Forum menu
So no plan to cut low skilled immigration from the EU unless it is in the National Interest, what ever that is.
Remind me what Brexit was for?
Shackleton - interesting idea, how do you reach that conclusion?
Interesting to see banker baskets now worried aboun them leaving. Of course, the truth there is what happens re the single passport and the ability of banks to do business in different places. The plans announced to date are contingent on business that is covered by EU legislation being unable to continue from London. That is not a given. Or course this will not prevent the hyperbole and the scaremongering.
As noted yesterday, we ALL have responsibilit for not using inflammatory and inaccurate language even it is par for the course for some.
Banks, along with the rest of us, have to plan in advance. Can't turn the business round on a sixpence and have to ensure continuity. Thus what they do doesn't depend on the result of negotiations, it depends on what they think the risks are and what their lead time on decisions is.
The plans announced to date are contingent on business that is covered by EU legislation being unable to continue from London. That is not a given. Or course this will not prevent the hyperbole and the scaremongering.
Scaremongering? Are banks not planning to move staff? Will they wait 'till the final hour to put those plans in place?
As noted yesterday, we ALL have responsibilit for not using inflammatory and inaccurate language even it is par for the course for some.
Inaccurate language? Are you still doing your language control to shut down dissent nonsense?
Of course, the truth there is what happens re the single passport and the ability of banks to do business in different places. The plans announced to date are contingent on business that is covered by EU legislation being unable to continue from London. That is not a given. Or course this will not prevent the hyperbole and the scaremongering.
Minor detail obviously being how long does it take to move a business, and as the banks are legally responsible to their shareholders they have to do what they think is the right thing. Without a detailed idea of what the plan is they have to make some assumptions. And as the signals appear to be hard brexit to not respond accordingly opens them up to legal action around negligence.
No kelvin, I just happen to be directly involved in these discussion and would prefer the reality to reported not the fiction.
Happy for alternative views, less happy with obvious nonsense but I do enjoy reading it especially from one consistent and rich vein.
Hahaha so no immigration controls then - what a ****ing joke of a wind down. Bet we have to go through immigration controls to work in europe though.
The government has developed cold feet and backed themsekves into a right corner, I give May 6 months tops before a leadership challenge.
Hahaha so no immigration controls then
Even though I am in favour of FoM, I must point out that's not what's being said. They want to be able to control immigration, that doesn't mean stopping it. It means that they can let people in *when they want to* and not when they don't. Currently we do.
Quite a few leavers are going to be annoyed about this though I imagine.
What doesn't seem to be discusssed is how many of these foreign workers will be put off coming here after Brexit?
Tom, you should be celebrating. You have a hard line Brexshiteer watering down the rhetoric on immigration. That's a positive, not a negative. Indicates that the FoM red line is more lie,ly to be rather nice shade of rose.
progress, long may it continue....
Molgrips, they are simply using politician weasel speak. Theyll tell everyone that they technically got control of immigration and that they can clamp down on it at anytime (this will probably be a very liberal interpretation of the powers they may gain) - but theres a caveat....sorry...we cant...the economy lulz.
That way, they now get to be everything to everyone and we get the negatives of leaving the union and the negatives of a labour surplus.
Whoooooooooooo!
That would be great - we need immigration to continue. They have form here of course which is very positive for us - pretend that they are implementing austerity to pacify the fiscal hawks while at the same time running the one of the loosest fiscal policies in the developed world
IME always better to watch what they do not what they say they do. Reality v rhetoric
Except it wont be great, well leave the ECHr and the government will use a labour surplus unregulated by EU rules to artificially lower wages.
I bet the conservatives are ****ing themselves into comas right now.
Quite a few leavers are going to be annoyed about this though I imagine.
indeed, its almost as though immigration is good for the country, if not essential as our population faces its ageing timebomb
it was obvious that brexit would fix none of the issues the leavers had, who will they turn on once it fails?
What has this got to do with the ECHR?
How does limiting the supply of labour produce a surplus?
We really do have to stop the inflammatory rhetoric
Govt's idea of planning is to tell you to do something in advance of it occurring, how long you've to deal with it is your problem...
