Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

The nobel prize visa thing was just idiotic and arrogant from a rational point of view.
As if a nobel prize winner wouldn't qualify for a visa anyway if they remotely wanted to move to the UK？
But then it was never meant to be a practical policy. It was just girating for the ignorant masses.

The message it wanted to send I guess that even a Nobel prize winner should feel privileged for being let to enter and work in GREAT Britain.

[Sheilbh]

The nobel prize visa thing was just idiotic and arrogant from a rational point of view.
As if a nobel prize winner wouldn't qualify for a visa anyway if they remotely wanted to move to the UK？
But then it was never meant to be a practical policy. It was just girating for the ignorant masses.

Well also I slightly query the sense of trying to get Nobel Prize winners here because my understanding was that generally they're normally basically lifetime achievement awards.

And obviously there are lots of other routes for researchers/scientists on visas - I would be astonished if Nobel prize winners couldn't, as you say, use any other visa path. But this goes back to my point of I think an emphasis on science and technology is right - but it needs structure and funding. What are the teams those people could build, what are the pension they'll receive (the pensions of academics have been a constant industrial battle for the last 10 years), what's the funding profile in their area etc.

My personal view is (stolen from Stephen Bush) that with a little bit of Blairism and a league table of research universities, we allow top research universities to issue visas. If they want to hire a researcher or an academic it's within their control and can be from anywhere on earth and never needs to touch the Home Office.

Edit: Incidentally this just goes back to my point that the UK should lean into its advantages: culture, research and tech and financial and professional services. As I said I think this government is actively hostile to the culture sector. I think they are saying the right things and doing some interesting thinking on regulations around research and tech, but not putting the spending/resource in place and a little bit hostile to those sectors (especially universities). And everyone in the UK hates the financial and professional services sector/views them as parasites on the "real" economy.

Which is not great.

[garbon]

The nobel prize visa thing was just idiotic and arrogant from a rational point of view.
As if a nobel prize winner wouldn't qualify for a visa anyway if they remotely wanted to move to the UK？
But then it was never meant to be a practical policy. It was just girating for the ignorant masses.

Well also I slightly query the sense of trying to get Nobel Prize winners here because my understanding was that generally they're normally basically lifetime achievement awards.

And obviously there are lots of other routes for researchers/scientists on visas - I would be astonished if Nobel prize winners couldn't, as you say, use any other visa path. But this goes back to my point of I think an emphasis on science and technology is right - but it needs structure and funding. What are the teams those people could build, what are the pension they'll receive (the pensions of academics have been a constant industrial battle for the last 10 years), what's the funding profile in their area etc.

My personal view is (stolen from Stephen Bush) that with a little bit of Blairism and a league table of research universities, we allow top research universities to issue visas. If they want to hire a researcher or an academic it's within their control and can be from anywhere on earth and never needs to touch the Home Office.

So a personal view that sits in a completely different universe than our current one.

[Josquius]

That would be nice.
Can't see the government going for it though as that seems a step further than, the also very sensible, allowing regions control of their own immigration.
This would have really helped to tackle anti immigration ignorance had it been enacted years ago. Already immigrants tend to go to the places with the jobs. Making it official that only a few hundred were actually given the right to move to teeside would be quite the hurdle for those seeking to kick up immigrant scaremongering in low immigrant areas, and of course allow London to keep doing  thing and Scotland to try and target the immigrants it wants.
And of course sensible solutions to immigration are not what the government wants.

[garbon]

I'm not sure I get the current story on babies in parliament. Not sure why Labour is keen on headlines about pushing for changes to benefit MPs right now.

[Tamas]

I'm not sure I get the current story on babies in parliament. Not sure why Labour is keen on headlines about pushing for changes to benefit MPs right now.

Probably one to file under Labour and the Left in general living in their own little world thinking that middle class first world problems are the driving force behind today's politics.

[Josquius]

I'm not sure I get the current story on babies in parliament. Not sure why Labour is keen on headlines about pushing for changes to benefit MPs right now.

It has broader applications about support for working mothers in the world at large.
If an MP, that especially priveleged lot, can't do it then what chance does anyone else have?

I do think tackling the UKs failures here are, though not the key problem in the country, somewhere some big points can be scored.

