You make no sense whatsoever. Either you do not understand the EU free market or you like to make up rubbish. No-one seriously thinks like this claim of your has any merit or basis. You do realise that it is making you look very silly indeed.
1 Like
Don’t you read anything why do I have to keep repeating myself. Can’t you tell the difference between jobs we do need and jobs we don’t need. All that was happening with free movement was Europeans were coming over here and undercutting our own workers and so keeping the wages low now businesses have to pay real wages to attract the staff. EU workers had the same rights as our own people so if on low wages could claim tax credits, etc. Now to come here to work they have to earn over a certain amount and pay tax. This is what’s known as taking back control of who comes here.
This thought has crossed my mind too!
1 Like
The freedom of movement of workers is not without limitations.
“For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members – if not working – must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay.”
The UK was exceptionally lax in managing the influx of EU workers. At the same time the UK had very loose employment rules, making it easy to get very low paid work. So much fewer Poles, Romanians, etc went to other affluent EU countries where the EU rules were strictly applied and there was more rigour on not giving out free health care, free social care, etc.
Now we have criminals in countries like Philippines and Nigeria taking money from people who want to work in the UK, making them pay excessively for a UK work visa and travel. Then finding there is no job and being left destitute. Great system - profiting the criminals. Sit that aside the criminals who are profiting from the boats across the channel. Two Brexit successes right there.
3 Likes
Yup I know the UK didn’t rigidly stick to the rules, which gave EU citizens coming to this country a greater advantage than going to other EU countries. That still doesn’t mean that the ones who were working here wasn’t pushing down the wages of our own people and didn’t discourage companies for training up our own people.
The criminals aren’t just bringing them over here as I’ve said in an earlier post the amount that come here are miniscule as compared to other European countries and is causing rows within EU countries.
Do you understand how in the economy wages, inflation and cost of goods are all linked?
2 Likes
Oh right so you think that it’s right for people on low wages to keep their wages low, so that people with money can keep on having cheap labour.
if you increase everyone’s wages, the cost of living will also increase because the economy is a system. If you are talking about the world economy it will increase the cost of our exports. It is not a desirable situation as it gives short term relief but long term pain.
Who said anything about increasing everyone’s wages.
Taking this out of context and turning it to your advantage further devalues your argument in my view.
2 Likes
Have you read the article you posted? It’s talking about importing high paid workers, expensive labour and increased investment by those who cannot get cheap labour to eradicate roles which can be automated or replaced with Artificial intelligence. I don’t understand why you think any of this will benefit Brits. British students graduating from University will have to compete with international graduates who are being imported to fill elite vacancies.
I’ve just realised that the article you posted is an opinion piece and therefore not serious journalism.
2 Likes
Take it up with The Guardian then Lincolnshire recommended that publication.
I’m not sure which argument you disagree with me on. You have stated that you voted for Brexit and would do so again if asked - so there is no way I can persuade you that my view (that Brexit is ill-conceived, ill-executed and damaging) has merit.
But perhaps you are referring to the recent dialogue about whether being in the EU and those who supported being in the EU are inherently racist. Is it that argument? Remember, here what was stated:
“When we were in the EU we had free movement of people from the EU, but the rest of the world had restrictions if they wanted to come and live and work in this country. The majority of the EU people are white Europeans, this to me is being racist, i.e. allowing one set of people above the rest.”
You agree with that and see no value in my argument against that?
I don’t think much of the Guardian in general. But you posted this article and you still haven’t justified how the article demonstrates a brexit benefit.
Read my earlier post again - I’m commenting on your treatment of another poster, which I think you probably know. The way in which you take things out of context and twist them to suit your agenda suggests to me that you should be a politician … or maybe you are one!
1 Like
Do I really have to post it again:
Are you telling me that £26,200 a year is going to cause inflation? I’ve already said that when we were in the EU they were able to claim benefits to increase their wages. I also think it’s good that people coming to this country have to know how to speak English, there were loads of EU citizens who couldn’t.
We have something in common at last, I don’t think much of The Guardian either and majority of its readers are from overseas, but Lincolnshire trusts it, so at least that keeps him happy.