You've only got to see how they've published the off payroll rules to see that, finally delivered in Feb for an Apr 6th start. They really don't GAS about how folk will deal with it, and their software won't be ready until late March, but everyone has to be ready otherwise the penalties and fines could be horrendous.
If anyone is relying on governments to tell them what to do/how to plan they probably (in most cases) shouldn't be running businesses
Govs react, business leads
Theyll tell everyone that they technically got control of immigration
Well they will have that, and that's what a lot of leavers wanted. If the labour is needed, then they can be allowed in, but the key issue is that if it's not, they won't. That is a key difference.
Now of course, if the Labour isn't needed then why would people come? I guess that those who are already here and have built lives would stay anyway and end up on the dole. This is where it gets objectionable - it's fine for itinerant workers to go somewhere else when there's no work - either of their own free will or not; but sending established community memebrs out of the country rather than pay them dole, that's a far worse concept but one that I suspect a lot of leavers would have endorsed all the same.
That's a bloody long sentence isn't it?
THM, i can see the immigration line being along the lines of the Swiss compromise, effectively free movement, but as long as you advertise the job for Swiss first.
If that is the way it goes, some Brexiters really are going to have a fit!
THM - Mays attitude towards the ECHR and human rights in general, is indicative of her attitude towards all sorts of other rights as well. Workers rights, environmental law - if she can cut all these things and get cheaper labour to boot - then she will be a Thatcherite hero to many Conservatives.
I think a lot of the kippers were expecting heavy cuts in net migration, the conservatives are only going to inflame the situation further by going down a route that angers both sides. Maybe that is what they want though?
Lower value of £ will deter some workers coming?
Possibly a factor in why science and NHS are struggling to recruit from abroad/EU at the moment
Interesting comments from Ivan Rogers
Rogers says, although the EU and the US do not have a free trade agreements, they do have agreements covering trade. There are 20-plus agreements, he says.Q: So having no deal would not put the UK in the same position as the US?
Rogers says, if the UK leaves the single market, it will lose access.
He says he does not want to be “excessively alarmist”. But, if you are contemplating trading on WTO terms, you have to know what that will mean for every sector. He says he knows a lot about this subject, but he does not have all the answers to that. He says the government should be doing this analysis, and working out whether trading on WTO-terms would be realistic.
Tom, what has this got to do with Brexshit? You suggested that we'll leave the ECHR. I put it to you that this is untrue and merely an example of more scaremongering of which there has been much on this page alone
We are living up to the remoaners and project fear tags more by the day
Does he mean ECJ?
May has been banging on about leaving the ECHR for years now
No. I meant the ECHR.
Ever wonder why May keeps banging on about leaving?
It's all starting to make sense from the "all Tories are the arsehole descendants of slave owning scum" perspective.
Lower value of £ will deter some workers coming?
Hah. Itinerant workers will need to be paid more, in that case. Pushing costs up further.
WTO employment regs are notoriously slack on everything, from child labour, to workers rights etc- race to the bottom if thats where we are heading
Always expect people to make the least ethical and most politically expedient and profitable choices Kimbers.
We belong to a race of apes that are about half a chromosome away from hurling shit at each other, swinging from trees and fighting over who gets to rape a haram of females. Good, ethical governance is the exception not the norm.
meant there was zero chance of German rearmament.
Like after WW1?
Not that I live in fear of Germany starting WW3, but I believe the EU is one of a number of structures which has helped maintain a cohesive and generally peaceful Europe.
Not that I live in fear of Germany starting WW3, but I believe the EU is one of a number of structures which has helped maintain a cohesive and generally peaceful Europe.
Who was the last western european leader to get into a war?
Tom, I was giving you the benefit of perhaps confusing the ECJ and the ECHR. Since you are not, you are merely scaremongering. Glad that this is cleared up.
Dont worry you are not alone. We have had:
The banks in the city of London are all making their plans to leave the UK as they will have to
The negatives of a labour surplus
We'll leave the ECHR
All untrue, all exaggerations/false, all scaremongering
And that's just on one page
TJ what a total load of bollix. You do make me laugh having turned into a supporter of banking, I should dig out the quotes from the "Banker Bashing" thread I started a while back
HSBC 1,000 roles confirmed to Paris – half of them returning French nationals.
