I think we could see some company to country (UK) deals though, I'm surprised it hasn't occurred to me before given that a large slice of my job is about just that. Wouldn't work for British companies the other way as they would have to strike a deal with the whole EU, unless they dressed it up as an investment deal. Given the Apple, Google, Starbucks examples I would not be surprised to see some imaginative work rounds developed.
I won't be surprised if right of free movement of people in the EU is limited by years of citizenship or residence, by the time UK exit is negotiated, making it more palatable for the Btitish government to remain in the single msrket.
Uturn in China! Teresa May saying she won't adopt a points-based system saying it doesn't work and there are plenty of other ways to sort immigration. Wasn't she in charge for the high records of immigration? This is Nigel's response http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...may-eu-referendum_uk_57cd376be4b085cf1eceb6f6 Why did we bother wasting time/moneyupset/jobs if they don't follow through with the result. On another note, Services industry has bounced back which reduces the chances of a recession.
Quotas would work better than points because you set an absolute number. If the Aussies get 200,000 applications with the required points, presumably they let them all in. I suppose you need a system which has a cap and a focus on getting the right skills. The argument would be how high or low the cap should be. Though I suppose there are plenty of people who want a complete stop to immigration. Let's see what happens to the economy when Brexit means something more concrete than Brexit. This government has all of the quiet summer to do some thinking, but it appears they haven't got a plan with any specifics yet.
I don't think Mrs May ever said she wanted a points-based quota system. She was advocating Remain, wasn't she? The problem with all the things that Leave (and Remain, for that matter) put up to get our votes, because it was a Yes/No answer, we just don't know how many actually wanted which promise. We don't know how many people voted Leave mainly on the basis of "immigration control" or how many of those felt a points-based system was the way forwards - just like we don't know how many people voted Remain in the hope the EU might be reformed somewhat. Mrs May was, as you say, Home Secretary until recently, so might have some responsibility for non-EU immigrants coming in at a somewhat larger rate than the government had suggested/promised they would. Sometimes it feels like she'd like us to forget she was in the previous government. I don't care what Mr Farage thinks. He's a self-serving manipulator. One of many. Farage HAS to say something about this matter, as it was one of the few suggestions that UKIP actually came up with. Pointing out the problems with it in the form it was proposed by UKIP makes them look like they didn't think it through. I like the fact we're seeing the service industry holding up. It's good news. I hope it continues to do so. .
On another topic, the junior doctors have (perhaps) turned the tables on Mr Hunt by postponing their first strike. They've essentially challenged Hunt to sit down and talk a bit more or run the risk in a months time that he will look like the unreasonable one again.
Does he want them to work 7 days a week or d0es he want them to work in a system that's staffed fully 7 days a week?
They aren't being asked to work all 7 days. They already work a rota system that covers all 7 days, but Mr Hunt wants to change that system for a new one. I can't tell you what the changes are. Because he can't get the junior docs to accept his proposal, it will instead be imposed on them, starting in October. This is possible because junior doctors are rotated throughout the NHS system to give them broad experience, and are not employed as full time employees but are on fixed-term contracts. As old-style contracts expire, they will only be offered the new ones. Mr Hunt keeps saying he sees these changes as part of a 7-day NHS. Today, apart from emergency care and in-patient care, it is a 5-day system. When you visit a hospital at weekends, it is clearly less busy. Elective (non-emergency) treatment is Mon-Fri only. On one hand, many people say it doesn't matter that we're 5 days/week for non-emergency work, because planned treatment can be planned and fitted in to the working week. On the other hand, some say (correctly) that there is expensive equipment and buildings not being used on Sat/Sun that could be. MRI units, operating theatres and so on. My limited understanding of the dispute goes like this... The junior docs say Mr Hunts plans for their work patterns will not deliver a system that is safer for patients. They say he isn't explaining how he will staff those unused units at weekends, or how many senior consultants will be working, how many nurses working Mon-Fri at the moment will be forced to work rotas that include weekends. They say he isn't saying where the money will come from to make sure there is no reduction in those services provided Mon-Fri. They say the Mon-Fri services are understaffed as it is. They also say the new contracts will make things worse for part time staff - especially women, because of the negative impact it will have on family life and childcare. They say it is not about money. Mr Hunt says that the government is committed to a 7-day NHS to improve patient safety at weekends. He says they have given the junior doctors more money - implying that money is the only issue in his eyes. Me? I trust the junior doctors and don't trust Mr Hunt, but like all these things seem to be these days, there's lots of rhetoric and spin being bandied about that muddies the issues and makes it difficult to form your own view based on facts. What I do know is that Mr Hunt was parachuted into his "safe seat" Surrey constituency as a candidate a few years ago. The previous MP was Virginia Bottomley. She is his cousin. Virginia Bottomley was also Health Minister. Both have links into private health companies that make me uneasy without having any factual reason for it. This one is worth watching closely.
