Clegg v Farage Round 2

[WetAugust]

Roll up for Part 2!

If you are saying that the EEA requires an open door immigration policy, then I presume they are not in favour of being in the EEA because they want controlled immigration.

Farage's biggest problems with EU membership seem to stem from the amount of legislation coming from Brussels, the cost of membership and immigration.

Actually, Farage's 'problem' with the EU is its democratic deficit and its drive towards "ever closer political union". The legisalation, cost of membership and the right of EU citizens to live in any of the EU's memberships are issue that derive from the aspiration of the EU for all its memberships to be one political entitly. That is anathema to UKIP.

He seems keen on membership of the European Economic Area. What I don't understand is how this would help reduce the amount of legislation or immigrants.

Farage does not want the UK to join the EEA. He wants us to join EFTA - the European Free Trade Association that was actually set up decades ago by Norway and Switzerland - both non-EU members. There is no suggestion that we will share residency rights with these countries via EFTA. EFTA membership is purely for free trade - you know, that lie that they told us the EU was all about when they sold it as the 'Common Market'.

Claig - EEA is the European Economic Area which is EFTA + the EU.

Thanks WetAugust, so more like Switzerland less like Iceland.

Yes, EU-lite. All the benefits of free trade without constricting, undemocratic political union.

Sounds great

Freely available if we could all put our X in the right place

If only we could have Swiss-style direct democracy

'If only we could have Swiss-style direct democracy'

Absolutely. Our chums would never allow us to have it.

But I think we might one day get it with UKIP. UKIP want referenda on any issue that receives 5% public support.

Isn't there some little known process whereby if a certain number petition for it, a Parish Council has to hold a referendum. I seem to remember that at least one such vote was held about whether or not we should ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

I'll have a google.

This is all bullshit. Capitalist propaganda by employers who want a cheap Labour pool.

It's not all bullshit at all. Yes people queue for hours to work for a supermarket because that is seemingly the minimum that many will consider good enough for them.

My daughter applied for a job recently at a local care home to do laundry & kitchen work. They called her back the next day and were just as gutted as she was that they couldn't hire her until she's 18 in 6 months time. They'd had 0 applicants.

My wife works for a company that specialises in providing care workers and support workers. They are crying out for people who can work. There's too many people who only apply to get the job centre off their back but don't really want the work. Or can only work between the hours of 10-2pm but not on Mondays, Tues, Wednesdays and Fridays. Oh and every other Thursday could be a bit hard too........

Immigrants come over here with nothing but a desire to work damn hard and get on in life. They arrive with little/no language skills and no recognised qualifications. Yet somehow they seem to always find jobs that so many of our citizens claim do not exist. They then study damn hard in a foreign language (to them), get qualified and in time move on to get better jobs. Then somehow they're job stealers who should move back to their own countries.

Immigration has been blamed for long enough for all our 'woes'. Back when I was a kid it was the Pakistanis & Indians who were the ones who were stealing all the jobs. Now it's the Eastern Europeans.

I also remember back in the boom years that we still had millions of people who couldn't find jobs and were still moaning that there were no jobs.

My point is that immigration has been of a net benefit to the country but all we ever talk about are the negatives. The positives are generally that immigrants come over, work and pay taxes which in turn helps our economy and ultimately create more jobs.

nice guy 2 I don't see how you can refer to mass immigration as a net benefit, if you live in an area that is actually effected. You obviously don't.
In effected working class areas 25% of Children at school are speaking English as their FIRST language, the remaining 3/4s are learning basic English, no space for social development skills/basic reading/writing, the whole generation is held back.
Working class areas suffer from segregation, families sticking to themselves, the concept of 'community' has vanished, so on...
As for employment, I'm sorry but immigration keeps wages down you can't deny that, because bringing in qualified people increases the number of applicants / demand therefore lowering wage.

The problem with politics is that there is no party that speaks for the working class or trade unions since Labour turned into 'New Labour' (Basically another Tory party)

UKIP are the ONLY party speaking for these people who are effected. No wonder they are popular.

I agree that some jobs are less attractive than others.

'My daughter applied for a job recently at a local care home to do laundry & kitchen work.

...

They'd had 0 applicants.'

Was it a permanent job? Was it an apprenticeship paying less than minimum wage? Did they have no applications from hardworking immigrants either?

'My wife works for a company that specialises in providing care workers and support workers. They are crying out for people who can work.'

Do they require experience or can unskilled people do those jobs? Are immigrants applying for these unfilled jobs?

'Immigrants come over here with nothing but a desire to work damn hard and get on in life. They arrive with little/no language skills and no recognised qualifications. Yet somehow they seem to always find jobs that so many of our citizens claim do not exist.'

You say that some of these people "arrive with little/no language skills and no recognised qualifications" and yet they always find jobs etc.

How come our employers say that British workers lack the necessary skills and employ people "with little/no language skills and no recognised qualifications"?

Do these people have references?

I think there are far too many hoops to jump through to get even the lowest level jobs and I wonder if the agencies who place people with "with little/no language skills and no recognised qualifications" apply the same checks and hoops

Lots of people are out of work but do have qualifications and they are often not employed by employers because the employers think they are over-qualified for the jobs and won't stay in those jobs, but will leave as soon as they find something better. Those employers may prefer people "with little/no language skills and no recognised qualifications" because they will be less likely to leave those jobs.

Jobs which offer good wages, prospects and career paths will attract applicants.

And what type of employers employ people "with little/no language skills and no recognised qualifications"?

Is it the farms and businesses who can get cheap labour to work in unsanitary conditions under the control of brutal gangmasters so that the cost of their produce can be kept artificially low and the level of their profits can be kept artificially high?

An abundance of low-skilled workers without many prospects allows employers to compress wages and maximise profits.

New Labour and their business buddies may have wanted that, but workers and the unemployed need to be protecetd from a race to the bottom.

"Danielius adds: ‘At those moments, you are trying to think about all the good things that used to happen to you in life; about home and how you could possibly change your life again.

‘But without knowing the English language, without friends or money — where do you go?

‘None of us was making money there. We were punished for every little thing, for no reason. Many of us even ended up in debt. We had no hope at all.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533576/Britains-new-slaves-To-millions-migrants-streets-paved-gold-But-awaits-savage-exploitation-gangmasters-lands.html

claig, have you tried reading on the topic from sources other than the Daily Mail? they are notorious for their facts-twisting and lack of professionalism, not just on this topic.