morpeth

-Lost in the argument on this issue is the practicality for businesses resulting from Brexit. Businesses will have a more cumbersome and costly time getting skilled workers by making it more difficult and slower to hire EU workers. Something despite numerous explanations to Bipat and other Brexiters do not seem to grasp the negatives of this reality.
- The UK has always had the ability to increase the number of non EU skilled workers. Bipat has argued in the past that the limits placed on non EU workers were due to FOM with the EU, yet listening to Patel's comments over the last few weeks that her intention is to reduce the overall level of immigration, this supposed connection doesn't appear.
- And for lower skilled migrants, the same issue- is putting agricultural workers through the non EU visa system a benefit for UK businesses and farmers ? And is it a reasonable expectation that those who are on benefits have a huge desire to rush off and work on farms or as baristas at minimum wages ?.
- And all this neglects to consider the negative effect of removing FOM for British citizens

BristolUK

I know...it was el co's subsequent comment to you that "inspired" my joke

Bipat

As has been pointed out to you Morpeth----business skills are not the only skills that the UK needs!!!!
You refuse to accept that some regulation on numbers is necessary. (Why not FOM for all????).
You are obsessed with "baristas"!!!
In future any needed workers can have special visa regulations that are needed for them only.

Bipat

1) Actual numbers are irrelevant in regard to 'dominance'. EU migration is dominant because there is NO restrictions on numbers if FOM, just as it was previously for Commonwealth citizens.
If there are no restrictions for one group but there are restrictions for the other larger group, the latter obviously have a disadvantage if they choose to migrate for work. That is obvious.

2) Yes I agree and there is nothing to stop arrangements for special entry rules/provisions for such workers. Nothing to stop short term e-visas just as other countries do for medical/sports/tourists etc.

DigitalGhost

That has been the intention of the conservative government since 2010 because it seemed to be largely what the country wanted. Labour massively overhauled immigration controls and processes under Gordon Brown. We were one of the first major democracies to introduce a biometric visa system but by then it was too little, too late. Blair truly screwed up when it came to limiting migration from the EU and Labour's position was considered untenable.

Partly though it's a due to a weird national obsession that we have with the net migration statistic which essentially includes any of us if we return after more than a year abroad as well as newly arriving foreigners including short term residents like international students. It's quite strange and doesn't do the government any favours when publishing annual figures so I'm not really sure why they do it. I'm not really sure why they do it this way.

Red Eric

But is there any compelling evidence to suggest that temporary work of this nature draws in migrants on a permanent basis?

Just because they can remain, assuming they have the wherewithal or can line up alternative employment when a season ends, doesn't necessarily mean they do. In fact, the ease of moving about makes it much more likely that they move on to where the type(s) of work they're used to is on offer or back home if there isn't any. Returning seasonal workers are certainly something individual farmers have been complaining about missing of late.

DigitalGhost

Honestly, I have no idea. I think it's the very fact that they can do so under the EU which sometimes raises concerns.

I think it can also be an area where people often work under the radar, particularly when it comes to the EU and visas aren't an issue. A seasonal work permit system is more likely to benefit everyone in the long run.

Red Eric

Only amongst those who believe it would actually be any cause for concern in the first place.

Everyone except those who are tasked with having to get them or make a case for their issuing.

However, that's a good case for an amnesty on already resident unauthorised migrants. I'll put it in the suggestion box for you

DaveLovesDee

No, they're not the only skills needed, and not the only skills the current visa system regulates. But also, it's faster to hire EU workers under FoM, especially for jobs in the rural economy, where few non-EU workers would meet the visa requirements nor the jobs meet the salary threshold.

Say what? I haven't seen anyone arguing against a cap on numbers, and you're the one who keeps suggesting free movement for all (not sure the UK unilaterally implementing FoM for everyone is what Leavers voted for, but whatever floats your boat). A reciprocal FoM with other countries is something we already had and are ending. And both EU and Commonwealth FoM have always resulted in many more moving to the UK than in the other direction, and that's unlikely to change were FoM to be implemented with other countries (other than say the US (which would never happen).

Great, special visas...... Problem solved.

Actually, no. Like I've told you before, I suspect many EU seasonal agricultural workers won't bother with applying for UK visas post-Transition as they'll still have FoM across the EU next year. Why pay for a visa (and as it's the Home Office, expect the fees to be fairly high) when there'll still be no visa cost to pick crops in 27 other EU member states

Actual numbers are very relevant, Bipat.

Yes, the group without restrictions do have an advantage. However, EU nationals do have restrictions, just not the same ones, and ones that the UK mostly chose not to implement.

And the UK already has a visa system (though not electronic as yet) for those categories, which will apply to all who aren't British (and their family members) after December.

DigitalGhost

It's a concern for many people. That list of people may not include you but that's just how it is.

An amnesty for illegal immigrants never works. It just encourages more people to attempt migrating illegally and rewards criminal acts.

DigitalGhost

Those sorts of people will usually go where the money is and if Europeans don't want the opportunity then I'm sure many others would be grateful for it.

Watchpost

Once again, I really can't get my head around this idea of yours, DG. We can't make it too easy for Europeans to move to the UK to work there legally, because they would exploit the opportunity to work there illegally?

And your sort of person moved abroad to work for... yes, for what reason exactly?

DigitalGhost

Whenever I've moved abroad its been more about adventure and opportunity than for financial gain but in any case I'm not disparaging them. I have no problem with legal immigration. Zero, nada, none at all. I only have an issue with illegal immigration and I don't think that EU FoM is in the UK's best interests.

There have been numerous reported cases of Romanians doing illegal day labour in the UK and sleeping rough not to mention working in the trafficking trade and the sex industry.

Bipat

1) We are leaving membership of the EU-----How could you have FOM for just one group of workers-? Salary thresholds can be adjusted for different worker groups.

2) My suggestion FOM for all was a rhetorical question. Why though,should it be post Brexit be just for EU countries?????

3) An e-visa can be obtained within 24 hours! If workers are wanted fees can be adjusted.

4)Yes numbers are relevant, however previously those with FOM you must accept had preferable chance of migration than those without and therefore there was less choice of skilled people regardless of any restriction on EU.
As we are leaving EU membership why would you want this to continue???

5) Have you any idea of the speed of getting e-visas rather than the usual????? It is long overdue for change in the UK regardless of Brexit.

DaveLovesDee

I'm sure the Daily Mail, Express and Sun regularly report such things.... However,

Romanians are EU nationals. Exactly how are they working illegally?
Sleeping rough isn't legally a crime, yet.
Romanians aren't the only traffickers. What happened to the Irish guy who was found with 39 deceased Asians in a container?
If someone chooses to sell their body for sex and someone chooses to pay for it, as long as it's consensual, who's the victim? It's sad that a person chooses to do that to earn money, but it's one of the world's oldest professions.