and it won't split into bits at our entreaties.
    I do not agree. No deal will be seen as a failure by both sides and a lot of damage will occur and the EU will be just as responsible. Also the politicians are going to have to face the anger of the tens of thousands jobs lost in the EU and business anger across the EU. Indeed it could result in big splits in the EU Country by Country.

    Any idea the EU will not suffer is naive
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    And me who voted remain
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,553
    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."

    Yep, yoiu're right. There are exemptions to the Singapore ban:

    https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1847899/singapore-to-suspend-entry-to-travellers-including-transit-passengers

    The Japanese one is regional:

    https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/5481d14af447-urgent-japan-extends-entry-ban-to-visitors-from-chinas-zhejiang-province.html

    I guess the Russia move may lead to similar ones elsewhere.



    Really sad. In London Chinese restaurants are reporting a 40-50% drop in business.

    The ripple effects are endless. If it goes on much longer the world will surely tip into recession.
    Good. We can blame it on Brexit.
  • The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.

    I agree we share a lot of interests. But politically and economically the EU will make the calls it thinks are best for it with no reference to the UK. Clearly, a deal makes the most sense for both sides, but botjh sides seem to prefer not to have one than to compromise in any serious way. It seems we will all need to experience the consequences of that before the proper dealmaking begins.

  • eadriceadric Posts: 2,004
    Sorry to bang on, but this is just a beautiful bit of coronavirus data from Singapore.

    Every case mapped and traced

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/f5rnl7/new_latest_singapore_cluster_tracing_chart/

    Singapore is concerning in another way. It's a hot tropical country. Yet the disease has taken hold there. Which suggests Covid is not just a winter thing, and may not naturally die out in the Spring.

    Hmm.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,473
    edited February 18

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.

    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If wthan it is now?
    You immigrants.

    At present Britain lets in a group that in aggregate greatly benefits it without putting up barriers. In all probability your barricades would leave Britain much worse off.
    We take it out of the hands of the immigration services and leave it to businesses to pick winners and pay any associated fee like @rcs1000 suggested.

    Liverpool have successfully recruited players from the UK, EU and elsewhere without needing "immigration service" to select them. Virgil Van Dijk is here pushing up the UK's average wages not because the immigration service chose him, nor because of free movement, but instead because he was recruited.

    He originally came to the UK in 2013 to play for Celtic thanks to free movement. He then moved to Southampton and from there to Liverpool

    Free?

    Actually he originally came to the UK thanks to Celtic paying £2.6 million to recruit him. I don't think a £5000 migration fee would have put Celtic off considering they paid £2.6 million.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,061

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    Fluent English? What proportion of the UK indigenous population can speak fluent English?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.
    I think we're done with EU membership forever.
    A bold rather silly statement
    A quick return would suit me, but it certainly isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

    If Brexit is dreadful, Boris and the Conservatives are not going to hold their hands up. The best you can hope for is a very close alignment, but we will remain technically out. That too I suspect is wishful thinking.

    Now we're out, no-one serious is going to propose going back in for a very long time. There are many other more important things to be doing. The only way we go back in from here in my lifetime is if Brexit is an absolute catastrophe of epochal proportions. And that is not going to happen.

    Even if Brexit is catastrophic it will be attributed to something else.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    ydoethur said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."

    Yep, yoiu're right. There are exemptions to the Singapore ban:

    https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1847899/singapore-to-suspend-entry-to-travellers-including-transit-passengers

    The Japanese one is regional:

    https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/5481d14af447-urgent-japan-extends-entry-ban-to-visitors-from-chinas-zhejiang-province.html

    I guess the Russia move may lead to similar ones elsewhere.



    Really sad. In London Chinese restaurants are reporting a 40-50% drop in business.

    The ripple effects are endless. If it goes on much longer the world will surely tip into recession.
    And everyone said Cameron was just blethering on with Project Fear...
    Dura_Ace said:

    Good. We can blame it on Brexit.

    QED...
  • nichomar said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    Fluent English? What proportion of the UK indigenous population can speak fluent English?
    That's irrelevant. We don't get a decision on whether the indigenous population can stay here or not. Unless you want to return to the days of Transportation?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    nichomar said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    Fluent English? What proportion of the UK indigenous population can speak fluent English?
    How big a proportion of the population do Boris Johnson and John Prescott count for?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.

    I agree we share a lot of interests. But politically and economically the EU will make the calls it thinks are best for it with no reference to the UK. Clearly, a deal makes the most sense for both sides, but botjh sides seem to prefer not to have one than to compromise in any serious way. It seems we will all need to experience the consequences of that before the proper dealmaking begins.

    The first two sentences applies to any act of international diplomacy or negotiation. It remains to be see how much room for movement there is on the third (I suspect a bit - Johnson's Government is becoming increasingly ideological looking, but this may be partly for show).

    It's possible your last sentence is correct. If it fails this year, I suspect we will have a deal by 2024 (i.e. before the next GE) because it will be too stupid not to do one with both sides having gone through and adjusted to a No Deal situation for 12-18 months.