Terrifying story on BBC News about gun crime in Chicago. I think we have done US gun law to death on here, but just to register that this issue - the daily death toll, way beyond the numbers in eye catching massacres or terrorism - does not seem to feature in the presidential election at all. And to add that I love Chicago, my joint favourite US city. I have never felt any more at risk there than I do in London. But then again I don't go to the south or west sides.
Days NOT beginning with S The Mayor is useless. If New York, which was one of the most dangerous city's can turn it around why cant they?
After hours on his feet in the Commons, nothing David Davies said left me any clearer about what shape the Government want Brexit to take. Except that he wants a 'national consensus' on it and will be talking to lots of people all over the place to find it. And presumably looking under rocks for it too. Correct me if I am wrong, but given that 'Brexit' appeared to mean multiple different things to the 52% of people who voted for it (leave completely now, leave but stay in the single market, negotiate some kind of 'best possible' deal, control immigration, stop immigration....) and 48% didn't want it at all 'consensus' would seem to be impossible. That's what you get when you ask a misleading binary question and then lie to the electorate (both sides) to help them make up their collective mind.
I would say the common themes for Brexit voters were 1. Take back control of immigration (now accepted as a red line by May's government), 2. Give back law making and enforcement ability to Parliament and the various UK courts, and 3. Achieve the ability for the UK to make its own trade agreements with countries worldwide. When commentators complain that the government has not been completely open and transparent about what it hopes to achieve from Brexit, and all the priorities, they seem to forget that the Brexit team are shortly to get into vital negotiations with the EU. If they show their hand completely, they would give a huge advantage to the other side.
Your last paragraph, with its 'us and them' implications, is exactly why we should leave the EU entirely as soon as possible and negotiate a trade deal with it afterwards. I think the EU would prioritise us as the degree of integration and co dependence already exists. All three of the Brexit definitions you give will be achieved much more quickly by this route. Actually I think that the negotiations, from the British side at least, will be conducted on these naive and unproductive 'we win you lose' lines, because that is the psyche of the politicians who will shape them. And possibly from the EU side, as there are significant elements who simply want to punish us for making them go through this. Every day that passes while we keep our hand secret simply pisses them off more. Every fruitful negotiation I have been involved in has been based on both sides having a really good idea of the needs of the other. But then again most of these have been positive negotiations where both sides actively want an agreement for mutual benefit. From the EU side at least this negotiation is reluctant, forced upon them, and their best result is something worse than they already have. Interesting today that the Times is trumpeting the desire of the Aussies to reach a trade deal with the U.K., (we will be meeting with them an amazing twice a year to discuss, because we can't sign anything until we leave). At the same time the Aussie trade minister is saying that their priority is a trade deal with the EU.
I'm afraid it is an "us and them" situation between the UK and the EU at present, and as you allude to, there are those (officials in Brussels of the Juncker school) that would royally screw us given the opportunity. I'd say it would be naive for the UK to come at this in any way other than by articulating broad principals at present, and keep powder dry. Bear in mind too, that the elections in Germany and France next year could well change exactly what we are negotiating with. There is a move away from the EU as currently configured, among the populace in these countries. The local elections in Merkel's back yard showed the climate. I expect Brexit negotiations to start in earnest after the fog clears following these elections. I'm not sure the Aussie situation is that interesting. It's clear their EU trade deal is important to them, because it's a big block and the talks are some way down the road. They don't want to piss Brussels off that this time, but it seems clear they will be interested in a trade deal with the UK after Brexit.
One for you Kiwi. There are 200,000 unemployed people in NZ, a 5.7% rate. There is an 'open door' policy on immigration and 69,000 new migrants arrived last year. Your Prime Minister says this policy will continue as Kiwi employers think many locals are drug addicted, lazy and will invent illnesses once in work, so won't give them jobs.
This is an anecdote, so bear that in mind... In 2001, my sister and her husband (both newly retired) emigrated to NZ. My brother-in-laws sister had been there for 25+ years already. The visa they got required them to run a business which employed Kiwis. He bought a share in a meat pie business in Hamilton. His prior business experience was operations director for large food-producing companies in the UK. That business didn't work out and went under (I suspect he didn't do a good job of due diligence, which surprised me, but anyway...). So, he started a cleaning business from scratch and won contracts to clean schools and offices in the Hamilton area. He was one of the cleaners, too. They're back in the UK now and a little bitter about the experience. They couldn't extend their visa after the first 5 years because his business never managed to get even one NZ-born person to work in it. All the staff were immigrants. If you think about it, cleaning companies in the UK aren't likely to be very different, are they? Does this tell us anything? I've no idea, but I wanted to share...
