Why are leavers so angry

CLAPTON

Doshwaster wrote: »

Well, it's much quicker to import someone who is already qualified but not necessarily cheaper. A foreign doctor, nurse, teacher or cancer researcher is paid exactly the same as their British equivalent. Discriminating pay based on nationality is illegal.

importing immigrants does depress the general level of salries
and of course many jobs are insufficiently generic that lower salaries can easily be offered.

Of course training is important and good employers will always invest in their own staff but when you need to expand quickly you have to bring the headcount in from somewhere.

clearly insufficient employers train, otherwise there would only be very few occasions where importing people would be necessary.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

I already read what it says, then pointed out to you why it in no way guarantees a 2-year timeframe. What part of what I wrote wasn't clear?

It was very clear what you said. Your conspiracy theories apart, the process is quite clear that the present Government will trigger Article 50 and two years after that will still be in power and able to ensure that we leave the EU by simply refusing any extension whatever the EU27 propose/want.

Your conspiracy theory is that May would (a) Risk her credibility by agreeing an extension (b) fight a general election with half of her party favouring an extension and half opposed to it.

Well yes I agree it is possible but what would happen at the next election if she did that?

And yes it is also possible that a new political force fights the next election pledged to re-apply for EU membership. But is any of this really likely?

Even if it happens, no referendum can bind future generations and future Governments elected on manifestos (including promises to hold other referendums) are not banned from implementing such policies. It is democracy.

The simple fact is that you, like every other Remainer, are perfectly happy for Article 50 to remain untriggered for as long as possible because you know full well it delays (& most Remainers hope, prevents) Brexit. There is no reasonable justification not to trigger Article 50 now, two years is plenty of time & as previously stated it wouldn't matter if it was 2 weeks, 2 years or 20 years, the EU will still take however long they're given & want more.

Of course some remainers want to delay Article 50 and some will have a forlorn hope that this might create opportunities to reverse the decision at the ballot box. Personally I agree we should trigger Article 50 as soon as the UK negotiators are content that they have a viable position on all the issues to be negotiated. If the Government decides that March 17 is the right time, who am I to say otherwise?

Your view that this delay is not reasonable is based on what? That you do not care if we get an agreement? That you do not want the best deal for the UK? That any agreement will do?

You remind me of the man marooned on an island surrounded by sharks watching his mate signal passing ships for help and saying "sod this I am going to swim for it".

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

No. I'm sorry, but that is just not the case. I can remember being called 'bloody foreigner' as a child. I say this as the offspring of a white European family that was given political exile here after the Second World War having lost everything, including close family to the Germans and Russians while fighting for their country (and, incidentally, yours), fat lot of good it did them. The attitude towards those with a differently coloured skin was even worse.

I'm not saying it bothered me, since I have no problem being a 'bloody foreigner'. I'm proud of my heritage and my parents and grandparents' actions during the war, so such statements just made me laugh out loud at the speakers. However, Britain is obviously much more tolerant now than it used to be – in fact too tolerant in some respects, which has seriously weakened it against those who are not that way inclined.

We all have different experiences and I accept yours was as you say. Racism and Xenophobia have taken their time to fade away and some people still secretly have such attitudes.

If my views are more representative of a white community in the 60s, so be it. By expereince was of a society that showed more trust and compassion, had a greater sense of community, willingness to help others etc.

TrickyTree83

ViolaLass wrote: »

Assuming I'll be allowed to apply for the visa before I have the job offer. The area I'm looking at does sometimes state that they want applicants who already have the right to work in that country so having to apply after would put me at a disadvantage.

kabayiri, I voted as I have already stated, because I did not see evidence that we as a country would be better out. I saw 'hope', which is not a strategy, financial promises that didn't stack up and 'take our country back' which didn't say anything to me as I didn't feel it had been lost.

I gave the example about working in Italy as a reply to the poster who said that no rights would be lost from Brexit. It is an untrue statement but it was far from being the largest influence on my vote.

Exactly as I said then, the employer discriminating against those who do not yet have visa's. How that is the fault of the people of the UK or in particular those who voted to leave I don't see. In a legal sense you still have the right to go and apply for a visa or a job and then a visa and do as you wish.

TrickyTree83

Doshwaster wrote: »

This can lead to a Catch 22 situation where you can't get a visa without a job offer but you can't get a job without a visa. All this does is add cost, delay and uncertainty to the recruitment process and who benefits from it?

Meanwhile businesses in Germany and elsewhere will be able to easily hire who they want from across Europe (except the UK, of course)

I don't see why Leavers see work visa as a good thing. I thought we were leaving the EU to reduce government bureaucracy not increase it.

It's not a catch 22 situation.

I could up sticks tomorrow and move to Australia, who have a very tough immigration and visa system, because I've got skills they want.

If you have skills Italy wants, you'll get the job/visa, you won't be in a catch 22.