1 Like
Warning those suffering from Brexit-derangement-syndrome, don’t read:
There is a very big hole in Keir Starmer’s plan to do a deal with the EU over migrants, offering to take asylum-seekers from elsewhere on the continent in return for France and other countries agreeing to take back those who have arrived in Britain illegally on small boats. How on Earth does he expect the EU to agree to a deal with Britain when it cannot even sort out the issue of migrants between its own members?
What Starmer is proposing is how Europe’s asylum system ought to work in practice. Asylum-seekers should be obliged to make their claims in the first safe country in which they land, with those who travel between safe countries swiftly returned either to the first safe country in which they set foot – if not straight back home. As part of the deal, the burden of dealing with asylum applicants ought to be shared fairly between EU states.
But the EU has failed to build an effective system, with the result that the 7,000 migrants who arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa on Wednesday and Thursday alone (outnumbering the island’s permanent population of 6,000) are not going to be redistributed around Europe – Italy is going to be left to deal with them pretty much by itself. In 2023 so far it has had to handle 124,000 arrivals.
While the EU has had a resettlement scheme for asylum applications since 2015, it is voluntary and many member states have never played ball. In 2022, for example, Cyprus was left to handle 22,190 asylum applications – 24,119 for every million inhabitants – while Hungary handled just 45, a mere 4.7 for every million inhabitants. (The Hungarian figure does not include refugees from Ukraine. Over 50,000 are recorded since the start of the war in 2022, with over 3.4 million border crossings from Ukraine to Hungary).
Even the countries which have previously sought to take a fair share are wobbling. Germany (243,835 applications in 2022; 2,892 for every million inhabitants) last week announced it was suspending its agreement to take asylum seekers from Italy. Meanwhile the Belgian government said it intends to ignore a ruling from its supreme court that its policy of denying shelter to single young men seeking asylum was unlawful.
Having sovereignty over Lampedusa – the closest point of the EU to the failed state of Libya – is, in other words, just Italy’s hard luck. The same applies to Greece and its proximity to the Turkish coast, and to Cyprus – the most obvious first European calling point for refugees from Syria. So much for the grandiose principle of free movement, on which the EU refused to compromise during David Cameron’s ill-fated pre-referendum negotiations. When it comes to asylum applicants, EU member states are quick to roll out the barbed wire – literally in the case of Hungary which hurriedly built a Trump-style fence to keep out migrants heading up from Greece towards Germany.
If the EU cannot reach agreement on the fundamental issue of how to deal with migrants, then what is the point of it at all? Migration has the potential to rip apart the EU. When previously migrant-friendly countries like Germany and Sweden start to wash their hands of migrants who arrive on Europe’s southern shores, it is rapidly going to end up as a case of every country for itself. This will inevitably bring quite a reaction from those countries highly exposed to migrant flows.
Little over a decade ago it looked as if the EU could be pulled down by the sovereign debt crisis greatly exacerbated by the Euro. The EU just about survived that. But don’t bet your last Euro on the EU surviving the migrant crisis. The lofty ideals which are supposed to underpin the bloc have been tested to the limit – and found to have about the same structural integrity as Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete.
1 Like
My points were ref para 8 onwards. Whilst workers can claim a visa with their excellent English (although there is a list of countries that are exempt), that doesn’t apply to their dependents.
Again an opinion piece. Also unsure whether we compare favourably with the EU post-Brexit on this topic. It seems that the EU has reversed Merkel’s stance and is now going down the route of letting individual countries deal with this problem their own way. Italy is a particularly weak spot. But other countries are not. There doesn’t seem to be a united approach across the EU and they have been unable to enforce their ideas on immigration. Poland is holding a referendum next month to ask citizens whether they want to take in migrants.
1 Like
Sry for being off-topic here but I find it interesting what the question will be. Taken from a German news agency and translated from German to English via deepl.com the official question will be:
“Do you support the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa under the mechanism of mandatory admission imposed by the European bureaucracy?”
If the question will be asked like that then the answer will inevitably be “no”.