    By that time, of course, No Deal will have lost its scariness and leverage as we'll be in a new status quo, the EU anger may have abated and they'll be able to argue a point has been made, so a Deal will be about growth but Spain and Greece will still probably try to put silly stuff in about Gibraltar and the Elgin Marbles.

    The issue may be more the UK who could be a bit "talk to the hand" by then.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    Dura_Ace said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."

    Yep, yoiu're right. There are exemptions to the Singapore ban:

    https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1847899/singapore-to-suspend-entry-to-travellers-including-transit-passengers

    The Japanese one is regional:

    https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/5481d14af447-urgent-japan-extends-entry-ban-to-visitors-from-chinas-zhejiang-province.html

    I guess the Russia move may lead to similar ones elsewhere.



    Really sad. In London Chinese restaurants are reporting a 40-50% drop in business.

    The ripple effects are endless. If it goes on much longer the world will surely tip into recession.
    Good. We can blame it on Brexit.
    You're a fast learner.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.
    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.
    Surely "No Deal" is all in the EU's favour? If we fail to get a deal then it is far worse for us and just highlights the benefits of membership.
    There is no "we" or "us" as far as you're concerned.

    You've scarpered to Ireland and now display your allegiance accordingly.

    So, having voted with your feet, your views can be heavily discounted.
    Actually, I get to play both sides of the fence if it suits me. :tongue:
    You can do whatever you like. Of course you can.

    And we can judge accordingly.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.

    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If wthan it is now?
    You immigrants.

    At present Britain lets in a group that in aggregate greatly benefits it without putting up barriers. In all probability your barricades would leave Britain much worse off.
    We take it out of the hands of the immigration services and leave it to businesses to pick winners and pay any associated fee like @rcs1000 suggested.

    Liverpool recruited.

    He originally came to the UK in 2013 to play for Celtic thanks to free movement. He then moved to Southampton and from there to Liverpool

    Free?

    Actually he originally came to the UK thanks to Celtic paying £2.6 million to recruit him. I don't think a £5000 migration fee would have put Celtic off considering they paid £2.6 million.

    Until 2015, non-EU foreign footballers needed to have played 75% or more of their countries' internationals over the previous two years in order to get a UK work visa. As van Dijk had not played for the Netherlands when he joined Celtic the only thing that got him in was his EU citizenship.

  • Liverpool 1 down after 5 minutes
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The ‘problem’ is that companies would rather employ a trained EU citizen than train up a UK citizen, which costs them more money. Said untrained UK citizens then find themselves part of a large and growing underclass, and vote for Brexit.

    Ummm...

    This is where I get confused. We don't want skilled migrants, because we want British companies to train people up.

    But then we definitely don't want unskilled migrants. Yet, if we've trained all the Brits up, then they're probably not going to want to work as baristas or house cleaners or nannies or care workers.

    You see, this is why I like "the market". Rather than the government saying "we want x thousand people with these skills, and y thousand with those", we simply say "migrants to the UK pay £x,000/year for compulsory health insurance".

    This means that a skilled EU worker will need to be sufficiently skilled to effectively overcome the additional tax. And the unskilled will be discouraged, but not banned. Effectively, Brits are automatically £x,000 cheaper to employ. You'll choose them in preference. But if the Labour market is really tight, then at those times you can import people - which is preferable to moving production off-shore. It's naturally self balancing.

    And the value of "x" can be changed. If we find we're struggling to attract people, it can be moved down. And if we find that there is pressure on services, it can be moved up.
    I think that there‘s level of income at which one is a net contributor to society, and immigrants individually should either be earning more than this level or provide a key skill for which demand has been identified.

    Selling the Big Issue, while claiming tax credits and housing benefit in central London does not meet this threshold.

    IMO the last decade has seen high immigration levels both holding down wages among the low skilled and increasing demand on public services such as roads, healthcare and housing.

    I like your market-based approach, provided it’s enforceable.
    It's easily enforceable on people who are law-abiding.

    And those that are not law-abiding (such as Albanians working as illegal car washers), the problem exists with or without this plan.
    There's a really good car wash at my local station, full valet for £20 for a medium car, but it's in full view of the rozzers who regularly drive past it.

    Either they're in on it, or they're not Albanian.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,495

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    That is much more polite than what I was going to say :D:D
  • nichomar said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    Fluent English? What proportion of the UK indigenous population can speak fluent English?
    English is the best language in the world!
  • The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.

    I agree we share a lot of interests. But politically and economically the EU will make the calls it thinks are best for it with no reference to the UK. Clearly, a deal makes the most sense for both sides, but botjh sides seem to prefer not to have one than to compromise in any serious way. It seems we will all need to experience the consequences of that before the proper dealmaking begins.

    The first two sentences applies to any act of international diplomacy or negotiation. It remains to be see how much room for movement there is on the third (I suspect a bit - Johnson's Government is becoming increasingly ideological looking, but this may be partly for show).

    It's possible your last sentence is correct. If it fails this year, I suspect we will have a deal by 2024 (i.e. before the next GE) because it will be too stupid not to do one with both sides having gone through and adjusted to a No Deal situation for 12-18 months.

