Bollocks to Brexit

[Fabbers]

Issue.

Politicians say Issss-you.

People say Ishoo

As you were.

Do you need a hanky?

[Rocky]

Do you need a hanky?

An offer that’s not to be sneezed at.

[JohnToo]

I have twice in the last two days had conversations with people of my daughters’ generation not mine - you know, the young people who are supposed to be our saviours if it comes to another vote because they are instinctively remain. They all basically said they don’t understand all the issues around withdrawal, it’s all too complicated, but we’ve made a decision and we should just get on with it. This does not bode well unless Remain can articulate a clear vision that supplants all the growing cynicism and saturation.

[JohnToo]

Sorry, but if you think that is going to have any effect at all in swaying a leave voter to change their opinion you really have been too much at the Baileys. What you are saying might indeed be heading in the right direction, but it misses by a country mile the reality of people who think they hate the EU but are ignorant of the good it does for them.

Clearly things are moving on, but just to return to this:

I largely agree. I do not for one moment believe that talking about, for instance, reforming the appointment process for commissioners would make one iota of difference in any forthcoming third referendum. I agree that we have not shown people the positive economic (and social and geopolitical) benefits the the EU brings because politicians have been scared to talk positively about it.

But I also believe that people perceive legitimate problems in the way the EU functions that leads them to feel cynical about it. When I said that upthread, Iris challenged me to say what needed to change. I set out those suggestions (which is why I was bemused by his later assertion that “reply came there none”). I do happen to believe that if, in some parallel universe to our present political realities, those sorts of changes could be implemented, the EU would Become a healthier, more democratic, more accountable organisation, and people would over time feel less negative about it.

[Rocky]

Clearly things are moving on, but just to return to this:

I largely agree. I do not for one moment believe that talking about, for instance, reforming the appointment process for commissioners would make one iota of difference in any forthcoming third referendum. I agree that we have not shown people the positive economic (and social and geopolitical) benefits the the EU brings because politicians have been scared to talk positively about it.

But I also believe that people perceive legitimate problems in the way the EU functions that leads them to feel cynical about it. When I said that upthread, Iris challenged me to say what needed to change. I set out those suggestions (which is why I was bemused by his later assertion that “reply came there none”). I do happen to believe that if, in some parallel universe to our present political realities, those sorts of changes could be implemented, the EU would Become a healthier, more democratic, more accountable organisation, and people would over time feel less negative about it.

The other way to look at it is from a purely selfish perspective and answer the question: what has the EU done for the UK over the last 40 odd years? Relative peace, relative prosperity (although the widening gulf between rich and poor is more down to tax cutting regressive home government policies), investment in the deprived areas of the UK, a supply of workers in low paid industry, highly skilled staff in the NHS, EU workers paying taxes, a solid base of manufacturing industry (using the flexibility of the UK to access EU markets), security, membership of Galileo, ERASMUS, Euratom etc etc etc. Friends and allies in a challenging world. Critical mass in negotiating trade deals.

Take these away and things will look very different. Also, simple little things like free roaming on mobile phones, lack of visas.

I'd also like an admission (we won't get it) that a lack of investment in the Border Agency led to the Daily Mail headline problems of EU criminals etc not being captured and deported and the rise in illegal immigration from round the world (nothing to do with the EU of course).

Then, to get back to my original point - take this all away, and what are we left with? A sad little England with no influence and huge economic and social problems.

I'm not sure I could fit that on the side of a bus though.

[Regulator]

It was interesting to see how many of those Tory MPs who have admitted in public that they voted against Theresa May have had honours bestowed since 2016. It appears the bribes haven't worked...

[JohnToo]

It was interesting to see how many of those Tory MPs who have admitted in public that they voted against Theresa May have had honours bestowed since 2016. It appears the bribes haven't worked...

Careful - you’re edging towards conceding that some conservative MPs are possessed of integrity....

[Regulator]

Careful - you’re edging towards conceding that some conservative MPs are possessed of integrity....

Either that... or they’re self-serving arseholes...

[Dunckel]

I would never claim to be a fan of Michael Heseltine, but....

[LowlifeDes]

"Mrs May won the vote but has vowed to listen to the concerns of the 37% of Tory MPs who voted against her."

Because 37% of Tory MPs are way more significant than 48% of the rest of us.

[Dunckel]

I have just heard David Davis boast about how many times he has stood to be elected Tory leader, strange how he didn't stand when Brexit had to be delivered.

[Joan]

I think crowdfunding should be used to hire Paul Whitehouse to use his hoodie yoof 'IT'S BRILLIANT!' Fast Show persona to list the EU's virtues, and then more crowdfunding to show the result during every ad break on TV and before every cinema screening. Unsubtle, so it might just work.

I forgot to reply to this.

I think it's a...brilliant?...idea. But why stop there? Let's get the remaining Pythons sitting around asking "What did the EU ever do for us?"

[Dunckel]

[Regulator]

From the Health Service Journal today:


New immigration laws proposed by the government could cut the number of EU healthcare professionals coming to work in the UK by more than 25 per cent, according to the government’s analysis.

The Home Office’s immigration white paper, which was published today, has identified nurses and midwives, health and care services managers and other “health professionals” as among 49 medium and high skilled occupations “which could potentially see a reduction in EEA long-term worker inflows over 25 per cent”.

The white paper has predicted that nurses and midwives could be among the roles most disrupted by the immigration policy because the NHS is “heavily reliant” on long-term EEA migrant labour and may find “adjustment to labour market changes difficult”.

The paper says the future system represents a “more restrictive” policy for EEA workers, but will loosen restrictions for non-EEA workers, offering “greater opportunities” to employers looking to source skilled labour.

Meanwhile, the Home Office has accepted the recommendation made by the Migration Advisory Committee earlier this year to remove the cap on numbers in the existing tier 2 visa route and make the sponsorship system less bureaucratic for employers. The paper described this as a “very significant change”, which will ensure there are no limits on the volume of skilled migrants, including doctors.

The MAC recommended a minimum salary threshold of £30,000 for workers with “intermediate skills”. However, the Home Office has said before confirming a future threshold it will engage “extensively” with businesses and employers.

It has also asked the MAC to review the shortage occupation list, which it will report on in spring 2019.

The government has said in some circumstances where there is a skills shortage, there should be “some flexibility” to allow migration at lower salary levels.

The paper acknowledged that social care could find it “difficult to adapt” to the new policy. As a transitional measure it has proposed a “time limited” route for temporary short term workers.

This will allow people to come to the UK for one year with a “cooling-off period” of a further year to prevent people working in the UK permanently.

Responding to the white paper, the Cavendish Coalition group of health and care organisations said it was “extremely concerned” whether the visa proposals in the white paper will allow for the number of care staff needed to sustain services.

“The new immigration system must adjust skills and salary levels to ensure that health and social care provision can be properly staffed by the skilled care staff it needs,” it said.

“While it is anticipated there may be some provisions for doctors and nurses coming to the UK after Brexit, this ignores physios, paramedics and other allied health professionals and there will be severe implications for the social care workforce in particular,” the coalition said.

“The government needs to fund wage increases or make special provision for health and care,” they added. “If the government does not address this social care crisis the knock-on effects to the population and the wider economy will be enormous.”

-------------------------------------------

Feel free to share...

[Greg]

Sooo, will she lose by 100+ votes or less?