|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 23, 2019 14:32:21 GMT
captainconfident - despite the issues highlighted, the Italian was a closer fit to the job requirements, the UK applicants were all very recent graduates without experience that I could learn from (speculative applications chasing the high salary being offered). Europe in the shape of the EU has become ridiculously protectionist, and has closed its mind to the possibility that there is a world out there which is rapidly becoming more advanced than it is. If you want world class UK companies then they need the ability to select the best recruits from where ever. The alternative is to say us Brits are too arrogant to learn from the best in the world simply because they don't hold an EU passport.
Just to put this into context, my clients were multi-national corporations, some UK/EU owned but most not. If they employ consultants such as myself, they expect the advice I provide to be based on current global best practise.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 23, 2019 16:47:38 GMT
Or better still, first against the wall come the day of the revolution "Power to the People" and "Freedom for Tooting" Quotes Wolfie Smith, c1977-1980 I think technically MP's will be second in line as the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation have bagsied first place.
|
|
|
Post by charlata on Mar 23, 2019 20:21:31 GMT
Thus leaving me supposing that those of us of a strong eurosceptic bent are calling May's WA 'remaining'. It's out of the SM, so no more freedom of movement of labour, i.e. control of legal immigration from the EU; which is chunk of what people voted for. It may be kicking leaving the CU into the indefinite future, but that doesn't make it remain. Just because 'leave' doesn't turn out to be everything that some 'leave' voters would like it to be (WTO) doesn't make it 'remain'.
The concern I have with the WA is by, as you put it "kicking leaving the CU into the indefinite future", we make it very difficult for the economy to rebalance to account for the other major bit (leaving the SM). Without the ability to set our own trade policy, it is inevitable that we would elect to rejoin the EU in due course. (Labour's in "a" customs union but with the ability to do independent trade deals is political sematics as in reality they are describing a free trade deal).
For myself, and many business people, freedom of movement is in itself not that big a deal. What must end though is the requirement that EU citizens get preferential treatment in the jobs market (and many would argue any ability to come to the UK without employment, or to stay if unemployed and in the UK for less than 5 years). Why should I be told by the home office that I can't employ a Chinese guy who speaks perfect English, has exactly the academic and work experience that I need and can learn from, because they believe an Italian I interviewed and rejected was an adequate fit for my needs (relatively poor English as a 3rd language, tangentially relevant degree, zero experience of the current best practise approaches that I wished to consider how to apply).
I wasn't particularly trying to promote the WA, beyond observing that it is not 'remain'. I have no opinion on the sustainability of being in a CU whilst out of the SM beyond observing that Turkey have done this since the mid 90's.
I don't really see the problem with unemployed immigrants. I don't know why the UK chooses to give such people social cover. Other EU members have chosen not to.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 23, 2019 20:34:22 GMT
Good point re Turkey and its CU with the EU, but outside the SM. As with most articles on brexit this one on the Turkish CU is likely heavily biased (to the remain cause in this case) but nevertheless provides some useful background I think.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by travolta on Mar 23, 2019 20:45:43 GMT
I don't expect this to be appreciated by many who post here but taking the long view ,abrupt systemic change is shown to be beneficial for the whole of society, after an initial brief negative reaction . You can see by the radical social restructure after WW11 that the long term benefits cut across all levels . People find better ways of moving forward and are able to clear out old restrictive practices. Change is resented but historically is repeatedly shown to be cathartic and successful.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Mar 23, 2019 23:09:10 GMT
I don't expect this to be appreciated by many who post here but taking the long view ,abrupt systemic change is shown to be beneficial for the whole of society, after an initial brief negative reaction . You can see by the radical social restructure after WW11 that the long term benefits cut across all levels . People find better ways of moving forward and are able to clear out old restrictive practices. Change is resented but historically is repeatedly shown to be cathartic and successful. That's a rather narrow view of history.
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Mar 24, 2019 1:00:43 GMT
I don't expect this to be appreciated by many who post here but taking the long view ,abrupt systemic change is shown to be beneficial for the whole of society, after an initial brief negative reaction . You can see by the radical social restructure after WW11 that the long term benefits cut across all levels . People find better ways of moving forward and are able to clear out old restrictive practices. Change is resented but historically is repeatedly shown to be cathartic and successful. That's a That would depend how far back in history you are prepared to travel, certainly since the dawn of known uk democracy (early 1600's) and the first uk parliament in the early 1700's , the vast majority of changes have almost certainly been both beneficial and progressive. edit, apologies , not sure what happened to registerme full quote above.