    By that time, of course, No Deal will have lost its scariness and leverage as we'll be in a new status quo, the EU anger may have abated and they'll be able to argue a point has been made, so a Deal will be about growth but Spain and Greece will still probably try to put silly stuff in about Gibraltar and the Elgin Marbles.

    The issue may be more the UK who could be a bit "talk to the hand" by then.

    Of course - if No Deal turns out to be no problem it will become the status quo. I really don't think anyone is that angry. I just think that politically a deal at this time will be impossible to do. No-one is willing to compromise enough to get anything beyond some kind of skeleton arrangement over the line.

  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.

    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If wthan it is now?
    You immigrants.

    At present Britain lets in a group that in aggregate greatly benefits it without putting up barriers. In all probability your barricades would leave Britain much worse off.
    We take it out of the hands of the immigration services and leave it to businesses to pick winners and pay any associated fee like @rcs1000 suggested.

    Liverpool recruited.

    He originally came to the UK in 2013 to play for Celtic thanks to free movement. He then moved to Southampton and from there to Liverpool

    Free?

    Actually he originally came to the UK thanks to Celtic paying £2.6 million to recruit him. I don't think a £5000 migration fee would have put Celtic off considering they paid £2.6 million.

    Until 2015, non-EU foreign footballers needed to have played 75% or more of their countries' internationals over the previous two years in order to get a UK work visa. As van Dijk had not played for the Netherlands when he joined Celtic the only thing that got him in was his EU citizenship.

    That's a bullshit rule that put off good players from overseas. That rule AFAIK doesn't exist anymore and should not be brought back - going forwards that rule won't exist even if we end free movement.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    Just a reminder of the verbal fluency of our esteemed PM:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    I'm going to ignore the insult. But I could argue plenty of your own views are "batty" if I were as rude as you are on Brexit.

    They need to win over a substantial contingent of Leavers and establish a political consensus within the UK, which means the Conservative Party too.

    How do you expect that to be achieved given 80%+ are currently now Leavers?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    All very charitable of you.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,158

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    Portugal have already said they will grant UK residents access to healthcare unilaterally along with other benefits. I expect Spain may do the same.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true it is also appropriate to recognise that a lot of City/financial sector workers have come here over that time and are major contributors to our GDP per capita.

    Those will definitely be pulling the productivity figures up, but I figure there’s probably been way more baristas than barristers and financiers arriving from the EU over the past decade.
    That screams for a “citation needed”. I realise that might be received wisdom in the saloon bars of immigrants in Dubai, but you might try to back it up with evidence.
    Seriously? Do you really think that there’s been more financiers and footballers, or baristas and uber drivers, from the EU to the UK over the past decade? IIRC total immigration has been around 5m in that period, what proportion of those do you think pay the 45% rate of income tax? I’ll go with less than 1%.
    Just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would look at an aggregate average, where EU immigrants perform well relative to UK citizens (as you would expect given that they are better educated).

    It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
    As an immigrant to another country I can see this from both sides.

    If we allowed only the higher-rate taxpayers to move to the U.K., but not the minimum wage workers, big issue sellers and benefits claimants, instead training UK citizens to upskill, would the U.K. GDP per capita be higher or lower than it is now?
    You assume competence in the immigration service even to pose the question. Quite how they are going to work out how to pick winners without an extremely intrusive process is wholly unclear. Meanwhile anyone actually highly capable is just going to choose a country that welcomes immigrants.

    At present Britain lets in a group that in aggregate greatly benefits it without putting up barriers. In all probability your barricades would leave Britain much worse off.
    This is the UK equivalent of American exceptionalism, I think ?
    Both are somewhat deluded.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,061
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    Fluent English? What proportion of the UK indigenous population can speak fluent English?
    How big a proportion of the population do Boris Johnson and John Prescott count for?
    Yeah, but, no but, err what, like what I was saying like
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK

    They will do what they believe is best for them. They clearly believe No Deal is more in their interests than the Deal the UK is after. While we, of course, believe the opposite. It looks like a rock solid political wall to me that will only be climbed after the alternative is experienced.

    They don't believe No Deal is in their interests. Not in the slightest, it would scupper any chance of a European recovery for several years and greatly sour the geopolitical milk across Europe for defence and security purposes.

    They are overplaying their hand in their belief Boris will fold (and they think he kind of did in October last year) to their Deal at the last minute.
    It would scupper a European recovery, but quite possibly cause a depression in the UK. Thus out of the two parties acting dangerously, Boris is the one overplaying his hand to the greater extent.
    It wouldn't cause a depression (5-10%+ collapse in GDP) in the UK.

    Everyone knows this is now horseshit, including you.

    It might well led to anemic growth for several years, or a 1-2% mild recession, which wouldn't move the battlelines much at all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    eadric said:

    Sorry to bang on, but this is just a beautiful bit of coronavirus data from Singapore.

