So are you saying once we are out of the EU we can get migration from inside the EU down to the level of migration we currently get from outside the EU?Incorrect. Agreed that migration from outside the EU is totally the responsibility of the government who happens to be in power, but EU migration as we all know cannot be controlled.
@brooes the rest of the world manages just fine without EU membership and freedom of movement. A virtually unlimited supply of Labour, be that unskilled or highly skilled, thr vast majority of which comes from economically poorer countries thatn the UK does only one thing. It depresses wages and discourages training. Now whilst an economist may point to greater and swifter growth in GDP thats not helping people with reduced opportunities. It is not surprising people with a higher level of formal edication don't care so much, they believe that their superior skills insulate them from such inflows (but they are wrong imo) and they like the (largely theoretical) opportunty to work abroad (how many have suitable foreign language skills?)
Incorrect
Incorrect.
It depresses wages and discourages training.
Incorrect x 2.
CITE PLEASEIt depresses wages
To be clear we say this when what you said is totally untrue
Well it certainly explains why you care so muchIt is not surprising people with a higher level of formal edication don't care so much
@brooes the rest of the world manages just fine without EU membership and freedom of movement.
No, part of the rest of the world do. There are lots of countries that aren't doing fine.
Those countries the are doing fine have had hundreds of years to establish their status quo, we are leaving our to step into the abyss. It will take decades to reestablish ourselves.
@drj - please do educate me on how you control EU migration given freedom of movement. I was always lead to believe that an EU passport gave right of passage.
I was always lead to believe that an EU passport gave right of passage.
Indeed. And you were led to believe that we would be giving £350m a day to the NHS. How's that workin' out for ya?
UK made the choice to let in workers from new accession countries, when it was wasn't required by EU. The right move economically, but time has shown us perhaps the wrong move politically.
UK made the choice not to count in or count out new EU workers, and the choice not to ask them to leave if not earning or self sufficient after 3 months. UK made the choice not to ask EU workers to pay additional tax or insurance for health (rightly so in my eyes). Lots UK could do to "control" EU migration, but it would be a waste of time and money, and discourage EU workers from coming here, and, despite the dog whistle stuff in campaigns by both main parties, no government of last 20 years has wanted to saddle the country with those penalties.
It depresses wages and discourages training
hmm. can you explain how a 1% pay rise cap and the removal of training bursaries is going to lead to an increase in nursing provision that we will require once those damned EU nurses go home or just decide not to come?
Kelvin, not doubting you but do you have a link/steer for that stuff we could have done but didn't? Very interesting.
Expected press from EU summit. May's offer of permanent residence to 3m EU citizens in return for reciprocal rights for UK citizens "not enough". What is interesting is it shows that Cornyn/Labour's stance of making the same offer to EU citizens without a requirement for se for UK citizens was pointless as EU would have said the same "not enough"
Take it or leave it would be my position. 3.2m vs 900,000. Very long list of people who'd love to come here under a temporary work visa. Also many retired Brits living in countries around the world with no right of permanent residence. Its much less of an issue than is being made out. As I have posted before Portugal has been actively solicitong retirees from around the world with significant tax breaks. They are free to do so outside EU influence
Unable to answer my question?Indeed. And you were led to believe that we would be giving £350m a day to the NHS. How's that workin' out for ya?
For your reference I was never led to believe any of the claims.
DrJ my good friend works in HR for the NHS, she's an ex-nurse. There are many many qualified applicants from Asia.
EDIT: applications from EU are down as now we require an English test/certificate
Very long list of people who'd love to come here under a temporary work visa
i'll just leave this here, again: [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/25/number-eu-nurses-coming-uk-falls-90-per-cent-since-brexit-vote/ ]Number of EU nurses coming to UK falls 90 per cent since Brexit vote[/url]
DrJ my good friend works in HR for the NHS, she's an ex-nurse. There are many manybqualified applicants from Asia.
really? the chap sitting opposite me right now has a wife who also works in HR in an NHS trust.
dartmouth hospital was closed largely due to the fact they could not staff it.
Who care jamby has an anecdote about his pal - you can take your facts and shove them.
Of course its true its jamby his probity and love of facts is LEGENDARY
No one has more "good friends" with anecdotes to support his fact-free opinions than jamba.
It depresses wages
CITE PLEASE
here you go
The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers even though those effects can be considered relatively small. Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers.
Another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by nearly 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008). They also find the same effect in an updated paper, in which they consider the period from 1992 and 2014, however in this extended period the average wage reduction for the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector is just under 0.2% (Nickell and Salaheen 2015).
