-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
When public opinion turns sharply towards remaining in the EU. There hasn't been enough change since the referendum, but one way or another, I guess opinion will turn given time.
No that isn't better for everybody, but it will be for some and for some of the others will start to question why they have to follow the rules in order to get what they want and push for that and then separatist parties within the country will point to the UK option and are more likely to get into power, more risk of the EU breaking up.
The EU is a balancing act bought together by compromise over decades, they don't want to or need to risk it to give a non member preferential terms.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
"...Without seeking advance permission..."....and permission would be granted, like it is for almost all verifiable airlines, but perhaps with changed terms.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
It’s an interesting one. Businesses don’t make things now without focus groups testing the concept. Likewise Politicians don’t say something without running it past test subjects. That is why Trump is refreshing to some.
There is another school of thought - build it and they will come.
Truth is a mixture of both is what is needed. Some confidence to lead and create a vision people don’t know yet, while being aware of public sentiment.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Eurosceptism has been steadily growing for 20 years - i.e. since Maastricht
The only time it ever seemed remotely popular was in the late 80s when Thatcher was running it
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
But this is my point. Who in the EU has the scope to make a run at that sort of move? And who stands a good chance of success?
Arguably we do - but there are no guarantees at all, and we are one of the largest economies in the world.
So who else? Germany, France? And yet they enjoy running the show far to much to leave.
Who next? Seems to me once you get past the big 3 there isnt anyone who could take themselves out of the EU umbrella and make a success of it, even with a free trade deal. They depend too much on the budget, on the ability to travel and work freely etc (almost certainly a great deal in their eyes).
On the flip side, for a union built on the principle of peace in Europe, having someone leave the gang but remain a very close (perhaps even dependent?) ally would be in line with those values, wouldnt it?
As opposed to screwing them into the ground and watching them suffer.
I am yet to find an argument that supports their position that really rings true for me. And its not like its wishful thinking on a little englanders part, blind ignorance. Its simply that its been repeated enough to simply be accepted as true - but it doesnt jive in my mind at all.
The whole notion of "We would have all the benefits and none of the burdens" is gonads. As Ive said, what works for one does not necessarily work for all.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
About time:
UK immigration: No preference for EU workers after Brexit, cabinet agrees
People from the EU should face the same immigration rules as those from elsewhere, once the UK has completely left the bloc, the cabinet has agreed.
The agreement in principle follows a recommendation of the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), which was also backed by Labour.
The cabinet unanimously supported a system based on skills rather than nationality, a source told the BBC.
But some fear that a bar on low-skilled EU migrants may damage business.
The prime minister has repeatedly vowed to end unlimited immigration from Europe after Brexit.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said: "Ending freedom of movement as it stands has become a rhetorical non-negotiable for Theresa May."
Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said a "fair" system was needed to prevent discrimination.
But speaking on BBC One's Breakfast, he also urged caution, saying there might need to be a "discussion around the rules of EU nationals... if we want a close economic relationship with the European Union".
The cabinet agreement came after a presentation from the MAC chairman, Prof Alan Manning, at a lengthy meeting on Monday.
According to one source, the principle was agreed that the UK would not show bias towards immigrants from any one part of the world over another when granting access to work.
However, one cabinet source told the BBC the agreement did not constitute a firm decision and a government source said there could be "light touch migration" rules for EU nationals as part of any wider Brexit trade deal.
The government does not call this "preferential" treatment because a similar arrangement could be struck with, for example, the US as part of a UK-US trade deal.
The EU's principle of freedom of movement currently allows people from the European Economic Area - all EU countries, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - plus Switzerland, to travel and work within the area without visas, regardless of skills.
What are the current rules for non-EU citizens?
Anyone wanting to move to the UK from outside the EU, as well as Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, to work or study needs to apply for one of a number of visas.
These range from Tier 1, preserved for investors and "exceptional talent", to Tier 5 visas for short-term voluntary and educational programmes.