    Every case mapped and traced

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/f5rnl7/new_latest_singapore_cluster_tracing_chart/

    Singapore is concerning in another way. It's a hot tropical country. Yet the disease has taken hold there. Which suggests Covid is not just a winter thing, and may not naturally die out in the Spring.

    Hmm.

    The detailing on this map from SK is just amazing. Not only every case but what journeys they took and when.
    https://coronamap.site/

    Hard to imagine this in a western country. Impossible to imagine this in countries like Indonesia, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. We are left hoping that this fizzles out in the somewhat mysterious way that SARS did.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    I'm going to ignore the insult. But I could argue plenty of your own views are "batty" if I were as rude as you are on Brexit.

    They need to win over a substantial contingent of Leavers and establish a political consensus within the UK, which means the Conservative Party too.

    How do you expect that to be achieved given 80%+ are currently now Leavers?
    Where do you get this 80%+ figure from?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280

    Until 2015, non-EU foreign footballers needed to have played 75% or more of their countries' internationals over the previous two years in order to get a UK work visa. As van Dijk had not played for the Netherlands when he joined Celtic the only thing that got him in was his EU citizenship.

    That's a bullshit rule that put off good players from overseas. That rule AFAIK doesn't exist anymore and should not be brought back - going forwards that rule won't exist even if we end free movement.
    Was it an FA rule or a government one?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.

    I

    The first two sentences applies to any act of international diplomacy or negotiation. It remains to be see how much room for movement there is on the third (I suspect a bit - Johnson's Government is becoming increasingly ideological looking, but this may be partly for show).

    It's possible your last sentence is correct. If it fails this year, I suspect we will have a deal by 2024 (i.e. before the next GE) because it will be too stupid not to do one with both sides having gone through and adjusted to a No Deal situation for 12-18 months.

    By that time, of course, No Deal will have lost its scariness and leverage as we'll be in a new status quo, the EU anger may have abated and they'll be able to argue a point has been made, so a Deal will be about growth but Spain and Greece will still probably try to put silly stuff in about Gibraltar and the Elgin Marbles.

    The issue may be more the UK who could be a bit "talk to the hand" by then.

    Of course - if No Deal turns out to be no problem it will become the status quo. I really don't think anyone is that angry. I just think that politically a deal at this time will be impossible to do. No-one is willing to compromise enough to get anything beyond some kind of skeleton arrangement over the line.

    There's a lot of emotion on both sides, including within me and you. This colours things.

    The EU is still incredulous and in a daze that the UK actually went through with it, and the UK wants to be able to demonstrate a clear victory (any victory) over the EU, who some think as a nation-state extinguishing federalist Empire.

    That may need some time to work through before the grown-ups take charge.
  • nichomar said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    Fluent English? What proportion of the UK indigenous population can speak fluent English?
    English is the best language in the world!
    English is a beautiful British language spoken by beautiful British people
  • eadric said:

    Sorry to bang on, but this is just a beautiful bit of coronavirus data from Singapore.

    Every case mapped and traced

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/f5rnl7/new_latest_singapore_cluster_tracing_chart/

    Singapore is concerning in another way. It's a hot tropical country. Yet the disease has taken hold there. Which suggests Covid is not just a winter thing, and may not naturally die out in the Spring.

    Hmm.

    75%+ of Singaporeans are ethnic Chinese. Could there be a genetic predisposition?
  • rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT, say, to see the UK as the place ot come, so they should be able to apply for jobs while in the UK as tourists and should be fast-tracked through any red tape very quickly. I am thinking of that piece your friend/client (?) from Silicon Roundabout wrote before the referendum. We already find it very tough to find decent developers, designers and programmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    I'm going to ignore the insult. But I could argue plenty of your own views are "batty" if I were as rude as you are on Brexit.

    They need to win over a substantial contingent of Leavers and establish a political consensus within the UK, which means the Conservative Party too.

    How do you expect that to be achieved given 80%+ are currently now Leavers?
    Where do you get this 80%+ figure from?
    Ok, perhaps 70-75% for voters. Probably 80%+ for Conservative Party members. 90%+ of Conservative voters in terms of honouring the vote.

    "Nearly three quarters (73%) of Conservative voters said they voted Leave and wanted Brexit to happen as soon as possible; a further 18% said they voted Remain but wanted the referendum result to be honoured."

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280

    rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT, say, to see the UK as the place ot come, so they should be able to apply for jobs while in the UK as tourists and should be fast-tracked through any red tape very quickly. I am thinking of that piece your friend/client (?) from Silicon Roundabout wrote before the referendum. We already find it very tough to find decent developers, designers and programmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

    He's just opened a second development centre in Lisbon (to complement the London one), and has bought an apartment there.

    I hope he's not a harbinger of things to come.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    I'm going to ignore the insult. But I could argue plenty of your own views are "batty" if I were as rude as you are on Brexit.

    They need to win over a substantial contingent of Leavers and establish a political consensus within the UK, which means the Conservative Party too.

    How do you expect that to be achieved given 80%+ are currently now Leavers?
    Where do you get this 80%+ figure from?
    Ok, perhaps 70-75% for voters. Probably 80%+ for Conservative Party members. 90%+ of Conservative voters in terms of honouring the vote.

