Cameron still doesn't get the point on immigration...

[Kermit power]

uk_vette said:

One of the requirements for non EU persons immigrants UK to live, is they must pass English speaking tests. Cambridge A1 or above.
Now this is fine, I agree with this.
However, why is it just restricted to non EU immigrants?
There are just as many EU entrants who cant speak English, why shouldn't they also be required to pass the A1 Cambridge English test.

The classic axample is the Polish, they arrive in UK, work hard, but many of them don't speak a word of English.
If Poland was not in the EU, then they would have to pass the English test.
The English test requirement is applicable to non EU immigrants, where English is not their native language.

My point is, if you want ( any one ) to come and work in UK, then you must all pass an English test.

vette

Why exactly would you want that?

Personally, I'd prefer a policy that says dealing with officialdom is done in UK native languages only, rather than adding an additional layer of bureaucracy.

[obob]

Victor McDade said:

Bing o said:

It really is simple:

No admittance without a job or a real place of education (ie not some sham language college in Bradfordistan).

If you lose your job, you have a month to find another one, or you GTFO.

All migrant workers must show that they have private healthcare on admission.

No admittance to relatives without a job, or eductaion place.

Apply it to everyone without a britiash passport including EU citizens.

Job jobbed.

How is it 'simple' when all three major parties here are europhiles? Most of what you've written above is against European law. Various political leaders over the years have got us deeper and deeper into Europe and now its tough st if you don't like it. If you don't like the way things are run then move (which you've obviously done, wise move).

Not all of us can though due to family and work commitments.

Yes but if he now loses his job in Singapore, he should move back to the UK within a month but leave his Singaporean wife (if he has one) in Singapore till she finds a job in the UK.

[bp1]

obob said:

Victor McDade said:

Bing o said:

It really is simple:

No admittance without a job or a real place of education (ie not some sham language college in Bradfordistan).

If you lose your job, you have a month to find another one, or you GTFO.

All migrant workers must show that they have private healthcare on admission.

No admittance to relatives without a job, or eductaion place.

Apply it to everyone without a britiash passport including EU citizens.

Job jobbed.

How is it 'simple' when all three major parties here are europhiles? Most of what you've written above is against European law. Various political leaders over the years have got us deeper and deeper into Europe and now its tough st if you don't like it. If you don't like the way things are run then move (which you've obviously done, wise move).

Not all of us can though due to family and work commitments.

Yes but if he now loses his job in Singapore, he should move back to the UK within a month but leave his Singaporean wife (if he has one) in Singapore till she finds a job in the UK.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Happened to me in the US. Wife lost her job, gave her 30 days to find 'equivalent' employment or leave. We left. Poor decision in retrospect but hey ho.

We knew before we went what the conditions of employment were, pity I couldn't go bleating on the internet about stuff against my human rights at that point.

[obob]

bp1 said:

obob said:

Victor McDade said:

Bing o said:

It really is simple:

No admittance without a job or a real place of education (ie not some sham language college in Bradfordistan).

If you lose your job, you have a month to find another one, or you GTFO.

All migrant workers must show that they have private healthcare on admission.

No admittance to relatives without a job, or eductaion place.

Apply it to everyone without a britiash passport including EU citizens.

Job jobbed.

How is it 'simple' when all three major parties here are europhiles? Most of what you've written above is against European law. Various political leaders over the years have got us deeper and deeper into Europe and now its tough st if you don't like it. If you don't like the way things are run then move (which you've obviously done, wise move).

Not all of us can though due to family and work commitments.

Yes but if he now loses his job in Singapore, he should move back to the UK within a month but leave his Singaporean wife (if he has one) in Singapore till she finds a job in the UK.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Happened to me in the US. Wife lost her job, gave her 30 days to find 'equivalent' employment or leave. We left. Poor decision in retrospect but hey ho.

We knew before we went what the conditions of employment were, pity I couldn't go bleating on the internet about stuff against my human rights at that point.

But what if his wife is not British?

[bobbylondonuk]

obob said:

bp1 said:

obob said:

Victor McDade said:

Bing o said:

It really is simple:

No admittance without a job or a real place of education (ie not some sham language college in Bradfordistan).

If you lose your job, you have a month to find another one, or you GTFO.

All migrant workers must show that they have private healthcare on admission.

No admittance to relatives without a job, or eductaion place.

Apply it to everyone without a britiash passport including EU citizens.

Job jobbed.

How is it 'simple' when all three major parties here are europhiles? Most of what you've written above is against European law. Various political leaders over the years have got us deeper and deeper into Europe and now its tough st if you don't like it. If you don't like the way things are run then move (which you've obviously done, wise move).

Not all of us can though due to family and work commitments.

Yes but if he now loses his job in Singapore, he should move back to the UK within a month but leave his Singaporean wife (if he has one) in Singapore till she finds a job in the UK.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Happened to me in the US. Wife lost her job, gave her 30 days to find 'equivalent' employment or leave. We left. Poor decision in retrospect but hey ho.

