Is Britain about to leave the EU?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why am I NOT suprised.
Iam guessing this is where ton of Indians immigrants will be needed, that or we'll a shortage of nurses and heathcare professionals will solve the NHS problems.

Brexit could trigger crisis in care for older and disabled people

The 1.4-million-strong UK care sector’s reliance on European migrant workers means it is vital they are given the right to remain in any future migration arrangements, the charities Independent Age and the International Longevity Centre UK (ILC-UK) said.

Currently about 84,000 care workers – equivalent to one in 20 of England’s growing care workforce – are from European Economic Area countries. About 90% do not have British citizenship and their future immigration status remains uncertain.

The UK has become increasingly dependent on a European migrant workforce to provide services for its ageing population since 2012, when the coalition government changed immigration rules, making it more difficult for non-EEA people to enter the UK to work in social care.

According to modelling by the charities, a scenario which closed off all migration would leave Britain with a social care workforce shortfall of more than a million by 2037.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/21/brexit-care-older-disabled-people-eu-workers-uk
 
What a surprise. Not.
Brexit: Areas that backed leaving EU starved of Government support, report reveals

Study suggests low funding over many years may have helped make regions more likely to vote Leave

Parts of the UK that backed Brexit most strongly are also those that have been most starved of government funding, a report has revealed.

The research, seen by The Independent, suggests low spending in less prosperous areas “drove political disaffection and amenability to Brexit”.

It also indicates that prosperous areas or those enjoying a relatively high level of state support – like London, the South East and Scotland – were most likely to give the EU their backing in the referendum.

The Fabian Society, behind the research, has warned that politicians must form better ways of allocating spending if they are to prevent voters becoming more disillusioned.

General Secretary Andrew Harrop said: “Looking across the nations and regions of the UK, the areas that voted most strongly in favour of Brexit are those which get the worst deal on public spending, once their prosperity and population are taken into account.

“Correlation is not causation, but we can speculate that many years of unreasonably low expenditure might help to explain why communities and regions came to be, and to feel, left behind and under pressure, which in turn drove political disaffection and amenability to Brexit.”

The Fabians compared levels of support for Brexit to levels of public funding, adjusted for prosperity, in each nation of the UK and region of England.

The idea was to explore if Brexit backing might be linked to how “fair” each area’s funding might be considered. given its prosperity.

London, Scotland and Northern Ireland were shown to have extracted best value from Government coffers in terms of public spending per person adjusted for regional prosperity – the areas that most fervently backed the EU in the referendum.

Meanwhile, the study showed the East Midlands received the worst deal on public spending and was the second most pro-leave region.

Other areas with poor funding deals and high support for Brexit included the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East.

The report challenges claims that the Brexit vote was just about disillusionment with the institutions of the European Union or that it was solely about immigration, the issue which featured most prominently in the referendum campaign.

It added: “The evidence from the Brexit vote suggests that the price of our failure to allocate resources fairly may be high, in terms of political psychology as well as material demands.”

Pat McFadden MP of the Open Britain campaign said it was “clear” many people voted Leave not just because they were angry with Brussels, but also because they felt ignored by UK governments too.”

He said: “People need a fairer economic deal that offers more jobs, a fair share of public spending, more private sector investment and better chances in life.

“Many of the areas that voted Leave have suffered big cuts to public services in recent years. They will want to know when they will see the £350m a week more for the NHS that was promised [by the Leave campaign], and when the other pledges made by Leave ministers will be fulfilled.

“And it’s important we don’t damage job prospects in these areas by giving up on membership of the world’s biggest Single Market.”​
So, a big FU to the status quo. Maybe this is why the Tories opposed any sort of proportional representation, as they would have been smashed in any election that included it.
 
Sure, whatever proportion they deserve from the seats allocated to England and Wales.
It would at least wake people up to the fact that far more things are wrong than they'd like and that they can't keep pretending everything is all right.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the premise of the entire UKIP to begin with is centered around leaving the EU.

What is the future of the UKIP now that not only they got what they wanted, but Farage resigned?
 