    "Nearly three quarters (73%) of Conservative voters said they voted Leave and wanted Brexit to happen as soon as possible; a further 18% said they voted Remain but wanted the referendum result to be honoured."

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/
    Oh, Conservatives. There will come a point where as much attention need be paid to Conservatives as has been paid to Labour supporters recently. And given how determined Leavers have been to rule by majority rather than create a consensus, they will deserve everything they get.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    edited February 18
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT, say, to see the UK as the place ot come, so they should be able to apply for jobs while in the UK as tourists and should be fast-tracked through any red tape very quickly. I am thinking of that piece your friend/client (?) from Silicon Roundabout wrote before the referendum. We already find it very tough to find decent developers, designers and programmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

    He's just opened a second development centre in Lisbon (to complement the London one), and has bought an apartment there.

    I hope he's not a harbinger of things to come.

    It is a concern. We need peopel yesterday, not in two months' time. We are also looking at opening up in the Single Market. If the talent pool is reduced in size significantly we will have no choice regardless of other factors.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 3,937

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT, say, to see the UK as the place ot come, so they should be able to apply for jobs while in the UK as tourists and should be fast-tracked through any red tape very quickly. I am thinking of that piece your friend/client (?) from Silicon Roundabout wrote before the referendum. We already find it very tough to find decent developers, designers and programmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

    He's just opened a second development centre in Lisbon (to complement the London one), and has bought an apartment there.

    I hope he's not a harbinger of things to come.

    It is a concern. We need peopel yesterday, not in two months' time. We are also looking at opening up in the Single Market. If the talent pool is reduced in size significantly we will have no choice regardless of other factors.

    What does 'no choice' mean - you'll recruit locals?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Until 2015, non-EU foreign footballers needed to have played 75% or more of their countries' internationals over the previous two years in order to get a UK work visa. As van Dijk had not played for the Netherlands when he joined Celtic the only thing that got him in was his EU citizenship.

    That's a bullshit rule that put off good players from overseas. That rule AFAIK doesn't exist anymore and should not be brought back - going forwards that rule won't exist even if we end free movement.
    Was it an FA rule or a government one?
    Government one, to get a work permit.

    Liberalising migration from outside the EU can mean doing away with barriers like that.
  • eekeek Posts: 7,079
    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT, say, to see the UK as the place ot come, so they should be able to apply for jobs while in the UK as tourists and should be fast-tracked through any red tape very quickly. I am thinking of that piece your friend/client (?) from Silicon Roundabout wrote before the referendum. We already find it very tough to find decent developers, designers and programmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

    He's just opened a second development centre in Lisbon (to complement the London one), and has bought an apartment there.

    I hope he's not a harbinger of things to come.

    It is a concern. We need peopel yesterday, not in two months' time. We are also looking at opening up in the Single Market. If the talent pool is reduced in size significantly we will have no choice regardless of other factors.

    What does 'no choice' mean - you'll recruit locals?
    I suspect work out where else to create a base for recruitment purposes.

    However, the general problem with IT is that I don't think the people actually exist in the numbers that are required...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    ". up.
    I think that there‘s level of income at which one is a net contributor to society, and immigrants individually should either be earning more than this level or provide a key skill for which demand has been identified.

    Selling the Big Issue, while claiming tax credits and housing benefit in central London does not meet this threshold.

    IMO the last decade has seen high immigration levels both holding down wages among the low skilled and increasing demand on public services such as roads, healthcare and housing.

    I like your market-based approach, provided it’s enforceable.
    It's easily enforceable on people who are law-abiding.

    And those that are not law-abiding (such as Albanians working as illegal car washers), the problem exists with or without this plan.
    Yes, the problem of overstayers and visitors working exists everywhere. Severe prosecution of employers usually deals with that.

    I’m pretty sure that you and I have experienced a sufficient number of immigration systems that we can come up with something that works:

    1. Minimum bureaucracy, based only on a job offer and a police check in the first instance.
    2. Health insurance premium, to be be paid up front by the employer for 12 months.
    2. Expansion of temporary work visas to fill specific in-demand roles such as nurses.
    3. Non-discriminatory, for example not favouring people from EU over other countries.
    4. Clear system of welfare entitlement, including in-work and child benefits, such that citizens don’t think that those who haven’t contributed are taking out of the system.
    5. Clear path to citizenship, for those who wish to become British, as in the US with the Green Card system.
    6. Swift blacklisting of overstayers, but accompanied by voluntary registration scheme for the unemployed and free deportations on request.
    7. Harsh punishments for anyone employing illegal immigrants, but accompanied by simple ways of checking visa status online.
  • eadric said:

    Sorry to bang on, but this is just a beautiful bit of coronavirus data from Singapore.

    Every case mapped and traced

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/f5rnl7/new_latest_singapore_cluster_tracing_chart/

    Singapore is concerning in another way. It's a hot tropical country. Yet the disease has taken hold there. Which suggests Covid is not just a winter thing, and may not naturally die out in the Spring.

    Hmm.

    75%+ of Singaporeans are ethnic Chinese. Could there be a genetic predisposition?
    It looks like covid-19 uses the ACE2 receptor as part of the infection cycle. Some people have higher risk than others because some population groups have more ACE2 expressing cells especially in the lungs. Being a white woman seems to be the way to have much lesser risk. See https://www.eturbonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/risk.jpeg
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    viewcode said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    Really.

    The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
    I don't have access to the same amount of telepathy as everybody on here seems to possess, so I can't tell you what the EU's motives are. However I can tell you what its actions are. And in the seven years we have been negotiating with the EU, three things have been constant.

    1.) It does not care what UK voters think.
    2.) It does care what the UK PM thinks.
    3.) It does not respond to approaches to individual countries.

    In short, it is a cohesive entity that deals at government level or above.

    Given that, I don't think your prognosis is correct. It won't change its approach to curry favour with the electorate, and it won't split into bits at our entreaties.
    I do not agree. No deal will be seen as a failure by both sides and a lot of damage will occur and the EU will be just as responsible. Also the politicians are going to have to face the anger of the tens of thousands jobs lost in the EU and business anger across the EU. Indeed it could result in big splits in the EU Country by Country.

    Any idea the EU will not suffer is naive
    I didn't say it will not suffer. I'm talking about how it behaves. In similar circumstances in the past it did not behave as you predict. So I assume in the scenario you outline it will similarly not behave as you predict, for exactly the same reasons.

    How many times have we been round this roundabout? "The EU will be badly damaged. The EU will split up and deal with us as individual countries. The EU will behave as we wish." Cameron in 2014/5, Trump in 2016, Davis in 2016, May in 2017/8, various Bannons whenever. The only person who did not make that mistake was Boris, who dealt with the EU direct, didn't waste time, took the only remaining option in the trilemma, and left in good order.
  • Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT,nd programmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

    He's just opened a second development centre in Lisbon (to complement the London one), and has bought an apartment there.

    I hope he's not a harbinger of things to come.

    It is a concern. We need peopel yesterday, not in two months' time. We are also looking at opening up in the Single Market. If the talent pool is reduced in size significantly we will have no choice regardless of other factors.

    What does 'no choice' mean - you'll recruit locals?

    We’ll have a much bigger talent pool to recruit from immediately if we operate inside the SM. It will all depend on the detail of the rules the government introduces. Currently, any developer or programmer from anywhere in the EU can come to London and know they’ll get a job immediately, so they come. If they think it will be tougher to get work because if the red tape fewer will. That will mean even longer recruitment delays than now.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    Fluent English? What proportion of the UK indigenous population can speak fluent English?
    How big a proportion of the population do Boris Johnson and John Prescott count for?
    By number or by weight?

    (Puts sunglasses on, plays "The Who") :)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    I'm going to ignore the insult. But I could argue plenty of your own views are "batty" if I were as rude as you are on Brexit.

    They need to win over a substantial contingent of Leavers and establish a political consensus within the UK, which means the Conservative Party too.

    How do you expect that to be achieved given 80%+ are currently now Leavers?
    Where do you get this 80%+ figure from?
    Ok, perhaps 70-75% for voters. Probably 80%+ for Conservative Party members. 90%+ of Conservative voters in terms of honouring the vote.

    "Nearly three quarters (73%) of Conservative voters said they voted Leave and wanted Brexit to happen as soon as possible; a further 18% said they voted Remain but wanted the referendum result to be honoured."

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/
    Oh, Conservatives. There will come a point where as much attention need be paid to Conservatives as has been paid to Labour supporters recently. And given how determined Leavers have been to rule by majority rather than create a consensus, they will deserve everything they get.
    Yup, didn't think you had an answer to that.
  • eek said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT, say, to see the UKmmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

    He's just opened a second development centre in Lisbon (to complement the London one), and has bought an apartment there.

    I hope he's not a harbinger of things to come.

    It is a concern. We need peopel yesterday, not in two months' time. We are also looking at opening up in the Single Market. If the talent pool is reduced in size significantly we will have no choice regardless of other factors.

    What does 'no choice' mean - you'll recruit locals?
    I suspect work out where else to create a base for recruitment purposes.

    However, the general problem with IT is that I don't think the people actually exist in the numbers that are required...

    That is exactly right. And everything has to be done yesterday. That makes the biggest possible talent pool of immediately available personnel absolutely essential. Either we keep that here - and we can with the right regime - or companies will move to where the talent decides to congregate. Lisbon, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Berlin, etc.

  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 747

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.

    I

    r last sentence is correct. If it fails this year, I suspect we will have a deal by 2024 (i.e. before the next GE) because it will be too stupid not to do one with both sides having gone through and adjusted to a No Deal situation for 12-18 months.

    By that time, of course, No Deal will have lost its scariness and leverage as we'll be in a new status quo, the EU anger may have abated and they'll be able to argue a point has been made, so a Deal will be about growth but Spain and Greece will still probably try to put silly stuff in about Gibraltar and the Elgin Marbles.

