Mustafaster wrote:I wish it were so simple as making the underclass get a job.
The jobs are there in the main, but who is going to want to employ the shiftless cunts? Somebody who has never done a stroke in their life and is used to getting up at 11:00 and goign straight down the pub is almost certainly unemployable form a businessman's point of view.
The reasons the E Europeans have no problem getting work is because they have a work ethic and employers are very happy to take them on, they know they will put a shift in.
The Anglo Saxon work ethic disappeared for the underclass some time in the 80's, maybe even earlier.
Fuck knows how you fix this.
burnleyinexile wrote:Perhaps the benefit system should be overhauled whereby what you get out is based on what you have contributed? Don't know if it's doable, but surely worth considering?
jackos wrote:burnleyinexile wrote:Perhaps the benefit system should be overhauled whereby what you get out is based on what you have contributed? Don't know if it's doable, but surely worth considering?
I'm not one for quoting dictators, but 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' doesn't just mean taxing the hell out of the rich y know.
People have a responsibility to society, and society has a responsibility to the people who live it it. But Western Europe is in desperate need those immigrants if we want to maintain anything like the standard of living we have become used to. The building industry in Sweden would be fucked without the influx of British and Polish builders we've seen over the past few years, the Health Service would be at a stand still without the nurses, doctors, dentists etc who have moved here. The vast majority of them never cost the Swedish state a penny, especially the builders, they come here n work their balls off, leaving their families back home in Poland. I work in Ireland, Sweden and the UK there days, and with customers all over Europe and the world. I just don't see the reality you describe Burnley.
burnleyinexile wrote:I'm not in Parliament, but surely there has to be a better system than what we have now. I'm not disputing that immigration is not needed, of course it is. As you say the NHS would grind to a halt if not for foreign workers, but we are talking about Polish fruit pickers, meat packers, etc., all unskilled jobs. If our mass of unemployed haven't even the nouse to 'master' those posts, then it really is time to call it a day.
Another danger, as the UN have already pointed out to HMG, is that bringing in skilled workers (ie doctors from Pakistan or Africa) leaves those countries, whose need of those skills is far higher than ours, in dire need of those skills. They simply cannot afford to have their own trained people (trained at a cost to them, not us) doing that job there.
Supernorm wrote:Apparently the UK population doesn't stand alone wanting a referendum, the majority of people, in the majority of EU countries want out or a re-negotiation as well.
burnleyinexile wrote:The johnny foreigners are very blasé about us, seems they don't give a toss if we don't want to be in their club. Be interesting to see who would, if we pulled out totally, cough up the £50-70m per day that we tip up as admission fees. That sort of coin would go a long way to sorting out our deficit, but it would knock a decent hole in their bank balance.
As for trade, if we still actually have goods/services they need/want, surely they'll still have to buy them from us? Brits who work in Europe would surely still be in jobs, simply because they are there because of ability, not because of anything our govt does?
jackos wrote:Looking at THESE figures the UK "only" contributes about 5% of the EU budget. though it is the second largest net contributor (I'm assuming that takes account of the UK refund Thatcher negotiated). In terms of per capita contributions the UK is the 6th largest contributor. Obviously a shortfall of 5% would be felt, 50 billion quid is a fuck of a lot of money. I've no idea what EU membership is worth to the UK. To Sweden membership is vital and worth every penny, the Swedish economy is totally dependent on exports, and a large percent of those exports go to Europe.
Regards job, I have been there as I said, I had to apply for a work permit in Sweden when I moved here, and it was by no means a done thing. I have mates who where turned down. Right now UK citizens have a right to work anywhere in Europe, they have the same right as anyone else in Europe to apply for jobs in Sweden. Today Brits are judged on merit as you say, and currently 20000 Brits live and work in Sweden, ...
“The Court concludes that overall the supervisory and control systems are partially effective in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts. The policy groups Agriculture and Natural Resources and Cohesion, Energy and Transport are materially affected by error. The Court’s estimate for the most likely error rate for payments underlying the accounts is 3.7 %.
“In the Court’s opinion, because of the significance of the matters described [above] on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 are materially affected by error.”
The accounts were found to be 'true and fair', meaning a clean bill of health. As for payments, the Commission managed for the first time to bring down the overall error rate for EU spending below 5%. This means at least 95% of total payments made in 2009 were correct.
Blackwhite wrote:I get really annoyed at the common shout that the Human Rights Act needs repealing. Si, which bits of it specifically do you think need repealing: all of it? Some of it? Or just the bits that allow some work-shy Afghan to stay past his visa cos he's got a cat (i.e. the bullshit scare stories the RW press like to trot out to embarrass Theresa "Fuck-me-shoes" May)?
SimonB wrote:Working Time Directive
eric olthwaite wrote:SimonB wrote:Working Time Directive
This Daily Heil whinge really fucks me off. In order to breach the EU Working Time Directive an employee has to work more than 48 hours per week for more than 17 weeks consecutively.
No-one, on the entire fucking planet, should be required by an employer to work more than 48 hours for more than 17 weeks consecutively. That's four fucking months. Nor is there any benefit to an employer in getting an employee to work those hours without even one bloody day off. They'd be fucked and underperforming.
My last employer asked me to sign the waiver in my contract and I struck it out and told them to do one. It's not inconceivable that I might, one day, have to work those hours. But if I do, it'll be at my discretion, not any employer's.