Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1101102104106107116

Posts

  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,769

    So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?

    If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.

    As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.
    To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
    If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.


    What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?
    If you can't enter the country, how can you be a candidate?

    You'll have Pango calling you dense. :D
    You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.
    I'll try again.

    The criteria for a whatever job in the UK.

    The required qualifications
    Experience in the relevant field.
    The right to reside and work in the UK.
    Any others you can think of.

    If you don't satisfy all of those criteria, how can you be the best candidate?

  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,615 Lives Here

    So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?

    If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.

    As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.
    To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
    If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.


    What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?
    If you can't enter the country, how can you be a candidate?

    You'll have Pango calling you dense. :D
    You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.
    I'll try again.

    The criteria for a whatever job in the UK.

    The required qualifications
    Experience in the relevant field.
    The right to reside and work in the UK.
    Any others you can think of.

    If you don't satisfy all of those criteria, how can you be the best candidate?

    I thought the discussion was a bit broader than that, as in defining who does have the right to reside and work in the UK.

    It would be frustrating if the best candidate in the world who wants the job can't get in because they can't get a visa, right?
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,769
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-immigration-system-what-you-need-to-know

    The right to 'get in' is defined here. Frustrating as it may be, we don't, and neither does anyone else, have open borders. Every country sets the bar to the height it sees fit.
    When you landed your job, (and I'm giving you credit for not being conceited enough to think you are the best in the world ;) ) there could have been a bloke/woman in Bolivia, kicking their cat around the house because they would have been better than you. But they couldn't meet the criteria to live and work here so they and your employer missed out.
    That's life. Their loss is your gain.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,615 Lives Here
    OK now you're being obtuse.

    I'm getting off the merry-go-round.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,769
    edited 21 January
    Obtuse?
    You want to discuss who has the right to live and work here, the government has published the guidelines.
    You may not like them but...

    I am also at a bit of a loss to understand why someone working in recruitment would consider someone who didn't have the right to reside or work here to be the best candidate for a job in the UK.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,851
    Because Rick lives in a fantasy world where he believes that there is a huge gap between many applicants for the same job. At the lower end of the scale if they turn up and do the productivity of others then this is all that is expected and from the customers point of view they notice no difference. At the upper end where it does make a difference such as a professional football player or some highly paid professional the UK guidance is of no barrier. Essentially we are protecting native UK residents currently here from competition from abroad at the lower end of the wage scale.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,851
    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,155
    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,851
    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,155
    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,851
    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    Funny thing is not much has changed for the highly paid expats in know. They either worked outside the EU or got their paperwork in place for the EU in advance. If you were not in this position then maybe your skills were not as special as you thought they were. When they turn up at my gaff getting all upset at brexit I will let you know
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,155
    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    Funny thing is not much has changed for the highly paid expats in know. They either worked outside the EU or got their paperwork in place for the EU in advance. If you were not in this position then maybe your skills were not as special as you thought they were. When they turn up at my gaff getting all upset at brexit I will let you know
    Point is that we have made life more difficult for no good gain.
    Restricting movement is not a one way street.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,851
    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    Funny thing is not much has changed for the highly paid expats in know. They either worked outside the EU or got their paperwork in place for the EU in advance. If you were not in this position then maybe your skills were not as special as you thought they were. When they turn up at my gaff getting all upset at brexit I will let you know
    Point is that we have made life more difficult for no good gain.
    Restricting movement is not a one way street.
    In your view it was for no good gain. A point you routinely seem to miss. For others there was a gain.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,155
    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    Funny thing is not much has changed for the highly paid expats in know. They either worked outside the EU or got their paperwork in place for the EU in advance. If you were not in this position then maybe your skills were not as special as you thought they were. When they turn up at my gaff getting all upset at brexit I will let you know
    Point is that we have made life more difficult for no good gain.
    Restricting movement is not a one way street.
    In your view it was for no good gain. A point you routinely seem to miss. For others there was a gain.
    Please tell me what that gain is. Tell the nation, they need to know.
    Blue passports isn't cutting it.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,851
    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    Funny thing is not much has changed for the highly paid expats in know. They either worked outside the EU or got their paperwork in place for the EU in advance. If you were not in this position then maybe your skills were not as special as you thought they were. When they turn up at my gaff getting all upset at brexit I will let you know
    Point is that we have made life more difficult for no good gain.
    Restricting movement is not a one way street.
    In your view it was for no good gain. A point you routinely seem to miss. For others there was a gain.
    Please tell me what that gain is. Tell the nation, they need to know.
    Blue passports isn't cutting it.
    Go and have a look at the Brexit thread. There are plenty of benefits proposed there that have been shouted down as irrelevant. I don't feel the urgent need to go down that path again.
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 4,044
    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    Funny thing is not much has changed for the highly paid expats in know. They either worked outside the EU or got their paperwork in place for the EU in advance. If you were not in this position then maybe your skills were not as special as you thought they were. When they turn up at my gaff getting all upset at brexit I will let you know
    Point is that we have made life more difficult for no good gain.
    Restricting movement is not a one way street.
    In your view it was for no good gain. A point you routinely seem to miss. For others there was a gain.
    Please tell me what that gain is. Tell the nation, they need to know.
    Blue passports isn't cutting it.
    Go and have a look at the Brexit thread. There are plenty of benefits proposed there that have been shouted down as irrelevant. I don't feel the urgent need to go down that path again.
    Evasion.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame ??
    Tall....
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,155
    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pblakeney said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    elbowloh said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.