    The issue may be more the UK who could be a bit "talk to the hand" by then.

    Of course - if No Deal turns out to be no problem it will become the status quo. I really don't think anyone is that angry. I just think that politically a deal at this time will be impossible to do. No-one is willing to compromise enough to get anything beyond some kind of skeleton arrangement over the line.

    There's a lot of emotion on both sides, including within me and you. This colours things.

    The EU is still incredulous and in a daze that the UK actually went through with it, and the UK wants to be able to demonstrate a clear victory (any victory) over the EU, who some think as a nation-state extinguishing federalist Empire.

    That may need some time to work through before the grown-ups take charge.
    Pro-European people are going to once again screw up and lead us to a worse option. We need to fight now for a Canada deal or we will end up with the "Australian" no deal.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.

    They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    I'm going to ignore the insult. But I could argue plenty of your own views are "batty" if I were as rude as you are on Brexit.

    They need to win over a substantial contingent of Leavers and establish a political consensus within the UK, which means the Conservative Party too.

    How do you expect that to be achieved given 80%+ are currently now Leavers?
    Where do you get this 80%+ figure from?
    It is another arbitrary figure that one could emblazon on the side of a bus.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,061
    Gabs3 said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance


    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.

    I

    r last sentence is correct. If it fails this year, I suspect we will have a deal by 2024 (i.e. before the next GE) because it will be too stupid not to do one with both sides having gone through and adjusted to a No Deal situation for 12-18 months.

    By that time, of course, No Deal will have lost its scariness and leverage as we'll be in a new status quo, the EU anger may have abated and they'll be able to argue a point has been made, so a Deal will be about growth but Spain and Greece will still probably try to put silly stuff in about Gibraltar and the Elgin Marbles.

    The issue may be more the UK who could be a bit "talk to the hand" by then.

    Of course - if No Deal turns out to be no problem it will become the status quo. I really don't think anyone is that angry. I just think that politically a deal at this time will be impossible to do. No-one is willing to compromise enough to get anything beyond some kind of skeleton arrangement over the line.

    There's a lot of emotion on both sides, including within me and you. This colours things.

    The EU is still incredulous and in a daze that the UK actually went through with it, and the UK wants to be able to demonstrate a clear victory (any victory) over the EU, who some think as a nation-state extinguishing federalist Empire.

    That may need some time to work through before the grown-ups take charge.
    Pro-European people are going to once again screw up and lead us to a worse option. We need to fight now for a Canada deal or we will end up with the "Australian" no deal.
    The decision is For the government nobody else So how it all falls out is down to them.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If it was up to me I'd go with a hybrid migration service that is an adjusted version of free movement.

    Key points
    1: Do not discriminate.
    2: Migrants pay a fixed annual fee eg £5,000 per annum to contribute to society, the NHS etc
    3: Migrants are ineligble to any form of welfare for 4 years. If they wish to pay for some form of insurance then up to them but that should be private not state provided.
    4: Migrants must not commit criminal offences. Any criminal offence (not speeding etc) leads to deportation.
    5: Must not be criminals in their home nation before migrating here and must have a clean bill of health.
    6: After 4 years migrants can apply for permanent residence so long as they've maintained their payments, steady employment and can speak English fluently (not a requirement I'd make for temporary migration).

    As a business exec, I would also make temporary (secondment) work visas easy. If I want Blake from our Los Angeles Data Science team to spend six months with Engineering in London, that should be pretty easy. (This was a big issue at my former company too.)

    Making these temporary visits, which are too long to call a business trip, but definitely aren't permanent migration, easy should be a key priority.

    Speed of recruitment is key. We still want the best people in IT, say, to see the UK as the place ot come, so they should be able to apply for jobs while in the UK as tourists and should be fast-tracked through any red tape very quickly. I am thinking of that piece your friend/client (?) from Silicon Roundabout wrote before the referendum. We already find it very tough to find decent developers, designers and programmers. Throw in a ton of bureaucracy and it gets even harder.

    He's just opened a second development centre in Lisbon (to complement the London one), and has bought an apartment there.

    I hope he's not a harbinger of things to come.

    It is a concern. We need peopel yesterday, not in two months' time. We are also looking at opening up in the Single Market. If the talent pool is reduced in size significantly we will have no choice regardless of other factors.

    What does 'no choice' mean - you'll recruit locals?
    If your company has international sales, and you run on tight margins, then you are always going to be looking around both the country and the world to see how you can do things more cheaply.

    If you don't do that, you will soon find yourself with an ex-company.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    a

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If they ever want us to rejoin they do.

    I doubt it’s a priority!

    Really?

    Without

    There is no "They". There are 27 different countries with 27 different agendas. Poland will see this very differently to Portugal who will see it very differently to France. That was always going to be one of the dificulties of this stage of Brexit.

    I do not think they will want the UK back until a significant proportion of the Boomers have popped their clogs. Why buy trouble?
    They won't want the UK back until there's a decent national consensus not subject to the electoral cycle.

    That means convincing people like me, not Boomers.