The two most common are the Tier 2 skilled worker visas and Tier 4 student visas. Currently, no Tier 3 - unskilled labour - visas are being given out.
Some of these visas allow people to apply to bring dependants such as children and partners.
Visas work on a points-based system and the criteria have got tougher in recent years.
For example, for a Tier 2 "experienced skilled worker" visa, people now need to be paid at least £30,000 to apply, up almost £10,000 from 2011. People get more points for higher salaries or if their job is on the list of shortage occupations.
Most visas come with other conditions, including knowledge of English, the need for a sponsor and agreeing not to claim benefits for a period of time.
The UK is due to withdraw from the European Union on 29 March next year, although an "implementation period" lasting until 31 December 2020 has been agreed as part of the proposed Brexit deal being negotiated between the UK and the EU.
In that transition period, EU citizens arriving in the UK would enjoy the same rights and guarantees as those who arrive beforehand. The same would apply to UK expats on the continent.
It remains unclear what would happen in the event of a "no-deal" Brexit, as the transition period would not then happen and the new migration system would, government sources say, have to be "tapered in" because it would not be ready by March.
Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee, an independent public body which advises ministers on migration issues, called for the annual limit on the number of high-skilled workers from outside the EU granted permission to work to be scrapped.
Currently set at 20,700 a year, the cap - imposed by Mrs May when at the Home Office - has resulted in thousands of IT specialists and NHS candidates being denied visas.
A change in the rules for NHS workers was announced in June after pressure from health bosses.
Lobby groups such as the Campaign for Science and Engineering have argued that job offers in other areas, such as science and engineering, should also be exempt from the rules.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid has previously said he was taking a "fresh look" at the Tier 2 cap.
Some business groups, particularly in industries such as agriculture and hospitality, have warned that any future arrangement barring low-skilled migrants could cause huge disruption.
It is understood that at Monday's cabinet meeting Business Secretary Greg Clark raised the concerns of businesses at a sudden change, arguing that there could be pressure for a gradual, rather than immediate shake up after Brexit.
The Chancellor Philip Hammond agreed that was likely but sources say there was a unanimous decision to move to a new system based on the principle of equal access, albeit with the acceptance that some sectors would need low skilled migrants from the EU.
UK immigration: No preference for EU workers after Brexit, cabinet agrees
People from the EU should face the same immigration rules as those from elsewhere, once the UK has completely left the bloc, the cabinet has agreed.
The agreement in principle follows a recommendation of the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), which was also backed by Labour.
The cabinet unanimously supported a system based on skills rather than nationality, a source told the BBC.
But some fear that a bar on low-skilled EU migrants may damage business.
The prime minister has repeatedly vowed to end unlimited immigration from Europe after Brexit.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said: "Ending freedom of movement as it stands has become a rhetorical non-negotiable for Theresa May."
Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said a "fair" system was needed to prevent discrimination.
But speaking on BBC One's Breakfast, he also urged caution, saying there might need to be a "discussion around the rules of EU nationals... if we want a close economic relationship with the European Union".
The cabinet agreement came after a presentation from the MAC chairman, Prof Alan Manning, at a lengthy meeting on Monday.
According to one source, the principle was agreed that the UK would not show bias towards immigrants from any one part of the world over another when granting access to work.
However, one cabinet source told the BBC the agreement did not constitute a firm decision and a government source said there could be "light touch migration" rules for EU nationals as part of any wider Brexit trade deal.
The government does not call this "preferential" treatment because a similar arrangement could be struck with, for example, the US as part of a UK-US trade deal.
The EU's principle of freedom of movement currently allows people from the European Economic Area - all EU countries, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - plus Switzerland, to travel and work within the area without visas, regardless of skills.
What are the current rules for non-EU citizens?
Anyone wanting to move to the UK from outside the EU, as well as Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, to work or study needs to apply for one of a number of visas.
These range from Tier 1, preserved for investors and "exceptional talent", to Tier 5 visas for short-term voluntary and educational programmes.