    I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.

    An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.

    Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
    Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
    By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
    Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
    I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
    My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.

    How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
    You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etc

    The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.
    The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.
    Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?
    That is for Polands voting public to determine the pros and cons of freedom of movement. There is quite a difference between a nation with one of the lowest living costs within the EU and the UK do you not think. Do you think that might be a factor in how they vote and what they see as important.
    That's an intriguing argument.
    They were moving from Poland to the UK because it was more expensive in the UK.
    Sometimes I am just left wondering about your level of comprehension. Some will have moved to avoid highly restrictive abortion laws that are indicative of a society that does not value women and highly as men. But the majority probably thought that they could come to the UK and live as cheaply as possible whilst picking up a relatively high wage where their savings could allow them to retire at 45 with their house paid of in Poland. Pretty similar to a lot of UK expats that go and work abroad in some pretty uninspiring places for the cash and then the subsequent benefits. It is not rocket science.
    Why not type that in your previous post?
    Quite right. They like doing what UK expats did. Hardly surprising.
    What was surprising is that the UK made it more difficult for UK expats to do it.
    Funny thing is not much has changed for the highly paid expats in know. They either worked outside the EU or got their paperwork in place for the EU in advance. If you were not in this position then maybe your skills were not as special as you thought they were. When they turn up at my gaff getting all upset at brexit I will let you know
    Point is that we have made life more difficult for no good gain.
    Restricting movement is not a one way street.
    In your view it was for no good gain. A point you routinely seem to miss. For others there was a gain.
    Please tell me what that gain is. Tell the nation, they need to know.
    Blue passports isn't cutting it.
    Go and have a look at the Brexit thread. There are plenty of benefits proposed there that have been shouted down as irrelevant. I don't feel the urgent need to go down that path again.
    🤣🤣🤣🤔🤣🤣🤣
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,615 Lives Here

    Obtuse?
    You want to discuss who has the right to live and work here, the government has published the guidelines.
    You may not like them but...

    I am also at a bit of a loss to understand why someone working in recruitment would consider someone who didn't have the right to reside or work here to be the best candidate for a job in the UK.

