re: Post EU Referendum
 

If the government wishes to keep the overall number of migrants to a reasonable level, and for EU migrants there is free movement, it is obvious the main restrictions will be on non-EU migrants. Why do you think there should not be equality for entry requirements?

re: Post EU Referendum
 

4 whole doctors from the EU, vs 11 whole doctors from outside the EU, restricted due to English problems. Might I suggest the country has more pressing issues to solve?


Presumably, also, nobody is obliged to hire any of these doctors? The right to seek work does not mean that British hospitals are forced to hire them, I assume?


My brother-in-law had his life saved by an EU doctor in the UK two years ago, coincidentally.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Voice of reason, Eric.

There is a natural, nationalistic desire to be optimistic and believe all is going to be just fine, that our nation can only prosper in its glory.

However, there is the same basic reality that has to be considered: The basic fact remains that Britain's key attraction in the global economy is that it is the front door to a market of nearly 500 million consumers, with a GDP of $16 trillion. A vast amount of the trade with that market is conducted through Britain (and subsequently taxed by Britain). And without that, Britain is a market of 65 million consumers, with a service-based (tax-based) GDP of just under $3 trillion, and a significant portion of that generated through global trade with Europe. This is just reality.

OK, so now that the UK has voted to "leave" all that behind, the big question is where to go from here, and how to protect the UK economy as much as possible in that process. The risks of course, are blatantly obvious.

There are a plethora of theories floating about, but they all fall into a few categories:

1) Hard Brexit.
Cut all ties, and float the ship alone in the Atlantic. We try to make the best of our newfound economic value proposition, by negotiating "trade agreements" with major markets; The US, ASEAN, India, China, etc. On the basis of those agreements, we open up vast amounts of trade. Of course, being a service based economy with few exports or natural resources, IMPORTS will be the overwhelming majority of trade conducted under such agreements. The 65 million British consumers that Britain now represents is indeed of interest to some. The question is, how does Britain generate equal or greater inflows of money than outflows of money? Trade imbalance will be starkly on the side of imports. Plausible answers to this question are elusive at best. Plus, there is a monumentally huge task of detangling UK law from EU law. This could require a decade and cost hundreds of billions of pounds to redefine in a post-Brexit world.

2) Negotiate a "Free trade agreement" with the EU as part of brexit "negotiations".
This has some merit, however, the devil is in the details. The devil of course is that the common market, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, has a common set of principles on which it is founded, known as the "four pillars". You can argue whether that's good, bad, stupid, brilliant, or whatever you want, but that's beside the point; These are the founding principles of the common market, and they simply aren't going to change. Especially not for Britain. And therefore, if Britain aspires to continue as the preferred front door to that market, it will need to abide by those principles. And any "free trade agreement" that does not include those four pillars, would have the same conditions illustrated in the previous option: Balance of trade would heavily favour the EU, not Britain. Which brings us to the next common theory.

3) EEA membership
Probably the most likely outcome. For the sake of brevity, I will presume you know what the EEA is, but will only sum it up: More or less the same as full EU membership, but without any influence over the rules from within the EU. This option has the benefit of not only maintaining full unfettered access to the common market as it does today (enabling Britain to retain its position as the preferred global gateway to the market), but also eliminates the need for the astronomical task of detangling UK law from EU law. The drawback, of course, is that it's more or less what the UK already has as a full EU member (minus having any say in the EU), and that's what voters chose to leave.

4) Article 50 never invoked, UK remains full member of the EU.
This theory is also floated frequently. Although politically, this would be extremely risky to the current government. But because none of the above options can possibly be completed in less than 3-4 years (optimistically) and the fact that the electorate has short memories, and sentiments can change dramatically in just a few years' time, this is actually a plausible outcome, although less likely. Lots of political risk. Politicians are terrified of things like this. Although I suppose that depends on what side of politics street those politicians reside. Some may see brexit as a powerful political weapon in their "opposition" aspirations. Some already do.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Nobody is suggesting that NHS staff should not be recruited from the EU, but that the admission from EU and non-EU should be on an equal basis.
Why not?

There are far more non--EU doctors than EU in the NHS at the present time because of large scale recruitment when the NHS was set up.
Medicine in some non-EU countries is taught in English and their medical text books in English.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

If you want more non-EU doctors then ask our government to let them in. Is there a cap on doctors? Is there not still a shortage? Fewer EU doctors will not automatically result in more non-EU doctors to my knowledge.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

The restriction on non Eu doctors was due to Cameron's policies when he placed a limit of the overall number of non Europe workers coming into the country, due to the excessive numbers arriving from the EU.

I do not believe the current Govt will do likewise, most especially once Eu immigration is under control.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Brexit boom: The five charts which show Britain has escaped an economic apocalypse

Apocalypse ?

What Apocalypse ?

:confused:

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Again, Dick, let's see what happens if the UK leaves the EU.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

What f-ing Brexit?

Nothing's happened yet.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Are you sure about that?

Nurses were made exempt from the income requirements, and I'm willing to bet that doctors make over 35k. Don't you think?

Also, even the government stated that the new requirements would make little difference to the number of new immigrants to the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...ns-australians

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Well I got a very good exchange rate when changing dollars to sterling for my recent trip...

re: Post EU Referendum
 

They do love their dead horses, don't they?

Not so great going the other way. Oh well, I managed to get my money when it was still in the $1.30s so **** it, it can go 1:1 now for all I care.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Yeah, that was raw deal for you.

Still, sovereignty eh?

re: Post EU Referendum
 

Nurses are "temporarily" exempt. My unanswered question is why shouldn't all immigrants be admitted on the same basis? This is one Brexit aim.

re: Post EU Referendum
 

A difference of nearly $20K when you compare it to the exchange rate when we put the house on the market initially. But it is what it is, my sister was all concerned about it but you take risks when you convert currency. I always said as long as it stayed above $1.30, I'd be happy enough.

On the upside we have no credit card debt anymore :D