The two most common are the Tier 2 skilled worker visas and Tier 4 student visas. Currently, no Tier 3 - unskilled labour - visas are being given out.
Some of these visas allow people to apply to bring dependants such as children and partners.
Visas work on a points-based system and the criteria have got tougher in recent years.
For example, for a Tier 2 "experienced skilled worker" visa, people now need to be paid at least £30,000 to apply, up almost £10,000 from 2011. People get more points for higher salaries or if their job is on the list of shortage occupations.
Most visas come with other conditions, including knowledge of English, the need for a sponsor and agreeing not to claim benefits for a period of time.
The UK is due to withdraw from the European Union on 29 March next year, although an "implementation period" lasting until 31 December 2020 has been agreed as part of the proposed Brexit deal being negotiated between the UK and the EU.
In that transition period, EU citizens arriving in the UK would enjoy the same rights and guarantees as those who arrive beforehand. The same would apply to UK expats on the continent.
It remains unclear what would happen in the event of a "no-deal" Brexit, as the transition period would not then happen and the new migration system would, government sources say, have to be "tapered in" because it would not be ready by March.
Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee, an independent public body which advises ministers on migration issues, called for the annual limit on the number of high-skilled workers from outside the EU granted permission to work to be scrapped.
Currently set at 20,700 a year, the cap - imposed by Mrs May when at the Home Office - has resulted in thousands of IT specialists and NHS candidates being denied visas.
A change in the rules for NHS workers was announced in June after pressure from health bosses.
Lobby groups such as the Campaign for Science and Engineering have argued that job offers in other areas, such as science and engineering, should also be exempt from the rules.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid has previously said he was taking a "fresh look" at the Tier 2 cap.
Some business groups, particularly in industries such as agriculture and hospitality, have warned that any future arrangement barring low-skilled migrants could cause huge disruption.
It is understood that at Monday's cabinet meeting Business Secretary Greg Clark raised the concerns of businesses at a sudden change, arguing that there could be pressure for a gradual, rather than immediate shake up after Brexit.
The Chancellor Philip Hammond agreed that was likely but sources say there was a unanimous decision to move to a new system based on the principle of equal access, albeit with the acceptance that some sectors would need low skilled migrants from the EU.
Now or in the future? Right now no one will be in that position but when creating long term trade agreements you need to be aware of long term consequences.
Are you ignoring this bit or disagreeing with it? Personally I think it is a real issue the EU will be considering when deciding how to proceed with the UK.
"others will start to question why they have to follow the rules in order to get what they want and push for that and then separatist parties within the country will point to the UK option and are more likely to get into power, more risk of the EU breaking up."
You don't agree with their conclusions which is fine but I think its hard to argue that these are not the conclusions they have reached. They have stated their position, given their reasons and many (not all) Political scientists and Economists have agreed that they are valid fears /reasons.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
About time:
UK immigration: No preference for EU workers after Brexit, cabinet agrees
People from the EU should face the same immigration rules as those from elsewhere, once the UK has completely left the bloc, the cabinet has agreed.
The agreement in principle follows a recommendation of the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), which was also backed by Labour.
The cabinet unanimously supported a system based on skills rather than nationality, a source told the BBC.
But some fear that a bar on low-skilled EU migrants may damage business.
The prime minister has repeatedly vowed to end unlimited immigration from Europe after Brexit.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said: "Ending freedom of movement as it stands has become a rhetorical non-negotiable for Theresa May."
Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said a "fair" system was needed to prevent discrimination.
But speaking on BBC One's Breakfast, he also urged caution, saying there might need to be a "discussion around the rules of EU nationals... if we want a close economic relationship with the European Union".
The cabinet agreement came after a presentation from the MAC chairman, Prof Alan Manning, at a lengthy meeting on Monday.
According to one source, the principle was agreed that the UK would not show bias towards immigrants from any one part of the world over another when granting access to work.
However, one cabinet source told the BBC the agreement did not constitute a firm decision and a government source said there could be "light touch migration" rules for EU nationals as part of any wider Brexit trade deal.
