The government's new points based immigration rules were published yesterday to unanimous condemnation. The statement outlining how it's supposed to work after Brexit is HERE. On first glance it looks quite complicated and bureaucratic. On second glance the whole thing looks even worse. The statement says at one point, "However, we need to guard against making the system too complex." If this is the simplified version God help anyone wishing to come here after December.
Listen to this (paragraph 27):
"For employers sponsoring skilled migrants, the process will be streamlined to reduce the time it takes to bring a migrant into the UK by up to eight weeks. We intend to further reduce this through additional enhancements to the system."
Note the eight weeks is not the total time to process a skilled immigrant's visa application, but the amount the time will be shortened by after it's been 'streamlined'. Mmmm... I wonder how long the 'shortened' period will be? Probably months with innumerable hoops to go through and for mistakes to be made. At the moment for EU migrants there is no delay at all, quite a change, eh?
Farmers wishing to recruit a lot of fruit pickers (at £26,500 a year, or a bit less less if they have a PhD - seriously, I kid you not) will no doubt welcome all the delays and extra paperwork and be perfectly relaxed about all the extra wage costs too. Or perhaps not.
For those who are not entirely satisfied, the Home Secretary, the egregious Priti Patel, says former employers of immigrant labour must train more British workers to do the work that immigrants did. She claims eight million people in the 16-64 age range are economically inactive although these are mainly students, the long term unemployed and carers apparently.
But never mind, fear not, Owen Paterson in 2016 is alleged to have said we pensioners could pick fruit and veg in the fields, albeit a bit more slowly than youthful Bulgarians or Romanians. To compensate, Paterson said a minor tweak to the law would allow farmers to pay us less than the minimum wage. So that's fine then.
The Guardian reports:
"Business groups from the CBI to the bodies representing the farming, hospitality and care work sectors have all raised the alarm about the new system, saying it will cause labour shortages."
A quick scan of my news feed shows the agricultural sector is concerned that the new rules will lower farm gate prices and increase production costs - not normally a very happy combination. The education sector is warning the rules would adversely affect colleges. The hospitality sector in London is also concerned that classifying bar and restaurant staff as unskilled or low skilled will make them ineligible for any UK visas.
The DUP in northern Ireland want the salary cap reduced because of the threat it poses to the local economy. In Wales, they are desperately worried about staff shortages in the care sector.
Nobody at all seems to be happy with Patel's new plan and some, like Stephen Dorrel, have accused the government of dog whistle politics. Usually taken to mean appealing to the worst instincts of the population. But don't forget this is only the mechanics of the points based system. The numbers are another matter altogether.
The DUP in northern Ireland want the salary cap reduced because of the threat it poses to the local economy. In Wales, they are desperately worried about staff shortages in the care sector.
Nobody at all seems to be happy with Patel's new plan and some, like Stephen Dorrel, have accused the government of dog whistle politics. Usually taken to mean appealing to the worst instincts of the population. But don't forget this is only the mechanics of the points based system. The numbers are another matter altogether.
Migration watch have complained there is no overall cap so the numbers are still likely to be as high if not higher than in recent years. In September 2016, Theresa May, a former Home Secretary said a points based system would NOT give us control:
"Rather than giving the government control, such a system would allow anybody into the UK if they met the criteria, she said, adding that curbs on student visas had been a more effective measure to reduce immigration.
"I want a system where the government is able to decide who comes into the country - I think that's what the British people want. A points-based system means that people come in automatically if they just meet the criteria," she added.
The main driver of immigration, business and industry needs, will remain. What is likely to change is the type of immigrant perhaps with better language skills and higher qualifications and from places other than the EU. Will the average xenophobic, anti-immigrant vote be placated by that? I'm not sure. But if the immigration figures remain as they are now or go even higher as Mrs May claimed, I suggest the government might need more than a dog whistle.
As for British companies training more low paid workers, this is a gamble that will hit social care, hospitality and food processing, as the FT point out this morning. Some companies are just as likely to close or relocate abroad.