    Good luck.
    They don’t need to win over the bay-at-the-moon Leaver contingent. So your views can be heavily discounted.
    I'm going to ignore the insult. But I could argue plenty of your own views are "batty" if I were as rude as you are on Brexit.

    They need to win over a substantial contingent of Leavers and establish a political consensus within the UK, which means the Conservative Party too.

    How do you expect that to be achieved given 80%+ are currently now Leavers?
    Where do you get this 80%+ figure from?
    Ok, perhaps 70-75% for voters. Probably 80%+ for Conservative Party members. 90%+ of Conservative voters in terms of honouring the vote.

    "Nearly three quarters (73%) of Conservative voters said they voted Leave and wanted Brexit to happen as soon as possible; a further 18% said they voted Remain but wanted the referendum result to be honoured."

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/
    Oh, Conservatives. There will come a point where as much attention need be paid to Conservatives as has been paid to Labour supporters recently. And given how determined Leavers have been to rule by majority rather than create a consensus, they will deserve everything they get.
    Yup, didn't think you had an answer to that.
    It is an answer. It’s one that should terrify you on several levels.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    eadric said:

    Sorry to bang on, but this is just a beautiful bit of coronavirus data from Singapore.

    Every case mapped and traced

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/f5rnl7/new_latest_singapore_cluster_tracing_chart/

    Singapore is concerning in another way. It's a hot tropical country. Yet the disease has taken hold there. Which suggests Covid is not just a winter thing, and may not naturally die out in the Spring.

    Hmm.

    75%+ of Singaporeans are ethnic Chinese. Could there be a genetic predisposition?
    It looks like covid-19 uses the ACE2 receptor as part of the infection cycle. Some people have higher risk than others because some population groups have more ACE2 expressing cells especially in the lungs. Being a white woman seems to be the way to have much lesser risk. See https://www.eturbonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/risk.jpeg
    These are big and interesting differences. Looks like @Sunil_Prasannan was on to something.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    Gabs3 said:

    The EU will lose UK voter support in droves if they continue on their present path and will just see support for walking away rocket

    Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance

    If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority

    The EU does not need UK support. We’re a third country now.

    This is nonsense. The EU does need UK support. We provide most of the financial liquidity for the eurozone, we're a big customer of their goods and products, we provide about 30% of the EU's military punch (and a hyper-mobile and modern one at that) and about 50% of its best humint and sigint.

    As I've had to tell you time and time again (seemingly falling on deaf or unwilling ears) the EU does not hold 100% of the cards and the UK 0% of the cards.

    It is much more like 65% to 35%.

    I

    r last sentence is correct. If it fails this year, I suspect we will have a deal by 2024 (i.e. before the next GE) because it will be too stupid not to do one with both sides having gone through and adjusted to a No Deal situation for 12-18 months.

    By that time, of course, No Deal will have lost its scariness and leverage as we'll be in a new status quo, the EU anger may have abated and they'll be able to argue a point has been made, so a Deal will be about growth but Spain and Greece will still probably try to put silly stuff in about Gibraltar and the Elgin Marbles.

    The issue may be more the UK who could be a bit "talk to the hand" by then.

    Of course - if No Deal turns out to be no problem it will become the status quo. I really don't think anyone is that angry. I just think that politically a deal at this time will be impossible to do.

    There's a lot of emotion on both sides, including within me and you. This colours things.

    The EU is still incredulous and in a daze that the UK actually went through with it, and the UK wants to be able to demonstrate a clear victory (any victory) over the EU, who some think as a nation-state extinguishing federalist Empire.

    That may need some time to work through before the grown-ups take charge.
    Pro-European people are going to once again screw up and lead us to a worse option. We need to fight now for a Canada deal or we will end up with the "Australian" no deal.
    One day we will get to a "Pro-European" deal from outside the EU.

    We are a long way off that point yet.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 747
    Dura_Ace said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:
    I think Chinese citizens are already banned from travelling to Singapore and Japan, as is anyone who has been to China within the last few weeks.

    No, I think you're wrong.

    Russia is the first country to enact a total ban

    https://www.ft.com/content/60e0ea28-043c-36e7-a1b9-a90359655dbb

    "Russia is to ban all Chinese citizens from entering the country from Thursday as the coronavirus outbreak continues to spread, making Moscow the first country to do so and potentially straining relations with a close ally."

    Yep, yoiu're right. There are exemptions to the Singapore ban:

    https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1847899/singapore-to-suspend-entry-to-travellers-including-transit-passengers

    The Japanese one is regional:

    https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/5481d14af447-urgent-japan-extends-entry-ban-to-visitors-from-chinas-zhejiang-province.html

    I guess the Russia move may lead to similar ones elsewhere.



    Really sad. In London Chinese restaurants are reporting a 40-50% drop in business.

    The ripple effects are endless. If it goes on much longer the world will surely tip into recession.
    Good. We can blame it on Brexit.
    Wanting a deadly disease to spread for a longer period, so more people face economic hardship, so you can blame a policy you dislike. FFS.
This discussion has been closed.