The government does not call this "preferential" treatment because a similar arrangement could be struck with, for example, the US as part of a UK-US trade deal.
The EU's principle of freedom of movement currently allows people from the European Economic Area - all EU countries, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - plus Switzerland, to travel and work within the area without visas, regardless of skills.
What are the current rules for non-EU citizens?
Anyone wanting to move to the UK from outside the EU, as well as Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, to work or study needs to apply for one of a number of visas.
These range from Tier 1, preserved for investors and "exceptional talent", to Tier 5 visas for short-term voluntary and educational programmes.
The two most common are the Tier 2 skilled worker visas and Tier 4 student visas. Currently, no Tier 3 - unskilled labour - visas are being given out.
Some of these visas allow people to apply to bring dependants such as children and partners.
Visas work on a points-based system and the criteria have got tougher in recent years.
For example, for a Tier 2 "experienced skilled worker" visa, people now need to be paid at least £30,000 to apply, up almost £10,000 from 2011. People get more points for higher salaries or if their job is on the list of shortage occupations.
Most visas come with other conditions, including knowledge of English, the need for a sponsor and agreeing not to claim benefits for a period of time.
The UK is due to withdraw from the European Union on 29 March next year, although an "implementation period" lasting until 31 December 2020 has been agreed as part of the proposed Brexit deal being negotiated between the UK and the EU.
In that transition period, EU citizens arriving in the UK would enjoy the same rights and guarantees as those who arrive beforehand. The same would apply to UK expats on the continent.
It remains unclear what would happen in the event of a "no-deal" Brexit, as the transition period would not then happen and the new migration system would, government sources say, have to be "tapered in" because it would not be ready by March.
Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee, an independent public body which advises ministers on migration issues, called for the annual limit on the number of high-skilled workers from outside the EU granted permission to work to be scrapped.
Currently set at 20,700 a year, the cap - imposed by Mrs May when at the Home Office - has resulted in thousands of IT specialists and NHS candidates being denied visas.
A change in the rules for NHS workers was announced in June after pressure from health bosses.
Lobby groups such as the Campaign for Science and Engineering have argued that job offers in other areas, such as science and engineering, should also be exempt from the rules.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid has previously said he was taking a "fresh look" at the Tier 2 cap.
Some business groups, particularly in industries such as agriculture and hospitality, have warned that any future arrangement barring low-skilled migrants could cause huge disruption.
It is understood that at Monday's cabinet meeting Business Secretary Greg Clark raised the concerns of businesses at a sudden change, arguing that there could be pressure for a gradual, rather than immediate shake up after Brexit.
The Chancellor Philip Hammond agreed that was likely but sources say there was a unanimous decision to move to a new system based on the principle of equal access, albeit with the acceptance that some sectors would need low skilled migrants from the EU.
It's nice to see a cross-party consensus emerging on ending racist immigration
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Given the way the EU is running/growing "ever closer", I dont see things changing too much in the future.
If anything I would think it even less favourable to leave later on, but its a fair point.
Its a club, it has its benefits. As Ive said - just because some of those arent to our taste it doesnt mean those same things arent lifeblood for other countries.
We are leaving the club because its rules arent for us, and hoping to set up a profitable (for all) trading agreement. Something in our mutual interests.
So when you see people looking at us as an example of changing the rules to suit us - I dont really understand.
We tried changing rules, and got laughed away. So we are accepting the rules/EU is what it is, and choosing to leave because of it.
So what? Poland doesnt want the EU meddling, and so will also leave? - as posted above - can they?
Id say not. Its not really on the table for them, is it? Unless they somehow over the next decades build their economy to such a level they might stand a shot - maybe? But even then what are the chances?
Its only really a threat in theory, IMO, I dont find it tangible. It might be fair to consider very long term its possible, but its weak to my mind.
This seems to me much more like something punitive, serving as an example to others, than a genuine concern on the EUs part.