Our very own Guy Poskitt was on both BBC and ITV News at Ten last night. He grows vegetables, mainly carrots, in the fields around my house and supplies a big chunk of the UK market. Poskitt says his business would be finished without migrants from the EU. If he is forced to pay £26,500 the cost of his carrots will rise and the supermarkets will find suppliers in Europe.
What no one is saying is that changing the immigration system at any time would be a challenge. Introducing it gradually over an extended period would still be a challenge. But attempting to do it overnight AND at the same time, putting in new customs and regulatory checks at all entry points, PLUS wholly new fishing and agricultural regimes is nothing short of insanity. With the best will in the world it must be an odds-on disaster.
As for British companies training more low paid workers, this is a gamble that will hit social care, hospitality and food processing, as the FT point out this morning. Some companies are just as likely to close or relocate abroad.
Our very own Guy Poskitt was on both BBC and ITV News at Ten last night. He grows vegetables, mainly carrots, in the fields around my house and supplies a big chunk of the UK market. Poskitt says his business would be finished without migrants from the EU. If he is forced to pay £26,500 the cost of his carrots will rise and the supermarkets will find suppliers in Europe.
What no one is saying is that changing the immigration system at any time would be a challenge. Introducing it gradually over an extended period would still be a challenge. But attempting to do it overnight AND at the same time, putting in new customs and regulatory checks at all entry points, PLUS wholly new fishing and agricultural regimes is nothing short of insanity. With the best will in the world it must be an odds-on disaster.
Now to other matters. Tuesday's plaintive tweet from the No 10 press office (below) has been all over social media for the last 24 hours. It caused quite a bit of a stir, mainly because it displays a staggering misunderstanding of the EU's long stated position on LPF commitments. But it also shows a foot stamping tantrum sort of attitude to international negotiations which just makes us look silly.
This is particularly so when you consider how we have chopped and changed position on everything related to Brexit. The EU have been utterly consistent from the word go, but we now engage in a shabby attempt to make it look as if they have reneged on an earlier offer when they have not.In 2017 the EU showed on their own slide that a Canada type FTA was the only available relationship for the UK. Now they say it’s not on offer after all. @MichelBarnier what’s changed? pic.twitter.com/ve8zeAqbSZ— No.10 Press Office (@Number10press) February 18, 2020
To answer to the press office's pointed question, about what has changed, it is that we have now ruled out the level playing field conditions that we have known about since 2017 and solemnly agreed to last October.
It was very badly received in Brussels where an anonymous EU source described No 10's tweet as "deeply false, dishonest". The EU were said to have bristled at it. I am not surprised.
The Guardian's Brussels correspondent said on Twitter that, "Senior EU officials angered by this slide, which they see as deeply disingenuous and a bad sign for negotiations to come. The idea of a level playing field was in the EU's first Brexit guidelines in 2017. Boris Johnson signed up to LPF in the political declaration."
While Peter Foster, nominated for Political Reporter of the Year at the 2020 Press Awards, said, "Stunned off my ski lift by this No 10 tweet - not just because of its brazen disingenuousness, but because of what it says about UK thinking on future EU-UK relationship. It is (again) shot through with cakeism and misguided belief that threats will move EU"
He tweeted a rather clever EU graphic showing the amount of trade (size of the balloon) on a graph with the y axis plotting the amount of trade the EU 27 has with third countries (from most to least) and the distance from the EU in km on the x axis:
As you can see we are the large red balloon at the bottom left, below Switzerland, Norway and Turkey - all countries bordering the EU. Canada is the tiny orange balloon in the top centre.
We want an agreement like Canada - no LPF stuff - although we are in the same group as adjacent countries with strict level playing field conditions. It must be obvious to anybody that this is the cakeism Foster refers to, the notion that because we are who we are, exceptions must be made for us.
It is also clear that the EU simply CANNOT offer us better conditions otherwise countries mentioned in the graph will also demand their treaties be renegotiated.
As things look at the moment, there will be no cake at all.
It is also clear that the EU simply CANNOT offer us better conditions otherwise countries mentioned in the graph will also demand their treaties be renegotiated.
As things look at the moment, there will be no cake at all.
