LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Its OK, the EU barriers to immigration for people living in the rest of the world are just sensible precautions. Only the UK barriers to immigration are xenophobic.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.0 -
Is it not logical for any government to look to make it easiest for UK plc to hire UK nationals if their skills meet what they need as the preferred option. Failing that look for a foreign national preferring again those in the UK already and failing that go worldwide to get the skills you need.
The more you go up the training and specialist nature the further you might have to cast the net. The lower jobs should really be getting filled with local people unless they just don't exist. If the argument is that you could not get someone local for the short duration and or low pay then the business needs to look at its business model as it is not in the interests of the UK tax payer to have people on benefits whilst we encourage those from abroad as they are the only ones willing to work for that wage. The government obviously needs to do its part to allow people to transition in and out of work seamlessly so that they are not disadvantages otherwise none of the temporary jobs will get filled. They do not do this well currently.0 -
Fair enough then.rick_chasey said:
I think you have to split out the three different posters as they (we) don't all have the same views on this.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
RC said to have a distinction between internal mobility and cross border mobility was illogical.
SC said that to make such a distinction was xenophobic. He then said that it was a disgrace that nurses from some countries were being recruited to work in the UK.
Is that more accurate?0 -
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sure.ballysmate said:
Fair enough then.rick_chasey said:
I think you have to split out the three different posters as they (we) don't all have the same views on this.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
RC said to have a distinction between internal mobility and cross border mobility was illogical.
SC said that to make such a distinction was xenophobic. He then said that it was a disgrace that nurses from some countries were being recruited to work in the UK.
Is that more accurate?
FWIW I honestly don't know why people don't apply the mobility logic across arbitrary borders and, bluntly, no-one's given me an answer which has logical integrity. I think John has tried but he seems really focused on a really particular stratum of society and it all gets confused.
Maybe it is xenophobia - it would be an easy explanation - though I'm open minded to other ideas.
I do think people who haven't really had to think about what their nationality or identity is don't necessarily appreciate how arbitrary it all is.
Maybe that's a different kind of bubble; people who don't know what it's like and people who do know what it's like.
0 -
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.0 -
On the topic of nurses - i couldn't give a sh!t where they come from, but I do have beef with employing nurses who have insufficient English.
English *fluency* should be a pre-requisite.
If this is too limiting to meet demand for nurses, you'll have to raise their wages till you get the right numbers.0 -
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.0 -
He is well aware of that and is being a dick - i really would not bother to play his gamekingstongraham said:
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.0 -
People value cultural similarities. This varies on internal movement within a country, but varies more across borders. Of course, there are other factors, but I think that is a simple summary.rick_chasey said:
Sure.ballysmate said:
Fair enough then.rick_chasey said:
I think you have to split out the three different posters as they (we) don't all have the same views on this.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
RC said to have a distinction between internal mobility and cross border mobility was illogical.
SC said that to make such a distinction was xenophobic. He then said that it was a disgrace that nurses from some countries were being recruited to work in the UK.
Is that more accurate?
FWIW I honestly don't know why people don't apply the mobility logic across arbitrary borders and, bluntly, no-one's given me an answer which has logical integrity. I think John has tried but he seems really focused on a really particular stratum of society and it all gets confused.
Maybe it is xenophobia - it would be an easy explanation - though I'm open minded to other ideas.
I do think people who haven't really had to think about what their nationality or identity is don't necessarily appreciate how arbitrary it all is.
Maybe that's a different kind of bubble; people who don't know what it's like and people who do know what it's like.
I have said before that across the wakhan valley, the culture is completely different despite speaking the same language and having ancestors in common.
The same is true for North/South Korea.0 -
So a conscience salving exercise then is it? We'll carry on accepting applications from and employing thousands of Filipino nurses but feel better about it because we didn't actively solicit them. Is that it?kingstongraham said:
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
If the same number of Filipino end up working here, what is the material difference?