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Mar 24, 2019 1:15:05 GMT
I hope this does not not come across as pedantic, but there seems to be a lot of CU, SM, Etc, abbreviations being used, it would be far easier to understand peoples point if they could write the full definition rather than short cuts. edit. after a quick glance i have no idea what a CU, an SM or a WA means.. .... SM maybe
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 24, 2019 9:09:02 GMT
I hope this does not not come across as pedantic, but there seems to be a lot of CU, SM, Etc, abbreviations being used, it would be far easier to understand peoples point if they could write the full definition rather than short cuts. edit. after a quick glance i have no idea what a CU, an SM or a WA means.. .... SM maybe Try customs union, single market and withdrawl agreement (which I always thought was a form of birth control).
I assume you are ok with World War eleven?
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 24, 2019 10:32:51 GMT
captainconfident - despite the issues highlighted, the Italian was a closer fit to the job requirements, the UK applicants were all very recent graduates without experience that I could learn from (speculative applications chasing the high salary being offered). Europe in the shape of the EU has become ridiculously protectionist, and has closed its mind to the possibility that there is a world out there which is rapidly becoming more advanced than it is. If you want world class UK companies then they need the ability to select the best recruits from where ever. The alternative is to say us Brits are too arrogant to learn from the best in the world simply because they don't hold an EU passport.
Just to put this into context, my clients were multi-national corporations, some UK/EU owned but most not. If they employ consultants such as myself, they expect the advice I provide to be based on current global best practise.
I don't understand why you are raising this in the context of Brexit and the EU. The conditions of entry for workers into the UK jobs market from countries outside the EU is entirely controlled by HMG. Not an EU issue. Surely you know that.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 24, 2019 11:28:33 GMT
captainconfident - despite the issues highlighted, the Italian was a closer fit to the job requirements, the UK applicants were all very recent graduates without experience that I could learn from (speculative applications chasing the high salary being offered). Europe in the shape of the EU has become ridiculously protectionist, and has closed its mind to the possibility that there is a world out there which is rapidly becoming more advanced than it is. If you want world class UK companies then they need the ability to select the best recruits from where ever. The alternative is to say us Brits are too arrogant to learn from the best in the world simply because they don't hold an EU passport.
Just to put this into context, my clients were multi-national corporations, some UK/EU owned but most not. If they employ consultants such as myself, they expect the advice I provide to be based on current global best practise.
I don't understand why you are raising this in the context of Brexit and the EU. The conditions of entry for workers into the UK jobs market from countries outside the EU is entirely controlled by HMG. Not an EU issue. Surely you know that. Yes of course non-EU immigration is HMG policy, but is currently massively restricted (for poliical reasons) to counter balance EU freedom of movement, the current framework originating from the time of the EU eastern european expansion. So whilst not directly an EU issue, its a practical consequence of EU membership (albeit of political origin).
People voted leave in the referendum for multiple reasons, and the point I was trying to make in my reply to another poster, is that FoM in itself is not such a big deal for me, but that rejoining the EU (through failure to gain the benefits of leaving the CU) could have ongoing consequences to companies wishing to hire non-EU staff.
Put simply its a difference in vision - I see myself as a citizen of the world, with my home base the UK.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 24, 2019 11:38:46 GMT
I don't understand why you are raising this in the context of Brexit and the EU. The conditions of entry for workers into the UK jobs market from countries outside the EU is entirely controlled by HMG. Not an EU issue. Surely you know that. Yes of course non-EU immigration is HMG policy, but is currently massively restricted (for poliical reasons) to counter balance EU freedom of movement, the current framework originating from the time of the EU eastern european expansion. So whilst not directly an EU issue, its a practical consequence of EU membership (albeit of political origin).
People voted leave in the referendum for multiple reasons, and the point I was trying to make in my reply to another poster, is that FoM in itself is not such a big deal for me, but that rejoining the EU (through failure to gain the benefits of leaving the CU) could have ongoing consequences to companies wishing to hire non-EU staff.
Put simply its a difference in vision - I see myself as a citizen of the world, with my home base the UK.