If you want to go and work in a bar serving food or drink, then they are probably right to say no as that job could go to a young Italian currently finding it difficult to find work.

Some on here talk about the free movement of workers as a good thing, yet don't expand their horizons to consider what it does to hollow out the economies of those in the EU whose wages are lower than that of Western Europe.

My own personal perspective on free movement is that it's a bad thing, but I'd be happy for it to continue as it doesn't affect my life personally. So EFTA/EEA was my preferred option from a selfish perspective, but really a sensible visa system would benefit more people in the UK in terms of their day to day lives than would suffer from it.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

There's a reason that Article 50 triggers a 2-year process & not a 5-minute process. The reason is that those 2-years are supposed to be the time it takes to sort it out. Adding an indeterminate amount of time onto the 2-year process by not triggering Article 50 is an unnecessary delay & furthermore it's a direct contravention of the deal that people were told they were voting on; Cameron said he would go to Brussels immediately after the referendum to trigger Article 50.

You've suggested I don't generalise but then spoken in a way that suggests that you're happy for the trigger of Article 50 to be delayed. So to be honest it doesn't sound like that unfair a generalization. Anybody who truly supports Brexit now should have no issue supporting the immediate trigger of Article 50.

I can see your argument, but make two points:

(a) Article 50 was written for completeness, nobody ever thought that it would be invoked, certainly not by one of the larger nations like UK. So saying that it is supposed to take 2 years, suggests that anyone seriously thought about the matter. However, that is what it says so that is what they must try to do (reach an agreement in 2 years).

(b) Those who want to pull the trigger immediately probably have one of two perspectives: (1) They do not appreciate the complexities of what needs to be covered by an exit agreement. (2) they do not want an agreement, or are quite content for us to leave without one.

Anyone who has been involved in complex international negotiations knows that they can be very difficult to reach agreements when dealing with cultural, linguistic and legal issues, let along the self interest of the parties negotiating and a fixed timescale. The best outcome will come form allowing those charged with negotiating to do so, starting when they are ready.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

That's the whole point. Had we triggered Article 50 6 months ago, work on the deal would have begun immediately. Instead of, as you point out, not beginning for 9 or more months which will actually be the case.

The delay in triggering it is not being spent achieving anything worthwhile, it is just extra delay. And no matter how much we delay, and regardless of how long a process Article 50 triggered, we'll be told it's not enough. And most of the people telling us that will be people who don't want Brexit to take place, at all.

I think you are being very naive. Officially the EU will not discuss Brexit until we trigger Article 50. Unoffcially all sorts of discussions are probably taking place at different levels of Government to explore the possibilities. That is commonly how things work.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

We all have different experiences and I accept yours was as you say. Racism and Xenophobia have taken their time to fade away and some people still secretly have such attitudes.

If my views are more representative of a white community in the 60s, so be it. By expereince was of a society that showed more trust and compassion, had a greater sense of community, willingness to help others etc.

My mothers father never fully accepted my father. Losing blood relatives in 2 conflicts left an indelible mark. Even though my father was actually born here in the UK. His father being an economic migrant from Germany.

Go to Cyprus today and they still harbour deep grudges for the atrocities committed against their people. The list goes on.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

My understanding of the term single market does include free movement of goods, services, people, capital and creating common standards where necesary.
However it doesn't mean subsidising specific countries or subsidising vanity projects or HR or social policy

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/strategy_en#collaborative_economy

It also means doing things like helping SMEs funded by the EU budget.

Sapphire

Originally Posted by Sapphire
No. I'm sorry, but that is just not the case. I can remember being called 'bloody foreigner' as a child. I say this as the offspring of a white European family that was given political exile here after the Second World War having lost everything, including close family to the Germans and Russians while fighting for their country (and, incidentally, yours), fat lot of good it did them. The attitude towards those with a differently coloured skin was even worse.

I'm not saying it bothered me, since I have no problem being a 'bloody foreigner'. I'm proud of my heritage and my parents and grandparents' actions during the war, so such statements just made me laugh out loud at the speakers. However, Britain is obviously much more tolerant now than it used to be – in fact too tolerant in some respects, which has seriously weakened it against those who are not that way inclined.

BobQ wrote: »

We all have different experiences and I accept yours was as you say. Racism and Xenophobia have taken their time to fade away and some people still secretly have such attitudes.

If my views are more representative of a white community in the 60s, so be it. By expereince was of a society that showed more trust and compassion, had a greater sense of community, willingness to help others etc.

It's nice for you that you had such experiences of the white community you lived in. However, in the London I lived in then (speaking as a 'bloody foreigner'), tribalism was rampant.

Tribalism tends to become prevalent when people begin to feel their way of life is being threatened. There's nothing that can be done about it – it's a basic human survival instinct, like the instinctive drive to breed, as in the other great apes. You can see it in action all over the world even today (not all countries/areas have the luxury to engage in PCisms of various kinds, as many affluent Westerners do).