It does seem that we have decided to leave because they wouldn't change their rules and then want them to change their rules once we have left. I can't see why we would think its more likely that they would change their rules for a non member than they would to keep a member in -this just make s no sense to me.
"So we are accepting the rules/EU is what it is, and choosing to leave because of it. " - are we not still trying to get the EU to change the rules they said they wouldn't, this is how I see it.
The reasons they wouldn't change their rules when we were a member are the same as when we have not been a member. These are the rules that make the EU work and removing them could damage the EU and this would be a net negative. In my opinion their consistency on this matter when we were a member and now we are not adds credence to their argument - they believe that altering these core beliefs of the EU would damage the EU.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Have we left yet?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
There are, what? 5 different offers/arrangements on their part?
Does that not, by definition, show they are flexible on their rules when it suits them/is necessary? Else there would be a literal one size fits all offer and thats it.
Just as they have recently been talking about a trade deal with Africa - Ill take a punt and suggest they wont be opening their borders to the whole continent to come and move into Europe if they wish. It will be a trade deal, not ever closer union.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/af...rica-trade-deal-in-new-partnership-of-equals/
Juncker told the Parliament he believed “we should develop the numerous European-African trade agreements into a continent-to-continent free trade agreement, as an economic partnership between equals”.
(Is this not exactly what the UK wants?)
The Canada deal - yes of course it has restrictions and caveats - but it also most notably does not have free movement of people. Only a quick visa/convenient visa type arrangement on certain professions as memory serves.
Similarly with South Korea.
So it seems evident that the rules they are insisting upon with us, are not universally insisted upon. It must then be a choice on their part, not an unavoidable requirement.
I do appreciate geography makes it easier to not have the movement of people with far flung countries, but while we are local - we are also an island, so its not as if we cannot be treated the same in practical terms (NI complications accepted).
We need to be considered a third party, not a member. It seems to me they are looking at us more as the latter. IE - a member with special requirements being met. As of March, we will not be a member. We will not be taking from their budget, or getting involved in their politics, we will simply be a trading partner.
If Africa, Canada and South Korea can be treated as such - on free trade basis, why not us?
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Serious question here as I know everyone has serious alliances to political parties.
Can you seriously vote for Corbyn and if so do you 100% buy his manifesto and general behaviour?
Can you seriously vote for Corbyn and if so do you 100% buy his manifesto and general behaviour?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
For me
Pros
- Renationalisation of rail, energy and water
- Cancelling PPPs
- Greater equality (taxation, second homes etc.)
- Pro-Brexit
Cons
- Anti-Semitism
- Statism/social control (as opposed to just economic intervention)
- Twentieth century in his solutions (he's still about capitalism run by the workers, rather than thinking about post-capitalism)
- No real green credentials
I won't ever vote for them, but I'd like them to win the 2022 general election. I see him as a better leader than May, but he's still a bit suspect in the ways he controls his party (awkward ambiguity and grass roots bullying, rather than either open ideology or open debate)
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
No, and no, and no.
I might consider voting Labour in my constituency (Chipping Barnet) to get Theresa Villiers out if the Labour candidate was a strong remainer and not a Momentum-ite, and was on record condemning Labour's anti-semites. And that would be after vote-swapping so that someone else voted LD in their marginal. I wouldn't consider that a vote for Corbyn, though.
If the boundary changes go ahead there wouldn't be any basis for a tactical vote where I am.
The EU have said and have been flexible as long as their four pillars remain in tact, the 5 deals on offer all keep this. We can take the Canadian / South Korea tomorrow if we wanted, we do not - we want the EU to give up more, they are unwilling.
The EU are willing to do a Canada style trade deal, Canada themselves would have pushed for more but the EU were unwilling to go further. That deal took 7 years and would have been the two of them back and forth with each trying to get more and this is where it ended. To then come along and say we want all of that and a load more (which is our position) and be unhappy if it is not offered is not, again to me, seems a bit disingenuous.
Added to the fact Canada does not address the Ireland issue.