Goldman Sachs 3,000 roles rumoured to be going, some to Frankfurt.
JP Morgan 4,000 roles could go, the bank has warned.
UBS 1,000 of 5,000 jobs will go to Frankfurt or Madrid, according to head of UBS’s investment bank.
Morgan Stanley 1,000 roles rumoured to be under threat.
HSBC said it was [b]considering[/b] moving [b]up to[/b] 1,000 roles - nothing [b]confirmed[/b] about it at all. French employer and employee taxes are sky high and its hard to fire people ditto Germany - banks hate that.
Goldman roles will go (if any where) back to NY
The other numbers are "scare story" tactics to try and put pressure on the Government. Funny how they are all large round numbers.
I have told my MP if banks / financial services want a special deal with the EU [b]THEY[/b] should pay for it. I'll wager they'll shut up pretty promptly. Moving their staff to another EU country will add 25-30% to staff costs and the list of people willing to relocate to Frankfurt is minimal - even Germans don't wamt to work there.
European business has become hugely unprofitable and most London banks have massively cut back, HSBC is in the midst of a £4bn cost cutting programme and Barclays has been getting out of pretty much all its European business.
Mrmo, something along those lines
It seems that both sides want to prioritise citizens rights and how to tackle the horny issues around services. We shall see. Let them get on with it.
[I]We'll leave the ECHR
All untrue, all exaggerations/false, all scaremongering[/I]
Hmm, so sure?
jambas, tbf to TJ, Gulliver was quoted using some sloppy language back in January in a Bloomberg conference. So in the case of HSBC, it is justifiable to misread what is going on.
That's Gulliver's fault though not TJs
Oddly in their annual report published yesterday I am staggered to see no reference to Brexshit in the risk to business section nor in the CEO and Chairman's statements other than as a reason for weaker results. Indeed the word appears only once in 284 pages which given that this is the reason why they are leaving London seems a bit odd. 😉
Thank you br for confirming what I said - not related to Brexshit.
Different things
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/theresa-may-fight-2020-election-plans-take-britain-european/ ]Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of European Convention on Human Rights after Brexit is completed[/url]
Of course it's related to brexit, it is not possible without brexit and it's one of the reasons why she is in favour of brexit.
TJ since 2008 there must have been 250,000 job losses in the City. The majority of people I know 45+ have been made redundant and won't in all likelihood get another job in banking. Barclays laid off something like 3,000 highly paid people (avg £200k pa) in 2015 just before Christmas and it didn't even make the papers.
Well she has been desperate to get away from it so why not stick it in there....
Thank you captain, but we already have confirmation that Brexshit does not affect our membership of ECHR from b r
Its entirely related to Brexshit though, they are pursuing both Brexit and exit from the ECHR to achieve a common goal.
I've just installed the google addon,the political threads suddenly make a lot more sense,an annoying buzzing in my ear has vanished,and my blood pressure appears to be returning to normal 😆
Shame nobody told UKIP that, anyway whats to stop her just adding it to her little red lines...
[i]Thank you captain, but we already have confirmation that Brexshit does not affect our membership of ECHR from br [/I]
FFS get a grip. What world do you live in that night doesn't follow day?
Capn, you are conveniently forgetting that
1. She was in favour of remain
2. The Gov was in favour of remain
3. She is executing something that she didn't want but the majority of voters voted for
So the attempt to put 2 and 2 together to make 8 is flawed from the outset.
The old word before #posttruth politics where people were prepared to deal with facts not fiction.
I appreciate that I am out of touch in that respect. Let's just banter around with fiction, makes much better froth.
You suggested that we'll leave the ECHR. I put it to you that this is untrue and merely an example of more scaremongering of which there has been much on this page alone
That's what you said THM.
I agree that leaving the ECHR is not an automatic consequence of brexit. However, it is May's stated plan to do this after brexit, and she can only do it after brexit. What you call "untrue" and "scaremongering" is explicitly stated as the PM's plan in that article.