In your opinion, should the UK leave the Single Market in order to correct this recruitment issue that you see as a consequence of SM membership?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 24, 2019 12:37:50 GMT
Yes of course non-EU immigration is HMG policy, but is currently massively restricted (for poliical reasons) to counter balance EU freedom of movement, the current framework originating from the time of the EU eastern european expansion. So whilst not directly an EU issue, its a practical consequence of EU membership (albeit of political origin).
People voted leave in the referendum for multiple reasons, and the point I was trying to make in my reply to another poster, is that FoM in itself is not such a big deal for me, but that rejoining the EU (through failure to gain the benefits of leaving the CU) could have ongoing consequences to companies wishing to hire non-EU staff.
Put simply its a difference in vision - I see myself as a citizen of the world, with my home base the UK.
In your opinion, should the UK leave the Single Market in order to correct this recruitment issue that you see as a consequence of SM membership? Yes. To remain a leading global economy (currently 5th largest) over the next 50 years I believe we need to leave SM+CU+ECJ. EEC/EU membership may have benefited us over the last 40 years but the world is a very different place now to then. The changes in China in particular over the last 40 years are breathtaking, and the pace of change is continuing to accelerate - Shanghai is unrecognisable compared to just 20 years ago ... I was given a tour of one of the first skyscrapers in the late '90s, now there are dozens of them as well as the incredible Maglev train serving the airport.
Of course London has also seen astounding redevelopment over the last 40 years, and let face it I'm typing this sat at home in a house built on land that was an abondoned infilled dock 40 years ago, looking across the Thames to the Canary Wharf towers that have sprung up over the last 30 years.
In both cases the occupants of the skyscrapers are predominately companies shuffling money around, although latterly, again in both cities, hotels and residential apartments are beginning to feature.
The only point I'm making is that economies such as China , Brazil etc have the opportunity to dominate the world over the next 50 years. How we adapt to such challenges is the crux of the debate - for many being in the protectionist clutches of a european single market is the answer, but this still in my mind leaves unresolved what should the rest of the UK's population outside London do in an era of post-industrialisation.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 24, 2019 13:04:13 GMT
In your opinion, should the UK leave the Single Market in order to correct this recruitment issue that you see as a consequence of SM membership? Yes. To remain a leading global economy (currently 5th largest) over the next 50 years I believe we need to leave SM+CU+ECJ. EEC/EU membership may have benefited us over the last 40 years but the world is a very different place now to then. The changes in China in particular over the last 40 years are breathtaking, and the pace of change is continuing to accelerate - Shanghai is unrecognisable compared to just 20 years ago ... I was given a tour of one of the first skyscrapers in the late '90s, now there are dozens of them as well as the incredible Maglev train serving the airport.
Of course London has also seen astounding redevelopment over the last 40 years, and let face it I'm typing this sat at home in a house built on land that was an abondoned infilled dock 40 years ago, looking across the Thames to the Canary Wharf towers that have sprung up over the last 30 years.
In both cases the occupants of the skyscrapers are predominately companies shuffling money around, although latterly, again in both cities, hotels and residential apartments are beginning to feature.
The only point I'm making is that economies such as China , Brazil etc have the opportunity to dominate the world over the next 50 years. How we adapt to such challenges is the crux of the debate - for many being in the protectionist clutches of a european single market is the answer, but this still in my mind leaves unresolved what should the rest of the UK's population outside London do in an era of post-industrialisation.
Good reply. I absolutely disagree, as you know. But it's not possible to know which of us will be proved right and even then, it will be a guess as to what degree of success the other course of action would have brought. It's the wonder of Brexit. Although I do think a majority of people would agree with me. It struck me how many people said they voted for Brexit because we don't need Them. We can make it ourselves in Britain with our people. Few voted because they wanted Britain to become a lean dog in the free trade, no rules New Singapore described by Dominic Raab et al in Britannia Unchained and with whom I think you would agree. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_UnchainedImportant point: All the Brexiteer young guns are contributors here but they DO NOT ONCE mention the necessity of leaving the EU to achieve their "Unchained" right-wing economic aims. All you want, mrc, was achievable from inside the Single Market in their perspective back in 2012. Nothing about the single market changed since then and yet now according to these same people it is essential to leave it to achieve their goals. This points to a high degree of opportunism if not frank dishonesty.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Mar 24, 2019 17:28:11 GMT
|
|