We knew before we went what the conditions of employment were, pity I couldn't go bleating on the internet about stuff against my human rights at that point.

But what if his wife is not British?

You would have got her a visa to enter britain as a spouse when you married her. So she can move with you.

[obob]

bobbylondonuk said:

obob said:

bp1 said:

obob said:

Victor McDade said:

Bing o said:

It really is simple:

No admittance without a job or a real place of education (ie not some sham language college in Bradfordistan).

If you lose your job, you have a month to find another one, or you GTFO.

All migrant workers must show that they have private healthcare on admission.

No admittance to relatives without a job, or eductaion place.

Apply it to everyone without a britiash passport including EU citizens.

Job jobbed.

How is it 'simple' when all three major parties here are europhiles? Most of what you've written above is against European law. Various political leaders over the years have got us deeper and deeper into Europe and now its tough st if you don't like it. If you don't like the way things are run then move (which you've obviously done, wise move).

Not all of us can though due to family and work commitments.

Yes but if he now loses his job in Singapore, he should move back to the UK within a month but leave his Singaporean wife (if he has one) in Singapore till she finds a job in the UK.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Happened to me in the US. Wife lost her job, gave her 30 days to find 'equivalent' employment or leave. We left. Poor decision in retrospect but hey ho.

We knew before we went what the conditions of employment were, pity I couldn't go bleating on the internet about stuff against my human rights at that point.

But what if his wife is not British?

You would have got her a visa to enter britain as a spouse when you married her. So she can move with you.

No, but no admittance to relatives unless they have a job in place according to Bing O's rules.

[tank slapper]

Kermit power said:

Further to this, the Office for National Statistics uses a frankly bizarre way of calculating youth unemployment. It gives it as a percentage of economically active youths. This excludes students. Let's say you have 10 unemployed youths, 20 students and 70 working youths. According to the ONS, that would be a youth unemployment rate of 14.3% (10/70). Now let's move down the line a few years. Government efforts to get more youths into higher education have been a success, so you've now got 10 unemployed youths, 25 students and 65 working youths. Although the total number of youths is unchanged, and the number of unemployed youths is unchanged, according to the ONS, youth unemployment has risen to 15.4% (10/65).

I don't believe it works that way. The term is NEET - not in education, employment or training, so the figure would actually fall in the example you give. The reason that figure is used is that it is very common for young people to be in education or training, so just using a pure figure of those employed or not would be misleading.

[Kermit power]

tank slapper said:

Kermit power said:

Further to this, the Office for National Statistics uses a frankly bizarre way of calculating youth unemployment. It gives it as a percentage of economically active youths. This excludes students. Let's say you have 10 unemployed youths, 20 students and 70 working youths. According to the ONS, that would be a youth unemployment rate of 14.3% (10/70). Now let's move down the line a few years. Government efforts to get more youths into higher education have been a success, so you've now got 10 unemployed youths, 25 students and 65 working youths. Although the total number of youths is unchanged, and the number of unemployed youths is unchanged, according to the ONS, youth unemployment has risen to 15.4% (10/65).

I don't believe it works that way. The term is NEET - not in education, employment or training, so the figure would actually fall in the example you give. The reason that figure is used is that it is very common for young people to be in education or training, so just using a pure figure of those employed or not would be misleading.

The number is given as NEETs, but the percentage is then NEETs compared to those in employment, rather than NEETs as a percentage of those in employment plus those in education.

It seemed odd to me, but the article in the Grauniad was purely about this, so presumably properly researched. You can also download all the source data if you want to check their workings.

[tank slapper]

Well that is quite an interesting article. It raises the question of why the ONS are manipulating the data like this. They are surely aware of the misleading nature of what they released, as the reporter had to specifically request the raw data as they hadn't published it. Whose agenda are they following?

[Kermit power]

tank slapper said:

Well that is quite an interesting article. It raises the question of why the ONS are manipulating the data like this. They are surely aware of the misleading nature of what they released, as the reporter had to specifically request the raw data as they hadn't published it. Whose agenda are they following?

Very much my thinking too. I do like the general tone of it too, which is a first for me and the Guardian. "ps off, you whinging little children! If you want to know what hard was, you should've been young in my generation back in the eighties!"

[0a]

A very interesting article, thanks for posting!

[JagLover]

sjn2004 said:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cameron-says-tighten-immi...

I'm not sure if he's just playing to the crowd but he needs to start listening. Discussing the current situation with various people the problem isn't with non EU migrants but rather the few million EU workers who turned up over the last few years all eager to work for half your pay and no questions asked. .

Net migration from Non-EU countries was running at a 1/4 million a year before the coalition government started bringing in measures to try and limit the flow, so I am not sure where you have got the idea that Non-EU immigration is not an issue. Particularly as it is more likely to be for permanant settlement than EU immigration.