To ‘take their country back’, whatever that means, ensure that the UK leaves the EU, then keep it from rejoining the EU, and I suppose that as a UKIP then they'd oppose any attempts to secede by Scotland or Northern Ireland.

And yes, possibly white nationalism which is totally not racist and Polish people aren't white.
 
To ‘take their country back’, whatever that means, ensure that the UK leaves the EU, then keep it from rejoining the EU, and I suppose that as a UKIP then they'd oppose any attempts to secede by Scotland or Northern Ireland.
A political party only devoted to leaving the EU is walking on thin ice, but at least that's something. A political party devoted to prevent something that hasn't even happened, is absurd. In other words, a party devoted to prevent the reversal of a decision they already had is absurd. And besides, the only way they will rejoin the EU is with another referendum in which all British eligible voters can participate in, regardless of the size of UKIP or any other party.

As for other parts of the country seceding... From my understanding of the British system, the UKIP cannot "prevent any attempts to secede by Scotland or Northern Ireland". If those parts of the UK vote to secede, they will. Whether UKIP or the rest of the UK in general likes it or not.


And yes, possibly white nationalism which is totally not racist and Polish people aren't white.
There are racial elements to it but I wouldn't call it pure white nationalism. At the very least, UKIP is not "white nationalist" to the degree BNP is. You can't be a serious party with neo Nazis and skinheads alone. The UKIP has way too much mainstream support to be only a racial party, even if racists happen to prefer them.
 
caketastydelish said:
At the very least, UKIP is not "white nationalist" to the degree BNP is. You can't be a serious party with neo Nazis and skinheads alone.

True, but "not white nationalist to the degree the BNP is" covers a lot of ground. Also, can one have a "serious party" with neo Nazis and skinheads as part of a coalition?
 
True, but "not white nationalist to the degree the BNP is" covers a lot of ground. Also, can one have a "serious party" with neo Nazis and skinheads as part of a coalition?

Yes, neo Nazis and skinheads are most likely part of the coalition. But like I said, a solid majority of their supporters are not like that.

If my memory serves me right 52% of British voters backed Brexit. Do you really think 52% of the British population (or anywhere close to that) is just a bunch of neo Nazis and skinheads running amuck in the streets?

There are different reasons for wanting to leave the European Union, some of which are racially charged and some which are not.
 
A political party only devoted to leaving the EU is walking on thin ice, but at least that's something. A political party devoted to prevent something that hasn't even happened, is absurd. In other words, a party devoted to prevent the reversal of a decision they already had is absurd. And besides, the only way they will rejoin the EU is with another referendum in which all British eligible voters can participate in, regardless of the size of UKIP or any other party.

As for other parts of the country seceding... From my understanding of the British system, the UKIP cannot "prevent any attempts to secede by Scotland or Northern Ireland". If those parts of the UK vote to secede, they will. Whether UKIP or the rest of the UK in general likes it or not.
Then you do not understand the British system. Everyone and everything which legally exists does so because ‘the Queen in Parliament’ graciously allows them to. That's why Brexit is not de iure mandatory.
caketastydelish said:
There are racial elements to it but I wouldn't call it pure white nationalism. At the very least, UKIP is not "white nationalist" to the degree BNP is. You can't be a serious party with neo Nazis and skinheads alone. The UKIP has way too much mainstream support to be only a racial party, even if racists happen to prefer them.
What if racism were mainstream?
Also, can one have a "serious party" with neo Nazis and skinheads as part of a coalition?
The National Front never died.
 
Why am I NOT suprised.
Iam guessing this is where ton of Indians immigrants will be needed, that or we'll a shortage of nurses and heathcare professionals will solve the NHS problems.


So - a change in the direction of education and training is long overdue in the UK.

Until that comes through the dependence of the NHS on immigrants will remain.
 
So, in a recent YouGov poll, the following charts were presented:

Spoiler YouGov charts :
Brexit%20Top%205s-01.png


Brexit%20trade%20by%20joint-01.png

Make of those what you will.
 
Why am I NOT suprised.
Iam guessing this is where ton of Indians immigrants will be needed, that or we'll a shortage of nurses and heathcare professionals will solve the NHS problems.