1 -
Sounds like it's recruiting nurses the nice fluffy Liberal way and not the way the nasty Tories do it. Same end effect though.ballysmate said:
So a conscience salving exercise then is it? We'll carry on accepting applications from and employing thousands of Filipino nurses but feel better about it because we didn't actively solicit them. Is that it?kingstongraham said:
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
If the same number of Filipino end up working here, what is the material difference?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.0 -
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Because it would have meant leaving the EU. You can't have that without the 3 freedoms and in my mind the benefits outweighed any perceived negatives. You can't take each individual argument regarding Brexit in isolation.Stevo_666 said:
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.0 -
Would explain some of the voting as I am sure I am not alone in thinking I have more cultural similarities with people in Amsterdam and NYC than I do SunderlandTheBigBean said:
People value cultural similarities. This varies on internal movement within a country, but varies more across borders. Of course, there are other factors, but I think that is a simple summary.rick_chasey said:
Sure.ballysmate said:
Fair enough then.rick_chasey said:
I think you have to split out the three different posters as they (we) don't all have the same views on this.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
RC said to have a distinction between internal mobility and cross border mobility was illogical.
SC said that to make such a distinction was xenophobic. He then said that it was a disgrace that nurses from some countries were being recruited to work in the UK.
Is that more accurate?
FWIW I honestly don't know why people don't apply the mobility logic across arbitrary borders and, bluntly, no-one's given me an answer which has logical integrity. I think John has tried but he seems really focused on a really particular stratum of society and it all gets confused.
Maybe it is xenophobia - it would be an easy explanation - though I'm open minded to other ideas.
I do think people who haven't really had to think about what their nationality or identity is don't necessarily appreciate how arbitrary it all is.
Maybe that's a different kind of bubble; people who don't know what it's like and people who do know what it's like.
I have said before that across the wakhan valley, the culture is completely different despite speaking the same language and having ancestors in common.
The same is true for North/South Korea.0 -
That would come under my "other factors". I also think you might be surprised.surrey_commuter said:
Would explain some of the voting as I am sure I am not alone in thinking I have more cultural similarities with people in Amsterdam and NYC than I do SunderlandTheBigBean said:
People value cultural similarities. This varies on internal movement within a country, but varies more across borders. Of course, there are other factors, but I think that is a simple summary.rick_chasey said:
Sure.ballysmate said:
Fair enough then.rick_chasey said:
I think you have to split out the three different posters as they (we) don't all have the same views on this.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
RC said to have a distinction between internal mobility and cross border mobility was illogical.
SC said that to make such a distinction was xenophobic. He then said that it was a disgrace that nurses from some countries were being recruited to work in the UK.
Is that more accurate?
FWIW I honestly don't know why people don't apply the mobility logic across arbitrary borders and, bluntly, no-one's given me an answer which has logical integrity. I think John has tried but he seems really focused on a really particular stratum of society and it all gets confused.
Maybe it is xenophobia - it would be an easy explanation - though I'm open minded to other ideas.
I do think people who haven't really had to think about what their nationality or identity is don't necessarily appreciate how arbitrary it all is.
Maybe that's a different kind of bubble; people who don't know what it's like and people who do know what it's like.
I have said before that across the wakhan valley, the culture is completely different despite speaking the same language and having ancestors in common.
The same is true for North/South Korea.0 -
We live in a democracy and that is a collection of voters formed by borders. It is logical therefore for politicians to follow policies that benefit their catchment of voters. Outside these borders any immigration flow has to be in the national interest. Follow that path and you have an immigration policy that makes some modicum of sense to the people that might want to vote for you. Comparing movement across international borders to county borders within a country misses this underpinning reality of the situation. If parties want loose immigration policies like we have had in the past will need to make that case and get those votes for their policies. That debate will be of a much better quality next time round as all options would be up for discussion whereas in the past they were limited by freedom of movement.rick_chasey said:
Sure.ballysmate said:
Fair enough then.rick_chasey said:
I think you have to split out the three different posters as they (we) don't all have the same views on this.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
RC said to have a distinction between internal mobility and cross border mobility was illogical.
SC said that to make such a distinction was xenophobic. He then said that it was a disgrace that nurses from some countries were being recruited to work in the UK.
Is that more accurate?
FWIW I honestly don't know why people don't apply the mobility logic across arbitrary borders and, bluntly, no-one's given me an answer which has logical integrity. I think John has tried but he seems really focused on a really particular stratum of society and it all gets confused.
Maybe it is xenophobia - it would be an easy explanation - though I'm open minded to other ideas.
I do think people who haven't really had to think about what their nationality or identity is don't necessarily appreciate how arbitrary it all is.
Maybe that's a different kind of bubble; people who don't know what it's like and people who do know what it's like.2 -
0 -
What do you mean 'would have meant'. This is new reality. No point having theoretical conversations pretending we haven't left.elbowloh said:
Because it would have meant leaving the EU. You can't have that without the 3 freedoms and in my mind the benefits outweighed any perceived negatives. You can't take each individual in isolation.Stevo_666 said:
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.
So now that we have left, what's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
What do you mean 'would have meant'. This is new reality. No point having theoretical conversations pretending we haven't left.elbowloh said:
Because it would have meant leaving the EU. You can't have that without the 3 freedoms and in my mind the benefits outweighed any perceived negatives. You can't take each individual in isolation.Stevo_666 said:
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.
So now that we have left, what's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?
I don't (not now we're out), but that wasn't what the discussion was about. The discussion was about the argument that EU membership prevented us from going out and getting the best candidates from abroad to work here (in particular in the NHS.
Seems like we're going round in circles here.0 -
^^^thiselbowloh said:
Because it would have meant leaving the EU. You can't have that without the 3 freedoms and in my mind the benefits outweighed any perceived negatives. You can't take each individual in isolation.Stevo_666 said:
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.
leaving the eu simply reduces the value of british workers
let's be honest, there are millions of people who for whatever reason can't/won't make it, eliminating freedom of movement isn't going to change that
it'll just make their lives worse by driving up the cost of living, unless the government goes the full-corbyn and bleeds dry the mostly-trapped middle class to subsidise the plebians, that'll end well
the eu was not the problem, leaving it isn't the solution
the problem runs deep in the uk political establishment, theresa may's "citizens of nowhere" comment perfectly encapsulated the spiteful and petty provincial arrogance of a political class that exists only to enrich itself and it's cronies, brexit has simply entrenched that
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I don't, but that wasn't what the discussion was about. The discussion was about the argument that EU membership prevented us from going out and getting the best candidates from abroad to work here (in particular in the NHS.elbowloh said:Stevo_666 said:
What do you mean 'would have meant'. This is new reality. No point having theoretical conversations pretending we haven't left.elbowloh said:
Because it would have meant leaving the EU. You can't have that without the 3 freedoms and in my mind the benefits outweighed any perceived negatives. You can't take each individual in isolation.Stevo_666 said:
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.
So now that we have left, what's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?
Seems like we're going round in circles here.
We won't be if you answer my question."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We won't be if you answer my question.Stevo_666 said:
I don't, but that wasn't what the discussion was about. The discussion was about the argument that EU membership prevented us from going out and getting the best candidates from abroad to work here (in particular in the NHS.elbowloh said:Stevo_666 said:
What do you mean 'would have meant'. This is new reality. No point having theoretical conversations pretending we haven't left.elbowloh said:
Because it would have meant leaving the EU. You can't have that without the 3 freedoms and in my mind the benefits outweighed any perceived negatives. You can't take each individual in isolation.Stevo_666 said:
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.
So now that we have left, what's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?
Seems like we're going round in circles here.
First two words of my reply Steve where a direct answer to your question!0 -
I'll try one more time.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
SC wasn't advocating that. He was saying that an employer (the NHS in this case) shouldn't look to actively recruit preferentially from one country over another, especially where that country has a shortage of skilled labour in that field. This is in line with current NHS recruitment guidelines. That is not barring anyone from applying.
More info here.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit/employer-led-recruitment/international-recruitment/uk-code-of-practice-for-international-recruitment/list-of-developing-countries1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
First two words of my reply Steve where a direct answer to your question!elbowloh said:
We won't be if you answer my question.Stevo_666 said:
I don't, but that wasn't what the discussion was about. The discussion was about the argument that EU membership prevented us from going out and getting the best candidates from abroad to work here (in particular in the NHS.elbowloh said:Stevo_666 said:
What do you mean 'would have meant'. This is new reality. No point having theoretical conversations pretending we haven't left.elbowloh said:
Because it would have meant leaving the EU. You can't have that without the 3 freedoms and in my mind the benefits outweighed any perceived negatives. You can't take each individual in isolation.Stevo_666 said:
That's not the point. What's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?elbowloh said:
No, because EU membership never stopped us getting candidates from outside the EU. 8% of people joining the NHS in 2015 (before the ref) came from outside the EU.Stevo_666 said:
And now that there is more of a level playing field in that regard, several people including elbowloh should be happy.ballysmate said:
Spot on. That is my view.elbowloh said:
Has anyone said that?ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses.
There are some steps between having freedom of movement and then actually hiring them for a role.
If someone is here in the country (from wherever), have the skills, is allowed to work and has applied for the job, sure give it to them if they're the best candidate.
But some on here would exclude some candidates based on their country of origin albeit for the best of motives, but ultimately unfair.
So now that we have left, what's your issue with the same rules applying to both sets of people?
Seems like we're going round in circles here.
Fair enough. As that's the current position so no issues there."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As just posted, it's been fluffy liberal government policy developed between DHSC and DFID for some time 😉. I mean it must be a good idea if it's Tory policy, right?Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like it's recruiting nurses the nice fluffy Liberal way and not the way the nasty Tories do it. Same end effect though.ballysmate said:
So a conscience salving exercise then is it? We'll carry on accepting applications from and employing thousands of Filipino nurses but feel better about it because we didn't actively solicit them. Is that it?kingstongraham said:
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
If the same number of Filipino end up working here, what is the material difference?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
I'll try one more time.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
SC wasn't advocating that. He was saying that an employer (the NHS in this case) shouldn't look to actively recruit preferentially from one country over another, especially where that country has a shortage of skilled labour in that field. This is in line with current NHS recruitment guidelines. That is not barring anyone from applying.
More info here.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit/employer-led-recruitment/international-recruitment/uk-code-of-practice-for-international-recruitment/list-of-developing-countries
Actually SC said that it was a disgrace that the UK HAD been recruiting, which as BB pointed out appears not to be the case if they are not recruiting from countries on that list. As the list includes Yugoslavia, I assume the list has been in existence and adhered to for 30 years.
Can you still not see the incongruence of considering it xenophobic not to allow cross border labour recruitment and then bar a particular group from being recruited? If you allow cross border recruitment and movement (as you don't want to be a xenophobe), you would be able to recruit an unlimited amount of, say, potato pickers. The inference being that you would be able to recruit nurses as potato pickers but not to work as nurses. That would be crazy.
The 'debate' (for the want of a better word) over the last few pages was set against the background of cross border movement of labour. How is it fair to single out one group of workers for stricter control if you are an advocate of freedom of movement of labour?0 -
I can see that if this policy restricted freedom of movement that would be incongruous, but it doesn't. The only thing that is restricted is active recruitment drives targeting these countries.ballysmate said:rjsterry said:
I'll try one more time.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
SC wasn't advocating that. He was saying that an employer (the NHS in this case) shouldn't look to actively recruit preferentially from one country over another, especially where that country has a shortage of skilled labour in that field. This is in line with current NHS recruitment guidelines. That is not barring anyone from applying.
More info here.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit/employer-led-recruitment/international-recruitment/uk-code-of-practice-for-international-recruitment/list-of-developing-countries
Actually SC said that it was a disgrace that the UK HAD been recruiting, which as BB pointed out appears not to be the case if they are not recruiting from countries on that list. As the list includes Yugoslavia, I assume the list has been in existence and adhered to for 30 years.
Can you still not see the incongruence of considering it xenophobic not to allow cross border labour recruitment and then bar a particular group from being recruited? If you allow cross border recruitment and movement (as you don't want to be a xenophobe), you would be able to recruit an unlimited amount of, say, potato pickers. The inference being that you would be able to recruit nurses as potato pickers but not to work as nurses. That would be crazy.
The 'debate' (for the want of a better word) over the last few pages was set against the background of cross border movement of labour. How is it fair to single out one group of workers for stricter control if you are an advocate of freedom of movement of labour?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