3.2m vs 900,000.
It'd not about money or numbers. It's about doing the right thing. Not that I expect you to understand that.
really? the chap sitting opposite me right now has a wife who also works in HR in an NHS trust.
Is she an EU national? Sorry. She has to leave to make space for a Filippina who is cheaper. Too bad for your friends family.
in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by nearly 0.5%
I've read that report before… it does not indicate a lowering of wages for those already here (and on low wages) but more simply that we have more, and new, lower paid positions being filled by immigrants.
You'll notice also that, in one of the other reports cited, employment conflicts were shown to be with non-EU rather than EU workers (and tiny in impact).
Kelvin, not doubting you but do you have a link/steer for that stuff we could have done but didn't? Very interesting.
It's all been done to death in this thread, both before and after the vote. Page back, or google. Or I will for you this evening; work to do.
@Del its [b]applications[/b] and I asked my friend about it who works recruiting nurses for the NHS. See my post above.
I've read that report before… it does not indicate a lowering of wages for those already here (and on low wages) but more simply that we have more, and new, lower paid positions being filled by immigrants.
it doesnt say that at all , it specifically states :-
Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers.
I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise, as you have your belief/understanding based on what you have read and your observations, and I have mine, but clearly we disagree, so lets leave it at that.
Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers.
if only there was some sort of mechanism by which the government could redistribute this uneven sharing of wealth, hmmmmmmm
The NHS is in the grip of its worst ever staffing crisis
its been bad for years and getting worse, the low £, poor housing provision (not to mention our increasingly xenophobic press & politicians) making this place less attractive to foreign workers, especially those with qualifications in nursing, research etc
come to britain its a lovely welcoming place
Some of the biggest problems with the NHS are it being free at the point of service & the number using it. Those 2 combined would overload any organisation unless it had bottomless resources.
Now I am in no way opining we should restrict who can access it, but isn't it about time that some sort of means testing method of payment was used with a cap at a given %?
I really don't know how practical an idea this is..
You could also just tax people more rather than means testing. Means testing would mean that only ill rich people would pay rather than all rich people.
all rich people
That's hardly fair though is it - means testing at point of use is surely a fairer way of doing it?
Adding to that, & again happy to be proved wrong, how many folks end up in A & E after night because they are too drunk to get a cab? I only have the stories I hear from my brother, whose a paramedic in Bristol, at the w/e most of his work is picking up drunks. Now if you had to swipe your card before a getting in the ambulance at the end of a night on the lash might you go home before you got that wasted?
Again, I don't know how workable the idea is..
[quote=flanagaj ]@drj - please do educate me on how you control EU migration given freedom of movement. I was always lead to believe that an EU passport gave right of passage.
https://twitter.com/jerryhogg/status/876773422042423298
I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise, as you have your belief/understanding based on what you have read and your observations, and I have mine, but clearly we disagree, so lets leave it at that.
I've just read more, in the past, of what you have just linked to. That is all. Have you just read the summary?
There can also be difficulty in distinguishing whether migrants are actually impacting the wages of UK-born workers, or whether the figures for the average wage are being changed as a result of migrants growing as a proportion of the workforce whilst being paid less (or more) than non-migrants, without them necessarily affecting actual wages UK-born workers receive (Nickell & Salaheen (2015) address this problem in their analysis).
That"s from that page, but still misses the point a bit. Read the actual papers.
That's hardly fair though is it - means testing at point of use is surely a fairer way of doing it?
not really, i could earn a fortune, spunk it all on coke and hookers, and be broke.
@jamba, your 'applications' was an edit i didn't see before you posted, sorry, but the english requirement is thought to be a minor factor in the recruitment drop from EU, and I think you know it. i'll go find something i can cite if you like?
It seems utterly bizarre how a small number of posters seem intent on confounding common sense.
You could also just tax people more rather than means testing. Means testing would mean that only ill rich people would pay rather than all rich people.
Dead simple innit...if you earn less than £11,500 a year, no tax. If you earn more than £45K a year then the excess is 40% tax. If you're in between those two extremes then you pay 20% tax (as opposed to 30% during the Thatcher years).
Properly means tested at source.
Dead simple innit...if you earn less than £11,500 a year, no tax. If you earn more than £45K a year then the excess is 40% tax. If you're in between those two extremes then you pay 20% tax (as opposed to 30% during the Thatcher years).Properly means tested at source.
Only problem is that doesn't seem to work - so what do we do? How do you raise the extra cash that's needed? The amount to money the NHS needs to function happily is, well, name a figure today & it'll be a different one by tomorrow...