    Yeah you're deliberately not seeing what I'm trying to say, hence being obtuse.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,769
    I assume you are trying to say that there may somebody in a far flung place that would be the best person for the job but is precluded from applying because he/she doesn't meet the visa requirements.
    That may be true, but as we and nobody else has open borders, he/she could not be considered.
    That's why I said the best candidate and not best person.
    Does this mean that we perhaps miss out? Obviously yes, but that's life. We have to work within the immigration regulations.
    In your role, I assume that you wouldn't put forward a candidate that didn't meet the visa requirements to live and work here would you?
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 13,810
    I assumed you were all talking about what is the best way to manage immigration on a more macro level, not advising Rick how to do his job.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,603

    I assumed you were all talking about what is the best way to manage immigration on a more macro level, not advising Rick how to do his job.

    Ah, but Rick's job would seem to be the only job in the world that manages to beat teaching for being both easier to do and staffed by more incompetent people ;)
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,615 Lives Here
    edited 22 January

    I assumed you were all talking about what is the best way to manage immigration on a more macro level, not advising Rick how to do his job.

    Ah, but Rick's job would seem to be the only job in the world that manages to beat teaching for being both easier to do and staffed by more incompetent people ;)
    As ever, whenever anyone complains about a bad experience with recruitment, you should kindly explain to them that the quality is positively correlated with what the candidate is paid. :)
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 11,838

    I assumed you were all talking about what is the best way to manage immigration on a more macro level, not advising Rick how to do his job.

    Ah, but Rick's job would seem to be the only job in the world that manages to beat teaching for being both easier to do and staffed by more incompetent people ;)
    As ever, whenever anyone complains about a bad experience with recruitment, you should kindly explain to them that the quality is positively correlated with what the candidate is paid. :)
    Bad experiences though are on the other side.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,639

    I assumed you were all talking about what is the best way to manage immigration on a more macro level, not advising Rick how to do his job.

    Ah, but Rick's job would seem to be the only job in the world that manages to beat teaching for being both easier to do and staffed by more incompetent people ;)
    Those that can’t, recruit

    Or rec cons are all failed teachers
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 7,526
    Hedgehogs put at increased risk.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55804978

    'Tis the mark of doom when Failing G gets on your case.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 13,810
    orraloon said:

    Hedgehogs put at increased risk.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55804978

    'Tis the mark of doom when Failing G gets on your case.

    Grayling you say? RIP hedgehogs.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,615 Lives Here
    There's a family of hedgehogs round here. The big one I think is called Ramon.

    Goes through all the different gardens. During the heatwave in the summer they come out in the evening quite boisterous looking for water. Seem to like our garden a lot.
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 4,044

    I assumed you were all talking about what is the best way to manage immigration on a more macro level, not advising Rick how to do his job.

    Ah, but Rick's job would seem to be the only job in the world that manages to beat teaching for being both easier to do and staffed by more incompetent people ;)
    Those that can’t, recruit

    Or rec cons are all failed teachers
    90% of the recruiters I have had dealings with seem to have no idea about the sector they are recruiting into, put you forward for stuff that is not related to what you do or wish to do and for things that are £10-20k less than you are currently paid.

    Or things like: there's this role, it's a similar to something you were doing 15 years ago when a junior, it's £20k less you're paid now and you'd have to live away from home during the week. I mean wtf?
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame ??
    Tall....
  • ProssPross Posts: 25,401
    elbowloh said:

    I assumed you were all talking about what is the best way to manage immigration on a more macro level, not advising Rick how to do his job.

    Ah, but Rick's job would seem to be the only job in the world that manages to beat teaching for being both easier to do and staffed by more incompetent people ;)
    Those that can’t, recruit

    Or rec cons are all failed teachers
    90% of the recruiters I have had dealings with seem to have no idea about the sector they are recruiting into, put you forward for stuff that is not related to what you do or wish to do and for things that are £10-20k less than you are currently paid.

    Or things like: there's this role, it's a similar to something you were doing 15 years ago when a junior, it's £20k less you're paid now and you'd have to live away from home during the week. I mean wtf?
    I get this at least once a week.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 13,810
    How come I didn't know this existed?


Sign In or Register to comment.