EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Also, lets not forget that we have some idea of how well implemented a centralised Government database would be (spoiler, the answer is porely)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/19/nhs-patient-data-available-companies-buy

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/06/nhs-to-scrap-single-database-of-patients-medical-details

interesting to see Sadiq Khan is pushing the concept of associate citizenship.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/18/sadiq-khan-urges-eu-to-offer-britons-associate-citizenship

can't see it happening, but I'd love it if it did.
all the brexiters can stay at home but those who wanted to remain still get the benefits of freedom of movement, healthcare abroad etc.

Blair favoured it and also encountered push back. The core opponents have been against it no matter which party is in power.

This is a really pointless thing for me to argue against because there's no way to know, but I wonder if this was an early polarisation issue. I.e. I protested when the Tories wanted to do it, but I'm a dyed in the wool leftie. However I didn't give a monkeys when Blair wanted to do it because I trusted him. I wonder if those who protested against Blair doing it were dyed in the wool Tories - each would trust our 'own' side to do it but not the other.

It would be interesting if Saj was pushing for it. As in fact it's Sadiq Khan pushing for it, maybe makes it a little less interesting.

Ahem. @bigshape, do you tweet much?

hah! oops! 🤦

A cat's Brexit, that's apparently what we're gonna get.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/18/boris-johnson-eu-deal-downing-street-negotiator-britain

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/18/uk-to-close-door-to-non-english-speakers-and-unskilled-workers

Honestly this 'point' system is a bit ridiculous - you have 50 points by default if you satisfy the base requirements, leaving 20 that you need to get. So it can also be put this way: you qualify (beyond the base requirements) if

• you work in a 'shortage occupation'

• you have a STEM PhD 'relevant to the job'

• the job earns you £25.6k+

• the job earns you £23.04k + and you have any PhD relevant to the job.

Is a number of points of 70+ virtually guaranteeing you get a visa, or is it a case of "get as many points as possible to increase your chances of not getting randomly rejected"?

the job earns you £25.6k+

This is a common feature in racist crowd-pleasing immigration rules. Supporters of this kind of thing should think a bit harder about the logic there. What it really says is "We don't mind forrins coming in to take some of the better jobs, we just want to keep our underclass in its place."

The dog whistle announcement that all immigrants have to learn to speak english is telling. Most of the immigrants I've met speak better english than me.
You can see which audience they're broadcasting to with this.

can't wait for all these myopic boomers to start dropping dead as a result of complications from a staph infection picked up from an un-emptied bedpan.

They only used points because for some reason people fetishize the idea of "Australian points based system".

I'm not sure I quite follow the argument. I think more often than not, the idea is to create the opposite of a brain drain (which, after all, is generally recognised to be a bad thing when it comes to e.g. 3rd world countries) by letting only people with a certain skill level in.

However, all they need to do is to designate something a 'shortage occupation' and that limit falls away anyway. And in actual fact, this is likely to happen for all the relevant types of 'occupation' anyway, no?

Not really making an argument either way here myself, I was just summarising what that 'point system' translates to.

Yeah that's my impression too, there's no point (ha ha) in putting it this way otherwise.

I imagine it's something to do with being able to prove Scientifically! (it's got numbers!) that they're better / more deserving than some other group. Or that the other group is definitely worse, more likely.

I assume this announcement today is just to get a favourable headline to racists for the day. They're not going to be able to do without migrant workers - the UK is already at the lowest unemployment level in decades (and I vaguely remember from economics classes that full employment is a unicorn anyway).

This is such a joke

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/19/immigration-firms-will-need-to-train-more-uk-workers-says-priti-patel

It's the old "get these slackers back into work" argument.

From their own OBR

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/an-obr-guide-to-welfare-spending/

Despite its relatively high profile, spending on jobseeker’s allowance – paid to those who are unemployed and meet certain criteria – accounted for only £2 billion or a little under 1 per cent of total welfare spending. Equivalent spending on universal credit in parts of the country where jobseeker’s allowance is no longer available amounted to £740 million.

Well that's not very much saved now is it? Where does most of the money go?

Of the £217 billion spent on welfare payments in 2016-17, around 59 per cent was paid to pensioners, with state pensions the largest single item at £92 billion.

Riiiight.

Also this is stupid (from the article)

Patel also denied that she was closing the door behind her on immigrants after her parents came to the UK from East Africa to run a shop, saying they would have qualified under refugee route because of their persecution.

Does this woman not know how refugees and asylum seekers are treated? Does she know anyone at the Home Office.....oh...wait.... nevermind

Ideology in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Fuck these idiots sky high.

Also, why 70 points not 7?

Why are they all arbitrarily multiples of ten? Is it just to make it seem betterer?

Its the nature of politics that some of the time, even most of the time, people you don't like will be in power.

What I am having a hard time adjusting to is the fact that the UK has seemingly gone full populist at the cost of abandoning evidenced based policy. Its a freaking nightmare.

Well you see, it's 70 because with 70% you get a First, and you only want first-class people in your country...

... or something.

It's the old "get these slackers back into work" argument

And yet the govt has spent years moving the goal posts so now we have the lowest unemployment figure in decades, let's just push aside the the in-work poverty figures.

"The skills threshold for foreign nationals wanting to work in the UK will be lowered from degree level to A-levels or their equivalent"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/19/immigration-firms-will-need-to-train-more-uk-workers-says-priti-patel

Business idea, set up small companies in a bunch of EU countries to forward qualifications for grading by NARIC.

She doesn't understand the difference between terrorism and counter terrorism. She's a halfwit at best.

From what I can see, you need 65 points for Australia as a Skilled Worker, 67 points in Canada and 70 for the UK then? Does that make us the best? Like needing 3A*s compared to 2As and a B at A-Level?

She doesn't understand the difference between terrorism and counter terrorism

This is overblown - that's just a phrase that she misspoke the first time, then it got stuck in her head- it's happened to all of us.

I can't actually remember what she said in that interview apart from that, I believe it was a studious exercise in avoiding the question or making a statement. The press should have hounded her for her evasiveness, but that seemed to go relatively unremarked upon.

(I'm not saying she's not a halfwit - she might be, or more likely someone else's useful idiot as I find it unlikely that anyone could navigate their way to Home Secretary without some form of intelligence or awareness).