The other thing being how many lifestyle diseases can be avoided that currently aren't because folks chose to abuse their bodies?
How much do they cost & why should others pay for someone else wilful abuse of their bodies?
It's thorny & make no mistake, I've no wish to see the NHS dismantled by the Tories but I'm not convinced in it's current state it can continue to live - regardless of how much money is pumped into it.
An analogy perhaps:
Motorways. Often jammed up. What do you do? Do you build more lanes? Well, no, that doesn't work, just generates more traffic. So, what next? It seems, that the next best option is to try & manage the flow of traffic & folks driving habits so traffic keeps moving.
So, how about trying education to reduce the burden on the NHS?
My apologies for the brain dump!
not really, i could earn a fortune, spunk it all on coke and hookers, and be broke
Lifestyle inflicted illness? Pony up!
oldracer - MemberAdding to that, & again happy to be proved wrong, how many folks end up in A & E after night because they are too drunk to get a cab? I only have the stories I hear from my brother, whose a paramedic in Bristol, at the w/e most of his work is picking up drunks. Now if you had to swipe your card before a getting in the ambulance at the end of a night on the lash might you go home before you got that wasted?
No. Because nobody goes out with the intention of going home in an ambulance, regardless of whether that'd cost them money or not. it's always an unintended consequence and you can't deter that with charging.
Kind of like increased sentencing doesn't deter if the criminal assumes they won't get caught- people don't go "I'll go out murdering because if I get caught it's only 10 years" or "I'd like to go out murdering but if I get caught it's 20 years, that's too much", they go "I won't get caught"
Only problem is that doesn't seem to work - so what do we do? How do you raise the extra cash that's needed? The amount to money the NHS needs to function happily is, well, name a figure today & it'll be a different one by tomorrow...
Have a look at what has happened to Corporation Tax over the last seven years.
There's plenty of money out there. Tons of it in fact. Money where mouth is, I'm happy to pay more tax in exchange for better services.
What are we still arguing about NHS funding? It's sorted. [b]£350 million extra a week [/b]to pay non existing nurses and doctors, and buy increasingly expensive drugs…[b] GO![/b]
Have a look at what has happened to Corporation Tax over the last seven years.
Indeed.
No. Because nobody goes out with the intention of going home in an ambulance, regardless of whether that'd cost them money or not. it's always an unintended consequence and you can't deter that with charging.Kind of like increased sentencing doesn't deter if the criminal assumes they won't get caught- people don't go "I'll go out murdering because if I get caught it's only 10 years" or "I'd like to go out murdering but if I get caught it's 20 years, that's too much", they go "I won't get caught"
Some truth in that, though according to my bro, he's picked up plenty (He's a paramedic in Bristol) who are just too wasted to make their own way home...should they be blocking a bed in A & E just because they've no self-control?
@boardinbob - that might explain the rules but does not answer controlling immigration.
From a hypothetical perspective if 500k EU citizens were able to arrive tomorrow could the UK government stop it?
No. So that means EU migration cannot be controlled.
From a hypothetical perspective if a million asylum seekers (edit: I probably mean refugees here) turned up on our beaches tomorrow we would be obliged to take them in under our legal obligations.
There's plenty of money out there. Tons of it in fact. Money where mouth is, I'm happy to pay more tax in exchange for better services.
Exactly. I am also happy to pay more tax. I even voted for a party that would put taxes up and use the money on health and education.
From a hypothetical perspective if a million asylum seekers (edit: I probably mean refugees here) turned up on our beaches tomorrow we would be obliged to take them in under our legal obligations.
Yep, and if 10 million people from the UK decided to go and live in France they could do that to. Good isn't it.
Basically, in order to cut immigration to any significant extent, you either have to prevent students coming here paying lots of money to attend our world-class universities, or you have to split up international families, or you have to cut off the labour supply for major industries. What is your choice (in detail please) and why?
oldracer - MemberSome truth in that, though according to my bro, he's picked up plenty (He's a paramedic in Bristol) who are just too wasted to make their own way home...should they be blocking a bed in A & E just because they've no self-control?
What's your alternative? Charge them? They don't have any money, leave them where they are? You pick someone up who says she's fine, do you charge them? Someone says they've been roofied?
Actually there's some really good alternatives but they're unpopular because they seem too nice. Maidstone did a pilot- a Drunk Bus, basically, it dealt with minor injuries, incapacitated people, and also was generally a place to get a bit of help- people lost or pissed-but-not-collapsed or whatever. It cut antisocial behaviour and was estimated to have saved teh NHS £125000 a year.
bloody do gooders help folk and saving money
