If we vote for Brexit what happens

Sapphire

Thrugelmir wrote: »

After the USA and China. Iran now produces the most graduates in Engineering. Another relationship worth developing.

This sort of thing is true. However, if bringing in, for example, engineers, nurses, doctors and so on, their English-language skills would have to be very good, and they would need to have been trained to the required level for the UK – this rule should be applied to all the countries of the world, including the EU. I'm sure training for doctors and nurses, for instance, differs in different parts of the world. That for people from the northern and eastern European countries, and for Canada, Australia and NZ, is supposedly excellent and on a par if not sometimes better than the training in this country (according to my relatives). But good English-language skills – as well as an understanding of our culture – are essential, too.

Free movement of all sundry across Europe was a crazy idea, though, with consequences that should have been anticipated by the eurocrats who thought it up.

Thrugelmir

Sapphire wrote: »

as well as an understanding of our culture – are essential, too.

(

I doubt many Europeans care about our culture. More often or not they'll bring their own with them. What's not available here they'll import.

Sapphire

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I doubt many Europeans care about our culture. More often or not they'll bring their own with them. What's not available here they'll import.

I was talking generally, about Europeans and non-Europeans – and I do think that in order to deal with patients, for example, a general understanding of a culture is essential when working in another country. Not so much of an issue when it comes to, for example, Australians and even most Europeans, obviously, since their culture is not unlike ours.

I also think that coming to Britain to work shouldn't be linked to being allowed to stay forever. A visa system, as in the US, would be advisable, in my view.

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

Nobody seems to address the argument that our participation in EU migration without limits has produced a policy limiting immigration from the rest of the world.

For example everyone talks about the NHS shortages.

I believe Indonesia trains around 100K nurses a year, yet only has local demand for circa 40K a year.

Clearly, Indonesia has a valuable export product in trained nurses and there are places like the UK short of nurses!

I might be odd, but I quite like the idea of matching demand and supply. It works for other areas of global trade.

We could bring in 600K economic migrants from the EU this year without any guarantee that within that number are the required subset of nurses; GPs; production engineers; etc.

We still have skills shortages, notably in manufacturing.

Is there a way free movement can evolve to match supply and demand better, or is it a case of all or nothing?

I don't really buy the skills shortage arguments.
The labour market will rearrange itself to meet skill needs. I can accept that there may well be some very specialist skills that we couldn't do ourselves or more accurately it won't be worthwhile just import someone for five years to do that project and then bye bye. I would actually call it an experience shortgage. For example if the UK did actually go ahead with its new nuke build program it would make sense to import teams from China with the experience of building such infrastructure. They may have no particular skills that we don't but they will have the experience which we lack.

To me immigration is more about aid and fairness. A lot of the migrants come here for a better life I just don't see why I should turn them away even if it hurts me slightly it helps them greatly. Like giving to charity. There will of course be a limit but I think that limit is in the order of 1% a year (1% = 650k a year) at which point I would probably seek a cap too.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I don't really buy the skills shortage arguments.
The labour market will rearrange itself to meet skill needs. I can accept that there may well be some very specialist skills that we couldn't do ourselves or more accurately it won't be worthwhile just import someone for five years to do that project and then bye bye. I would actually call it an experience shortgage. For example if the UK did actually go ahead with its new nuke build program it would make sense to import teams from China with the experience of building such infrastructure. They may have no particular skills that we don't but they will have the experience which we lack.

To me immigration is more about aid and fairness. A lot of the migrants come here for a better life I just don't see why I should turn them away even if it hurts me slightly it helps them greatly. Like giving to charity. There will of course be a limit but I think that limit is in the order of 1% a year (1% = 650k a year) at which point I would probably seek a cap too.

seems just studied self interest.
just a different opinion of self inerest to some-one that say zero is the right number

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

seems just studied self interest.
just a different opinion of self inerest to some-one that say zero is the right number

Care to explain?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Care to explain?

you feel that immigration at 1% is about right
I think immigration about 0% (plus a small bit for genuine 'essential' skills) is about right

both are simply a matter of what we 'feel' is good for society

no great principles at stake, just a pragmatic difference of detail

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

you feel that immigration at 1% is about right
I think immigration about 0% (plus a small bit for genuine 'essential' skills) is about right

both are simply a matter of what we 'feel' is good for society

no great principles at stake, just a pragmatic difference of detail

I think the difference is that my view would in time lead to a totally free movement or all people of all nations. There would just be an interim 40-80 years whereby there is a limit of some 1% a year. Your view would be 0% indefinitely for all time.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I think the difference is that my view would in time lead to a totally free movement or all people of all nations. There would just be an interim 40-80 years whereby there is a limit of some 1% a year. Your view would be 0% indefinitely for all time.

well no
your view would lead to the death of untotal numbers of decent people
whereas my view of waiting until the abolition of war and of religion would lead to peace, prosperity and the free movement of people

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

well no
your view would lead to the death of untotal numbers of decent people
whereas my view of waiting until the abolition of war and of religion would lead to peace, prosperity and the free movement of people

No I'm fairly confident my view would lead to a millions leaving abject poverty a generation or multiple generations early.

Your view wouldn't lead anything as it's not doing its waiting