Yes but remember that we don't care about the old people because they're the ones that all selfishly voted for Brexit and they're going to be dead soon anyway.

But seriously, the key sentence in the article you quoted is this one:

According to modelling by the charities, a scenario which closed off all migration would leave Britain with a social care workforce shortfall of more than a million by 2037.

As it's completely ridiculous to think that anyone would be suggesting that that is ever going to happen, this would rather undermine the whole premise of the article.
 
No, it highlights that the social care system alone necessitates a migration influx of over a million in the next 20 years, that is over 50,000 immigrants a year for the social care alone.
 
So - a change in the direction of education and training is long overdue in the UK.

Until that comes through the dependence of the NHS on immigrants will remain.

Firstly Each Nation can only produce a percentage of so many Doctors, Nurses, Engineers, Etc. You might be able to encourage more people to study those fields if you paid higher wages, pushed cultural change encouraging study and subsidised education in those fields.

Then there is the high turn over rate, If you cannot fill in low labour staff positions such as cooks, careres, laundry staff & housekeepers. Iam thinking that the problem isnt the EU Fault.

I work for a small organisation. Across 10 or 11 services we have many vacancies, including nurses, carers, cooks, housekeepers and laundry staff. A points-based system would exclude all except the nurses. We need to encourage immigration; the vast majority of people from Europe come here to work. The British people complaining about the number of people coming to the UK do not want these jobs.

If we leave the EU, family members are going to have to look after their next of kin at home because we will not be able to staff our hospitals, nursing and care homes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-chaos-in-the-health-service-and-social-care
 
No, it highlights that the social care system alone necessitates a migration influx of over a million in the next 20 years, that is over 50,000 immigrants a year for the social care alone.

Not so, there are plenty of unemployed people here in the UK already.

Nearly 14% of under 25s according to:

http://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/uk?sector=Unemployment+less+than+25+years&sc=LAB-25-

And that is without taking into account; all those taxi drivers to be made unemployed
by self driving cars and those in the financial services whose job ends with pass porting.
 
Firstly Each Nation can only produce a percentage of so many Doctors, Nurses, Engineers, Etc. You might be able to encourage more people to study those fields if you paid higher wages, pushed cultural change encouraging study and subsidised education in those fields.

The problem in the UK is not a shortage of applicants.

There is a huge oversubscription in applications for all types of medical training.


Then there is the high turn over rate, If you cannot fill in low labour staff positions such as cooks, careres, laundry staff & housekeepers.

The problem Steve Collins has is that Hampshire, like much of the UK, has excessively
high house purchase and rental costs. The net result is that British people do not want
to work for minimum (or less than minimum wage) jobs that will not provide a roof
over their head if they can find work that pays more than that and they will therefore
move on, or instead are subsidised by students loans to study for (often worthless)
degrees in the forlorn hope that that will get them a highly paid job. So the employers
prefer to employ foreign nationals, often packed 10-20 per house, who, not having the
same local social connections to obtain better paid posts, are inherently more retainable.
 
Darned immigrants stealing our jobs and living on our welfare.
 
The problem in the UK is not a shortage of applicants.

There is a huge oversubscription in applications for all types of medical training.

Again you can only produce a % of qualified nurses from the pool of population. Because currently the drop out rate for UK nurses is very high between 54% and 78%. If the most qualified to take the nursing course are dropping out like crazy, then expanding education places probably not going to produce more nurses. Back to the drawing board with that idea

Of the 230 students on her course last year, only half have stayed. "They cram so much in, it can become very stressful. There doesn't seem to be much communication between placements and university, so placements can get away with grading you pretty much as they like," she says.

But just how are universities going to train all the nurses we need when drop-out rates on some nursing degree courses are so high?

Data revealed under the Freedom of Information Act to Nursing Standard magazine shows that at one university last year, 78% of students quit a nursing degree. At another, 54% dropped out.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/nov/24/nurses-degree-diploma-carer-clinician

Whats the solution to the low skill labour shortage then ?
British dont want to work minimal wage job and dont want immigrants to take those jobs. With Leavers planning to abolish even the minimal EU worker protections the only logical solution would be to reduce welfare then ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom