EU Referendum

[Les*1066]

Cameron is attempting to get changes to the Human Rights Act etc passed ........................ yeah, good luck with that, Dave. Let's just get out and be done with it. There is no value in being a member of the european union - far from it - so I think we should get out and save ourselves a fortune that could be better spent in our own union.

[Rewulf]

I really don't know. The trouble with the Australian points based system is that we are not Australia but a part of Europe (culturally and geographically)

 

 

 

 

It could get worse by workers going underground and working illegally with fewer rights, but that's just conjecture.

 

 

 

Are you saying we are culturally closer to eastern europeans than to Aussies? I beg to differ.

 

And to say it could get worse by workers going underground ect ,well , dont they do that now?

Who would they work for? Theyre own countrymen who have been granted right to stay for whatever reason.

Im sure they wouldnt exploit them would they ?

[Lloyd90]

Cameron is attempting to get changes to the Human Rights Act etc passed ........................ yeah, good luck with that, Dave. Let's just get out and be done with it. There is no value in being a member of the european union - far from it - so I think we should get out and save ourselves a fortune that could be better spent in our own union.

If replaced with a suitable bill of rights then who knows , it might be better, it might be worse! I am concerned about the change but its looking like a big push, alot of people are concerned about radicalists who come here and preach hate and terrorism and we can't deport them because of their human rights! Alot of people complain about it, so he is addressing it.

 

Until we see the proposed alternative it's a bit unfair to blast him! On PW itself people there are sometimes threads saying to do something about these individuals. Well not they are looking to do something!

[FalconFN]

 

Are you saying we are culturally closer to eastern europeans than to Aussies? I beg to differ.

 

And to say it could get worse by workers going underground ect ,well , dont they do that now?

Who would they work for? Theyre own countrymen who have been granted right to stay for whatever reason.

Im sure they wouldnt exploit them would they ?

No I'm not saying that at all, I'm surprised you came to that conclusion but perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. I'm saying a points based system like they have in Australia works for them (a huge land mass thousands of miles from other large economies and surrounded by countries that do not share the same cultural background) but we do not have the same circumstances as Australia (we are a small European island very close to other European countries with large economies with which we share cultural similarities). What's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander - if Australia was butted up to mainland Europe they would possibly have a different approach, very much like their reciprocal agreement with New Zealand which allows the free movement of people between the two countries without the need for visas or work permits (something often ignored by those espousing the points system in Oz).

 

I think the recent expansion of the European Union, or at least the way it was done, was not a good thing for the EU but the legal movement of workers is necessary in today's world. How we control it is important but pretending we don't need them is a mistake IMO.

[Scully]

I for one have never once claimed we don't need them. The NHS for example has been populated with skilled immigrants since before I was born. We MUST be allowed to choose whom we want to allow into the country via set criteria, and not an open door policy for any and all. The EU should not be allowed to dictate to us about immigrant numbers regardless of skill levels.

[Rewulf]

I for one have never once claimed we don't need them. The NHS for example has been populated with skilled immigrants since before I was born. We MUST be allowed to choose whom we want to allow into the country via set criteria, and not an open door policy for any and all. The EU should not be allowed to dictate to us about immigrant numbers regardless of skill levels.

 

Exactly ,we should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Trouble is ,we are not allowed under EU rules.

If I was Cameron ,to maintain confidence ,do the referendum asap,then when(if) it comes back as a definite 'out' ,from a position of strength dictate to Brussels what we want to stay.

If they dont want to parlez ,then you know there is no point hanging around.

Will anything like this happen?

What do you think...

[FalconFN]

 

Exactly ,we should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Trouble is ,we are not allowed under EU rules.

If I was Cameron ,to maintain confidence ,do the referendum asap,then when(if) it comes back as a definite 'out' ,from a position of strength dictate to Brussels what we want to stay.

If they dont want to parlez ,then you know there is no point hanging around.

Will anything like this happen?

What do you think...

If we voted no, then that is a no. He could attempt to renegotiate first and then on the strength (or weakness) of the negotiations have the referendum.

[FalconFN]

I for one have never once claimed we don't need them. The NHS for example has been populated with skilled immigrants since before I was born. We MUST be allowed to choose whom we want to allow into the country via set criteria, and not an open door policy for any and all. The EU should not be allowed to dictate to us about immigrant numbers regardless of skill levels.

I totally understand but in leaving the EU we would still want to be part of the EEA and quite possibly forced to keep the policies of free movement etc. Could we end up with EU-light, all the bureaucracy but no power?

[Rewulf]

If we voted no, then that is a no. He could attempt to renegotiate first and then on the strength (or weakness) of the negotiations have the referendum.

 

We have been there and done that ,he 'renegotiated' our EU contribution hike didnt he,with our rebate.

 

Lets face it,our voice carries little weight in all this,'they' want it ,so we shall have to suck it up.

 

Is there another party besides UKIP who wants to be out of the EU?

No,and thats because it suits the main stream parties because they obviously have an interest in staying in.

Why would that be? Surely its up to the people who voted them in to decide what is best?

Cameron needs another 2 years to make the EU look more attractive before the referendum,nothing more,nothing less.

Because right now,he knows full well the result,the pollsters will have been out on the streets to test the water,have you seen any results?

Didnt think so.

 

Notice I say EU and not Europe,we can never not be European.

[Scully]

Everyone keeps going on about 'renegotiating', even Osbourne keeps going on about 'renegotiating', possibly in an attempt to sweeten the reason to stay in, and is as we speak doing so in an attempt to get what he claims is a better deal for the UK.

UKIP DO NOT WANT TO NEGOTIATE, they want out.

Give us the 'in out' referendum and not one with the words biased towards staying in; a simple 'do you want the UK to remain part of the EU?' with a yes or no option will suffice. Who am I trying to kid? They're Tories for crying out loud.

[grrclark]

I think it is fair to say that a great many people recognise a number of challenges around the EU and examples of some of the bigger ones are freedom of mobility for EU citizens, some of the over arching legislation from Europe that supersedes UK legislation and a number of issues around agriculture and fishery subsidies, etc.

 

I really don't think it is unreasonable for the government to try and address those big issues before putting a referendum to the country. In fact I think it would terribly negligent if the government didn't have a go at trying to resolve the most emotive issues before asking the country to make a binary in or out choice.

 

The choice that will be put to the voters is to choose to be in Europe with agreements that mean X, Y & Z or to be out of Europe. It will still be a binary in or out choice.

 

It is a massive choice that the country will make and we should all want to make that decision in the most favourable circumstance. I struggle to understand why people would not want that to be the case.

Edited May 13, 2015 by grrclark

[Psyxologos]

I totally understand but in leaving the EU we would still want to be part of the EEA and quite possibly forced to keep the policies of free movement etc. Could we end up with EU-light, all the bureaucracy but no power?

 

I strongly believe that this is a very real posibility.

[Vince Green]

I for one have never once claimed we don't need them. The NHS for example has been populated with skilled immigrants since before I was born. We MUST be allowed to choose whom we want to allow into the country via set criteria, and not an open door policy for any and all. The EU should not be allowed to dictate to us about immigrant numbers regardless of skill levels.

The story of the NHS is far more complicated, the NHS is often quoted as a good example of the positive side to immigration but there is also a bad side. The reason we are so dependent on foreign nurses for example is because most of the nurses training schools in the UK have been closed down. Its not worth the trusts paying to train their own nurses like they used to because they can get all the nurses they want from abroad.Thats false economy and lots of long term problems in the making.

 

The Doctors and the nurses don't just come here on their own, they often bring their whole families and that creates additional costs to the country that don't reflect on the NHS's balance sheet.

 

So now we have no choice but to recruit abroad, but what about the UK kids who should have been training to be nurses? or doctors or all the other jobs? What about their futures?

 

Its not just about who they employ its about who is getting pushed out.

[Psyxologos]

 

So now we have no choice but to recruit abroad, but what about the UK kids who should have been training to be nurses? or doctors or all the other jobs? What about their futures?

 

Its not just about who they employ its about who is getting pushed out.

 

Not 100% accurate. Plenty of British doctors/nurses emigrate to Canada, the US and Australia/NZ soon after qualifying. Any guesses as to why? Not hard to imagine, better pay and conditions than in the UK...

[Vince Green]

 

Not 100% accurate. Plenty of British doctors/nurses emigrate to Canada, the US and Australia/NZ soon after qualifying. Any guesses as to why? Not hard to imagine, better pay and conditions than in the UK...

Thats not a bad thing, its still giving 'our' kids a good start in life. To say we shouldn't bother to train doctors and nurses because they might go abroad is not looking at the responsibility we have to give our kids the best opportunities in life.

As for pay, if we stopped paying ridiculous money to agency staff we might have more money to pay the rest. If a nurse can earn £400 a shift on agency, often doing very much less than proper staff, why would they want to work on the cards?

[pimpkiller]

Hospitals like to run incredibly understaffed then get agency staff to fill in. Its all to do with management and penny pinching rather than treating staff well and having a good work force. My partner is a nurse and dosnt like foreign agency staff at all, mainly under trained and why should they care about quality of work when they are only there for a day

[Rewulf]

Hospitals like to run incredibly understaffed then get agency staff to fill in. Its all to do with management and penny pinching rather than treating staff well and having a good work force. My partner is a nurse and dosnt like foreign agency staff at all, mainly under trained and why should they care about quality of work when they are only there for a day

 

Indeed, my experience of foreign nursing staff has been extremely bad,they most certainly are not trained to the same level.

When my father was in hospital with terminal cancer,he had a room about 8 yards from the main nursing station,with his door open he could be seen from the station,the nurses (filipino) liked to play solitaire on the computer most of the time,well, every time I visited they were.

Twice,he got up from his bed and started wandering about,both times he fell and hit his head,the second time put him in a coma for a week.

The size of the pool of blood left behind tells me he wasnt discovered for some time.

I made a formal complaint,they had the cheek to tell me because his cancer was so advanced it would be kinder to let him die now!

What that had to do with the negligence complaint Ive no idea.

Nothing was ever heard about the complaint again.

He was then moved to a nursing home staffed by various African and Eastern europeans,he constantly complained about his treatment,the whole place stank so badly of stale urine it about took your breath away,but they said there was nothing they could do about it.

He said before he died 8 months later,that at least he wouldnt have to spend any more time in this stinking hole.

 

My partner once had some blood taken from her arm by an African nurse,blood hit the ceiling ,the nurse ,she still has the scar.

 

They say we dont have the staff,so we have to import them,meanwhile a generation sits around claiming benefits.

How about create some jobs training people to be the staff that are required.

Force some of these layabouts to do those jobs that only eastern europeans seem to do.

It may be unpopular,but if implemented right Im sure someone could make it work.

The alternative is far more depressing .

[grrclark]

Hospitals like to run incredibly understaffed then get agency staff to fill in. Its all to do with management and penny pinching rather than treating staff well and having a good work force. My partner is a nurse and dosnt like foreign agency staff at all, mainly under trained and why should they care about quality of work when they are only there for a day

I'm afraid that just highlights a lack of knowledge around management and jumps to the wrong conclusion. An efficient business will plan for staff productivity at around 85% efficiency, that is a good target number to try and achieve. People do not work at 100% for 100% of the time.

 

Hospitals have a fairly consistent level of workload, an awful lot of what they do can be planned fairly accurately and it can be seasonally adjusted as well.

 

That means hospital management can fairly accurately predict what staffing levels are required which means they can reliably determine how many permanent staff they require and that is by far the cheapest option.

 

Agency workers cost more, there is an agency premium and given this is determined by national agreements it will likely be a minimum of a 12.5% uplift beyond the staffing costs. Agency staff also typically have a lower performance ratio than permanent staff. Typically it will cost 30% more to run agency labour than in-house so it is very much not penny pinching by managers to use agencies, it is the opposite.

 

Agency staff are cheaper when you get spikes in demand and can bring them in for a short duration. So an example might be during the winter where there is higher demand through Dec - Feb that you bring in agency staff for the short period.

 

Running understaffed costs you more as does running overstaffed. The problem is getting sufficient quality at the required quantity to make it worthwhile recruiting permanently.

 

Nobody wants to give someone with poor attitude a permanent role as they just become a headache; across the full business spectrum in the UK it is becoming increasingly harder to recruit good people with good attitude.

 

There are many reasons behind that which is a good discussion in itself, but using agency labour is not the cheapest option. Gangmasters that run foreign agency labour in unskilled jobs are a different scenario.

[Vince Green]

I'm afraid that just highlights a lack of knowledge around management and jumps to the wrong conclusion. An efficient business will plan for staff productivity at around 85% efficiency, that is a good target number to try and achieve. People do not work at 100% for 100% of the time.

 

Hospitals have a fairly consistent level of workload, an awful lot of what they do can be planned fairly accurately and it can be seasonally adjusted as well.

 

That means hospital management can fairly accurately predict what staffing levels are required which means they can reliably determine how many permanent staff they require and that is by far the cheapest option.

 

Agency workers cost more, there is an agency premium and given this is determined by national agreements it will likely be a minimum of a 12.5% uplift beyond the staffing costs. Agency staff also typically have a lower performance ratio than permanent staff. Typically it will cost 30% more to run agency labour than in-house so it is very much not penny pinching by managers to use agencies, it is the opposite.

 

Agency staff are cheaper when you get spikes in demand and can bring them in for a short duration. So an example might be during the winter where there is higher demand through Dec - Feb that you bring in agency staff for the short period.

 

Running understaffed costs you more as does running overstaffed. The problem is getting sufficient quality at the required quantity to make it worthwhile recruiting permanently.

 

Nobody wants to give someone with poor attitude a permanent role as they just become a headache; across the full business spectrum in the UK it is becoming increasingly harder to recruit good people with good attitude.

 

There are many reasons behind that which is a good discussion in itself, but using agency labour is not the cheapest option. Gangmasters that run foreign agency labour in unskilled jobs are a different scenario.

You are wrong about agency wages in the NHS, because of a lack of the most basic levels of business acumen on the part of management the agencies are ripping off the hospitals left right and centre. My partner's daughter, who is a midwife, can earn a week's pay in two days working agency. People are leaving their jobs to go agency because they can earn so much more. Thats just incompetence on the part of managers, and we are in a downward spiral.

 

Simple legislation to say hospitals can only pay "grade plus 10%" to temps would kill all the grotesque excesses overnight and they would still get people to work for them. In fact they would work a lot harder and a lot more shifts because they would not have the don't give a damn attitude.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Vince Green

[grrclark]

Vince, I don't know NHS numbers but I did say a minimum of 12.5% would be agency uplift and that is on top of any inflated wages. I wouldn't be surprised to see 60% costs on top of what a perm employee would be.

 

Your post confirms my suspicions.

 

I was being conservative.