[The Brain]

The nobel prize visa thing was just idiotic and arrogant from a rational point of view.
As if a nobel prize winner wouldn't qualify for a visa anyway if they remotely wanted to move to the UK？
But then it was never meant to be a practical policy. It was just girating for the ignorant masses.

Well also I slightly query the sense of trying to get Nobel Prize winners here because my understanding was that generally they're normally basically lifetime achievement awards.

The Literature Prize is a lifetime achievement award (because the Swedish Academy is a collection of doofi) and Peace is a not-being-W award (because Norway), but the science Prizes are for specific discoveries. Often (but not always) the discovery is decades in the past at the time of the Prize, so it's unlikely that a Nobel Prize laureate will make another great discovery after receiving the Prize. So they're similar to lifetime achievement awards in that the person is normally past their prime and their best work is behind them. If you want to impress people with your dinner guest list you want Nobel laureates, but if you want to produce great science you want rising stars.

[Sheilbh]

So a personal view that sits in a completely different universe than our current one.

Yeah - that's what I think should happen. In my experience what I think should happen is sadly very often in a different universe than the current one.

This would have really helped to tackle anti immigration ignorance had it been enacted years ago. Already immigrants tend to go to the places with the jobs. Making it official that only a few hundred were actually given the right to move to teeside would be quite the hurdle for those seeking to kick up immogewant scaremongering in low immigrant areas, and of course allow London to keep doing its thing and Scotland to try and target the immigrants it wants.

Although - to return to Tamas' point - I don't see how you police that without ID cards and I'm not comfortable with regional residence permits. I feel like if you're in, you're in. But two other points on that.

Polls show that even people who are generally anti-immigration don't think of students as immigrants and I think the same could apply to other university roles. It's better now because the Tories didn't campaign/arent' trying to achieve a numeric target as they were under Cameron and May, so they have relaxed the rules for foreign students. But I think there needs to be a shift because for at least a decade government wanted to reduce immigration and the low-hanging fruit was universities - that needs to end and we need to go further on relaxing the rules.

The other is that part of this is asylum and it started under New Labour. They removed the right for individuals to work while their asylum claim was pending because they were "losing" too many people while their case was being reviewed. They then made it stricter on the benefit rules and said they would settle refugees (while their claim was being reviewed) rather than allowing them to choose where to settle in the UK - again normally people would choose an area with an existing community and too many were "disappearing". Because of that and the benefit changes and the desire to keep costs low - huge numbers of asylum seekers are settled in some of the most deprived areas of the country, in sub-standard housing run by G4S.

So per capita the South-East, East and South-West have the fewest asylum seekers and resettled refugees. The most are in the North East (by far), the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and Northern Ireland.

There's often not much of a community there. They are people who are legally unable to work/have to live on benefits. And they're being dumped on already deprived communities. It's a catastrophically bad policy. So even aside from regional controls I'd just let people work and live where they want and if nothing else I imagine many would move from the shittiest neighbourhood of Middlebrough to London which I think would be better for everyone.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure I get the current story on babies in parliament. Not sure why Labour is keen on headlines about pushing for changes to benefit MPs right now.

I don't know. I think it's a fair enough point that parliament needs to be a modern workplace for its staff (which means protection from bullies or abuse from parliamentarians etc) and for MPs/Lords which means proper proxy or remote voting, especially for parents, more sensible debating hours etc.

Maybe not the best time to push the story but I think the way parliament works really affects the type of people who go into it in a negative way.

The Literature Prize is a lifetime achievement award (because the Swedish Academy is a collection of doofi) and Peace is a not-being-W award (because Norway), but the science Prizes are for specific discoveries. Often (but not always) the discovery is decades in the past at the time of the Prize, so it's unlikely that a Nobel Prize laureate will make another great discovery after receiving the Prize. So they're similar to lifetime achievement awards in that the person is normally past their prime and their best work is behind them. If you want to impress people with your dinner guest list you want Nobel laureates, but if you want to produce great science you want rising stars.

Yeah that was my thought - we should be targeting the rising stars more, rather than this.

[Josquius]

So a personal view that sits in a completely different universe than our current one.

Yeah - that's what I think should happen. In my experience what I think should happen is sadly very often in a different universe than the current one.

This would have really helped to tackle anti immigration ignorance had it been enacted years ago. Already immigrants tend to go to the places with the jobs. Making it official that only a few hundred were actually given the right to move to teeside would be quite the hurdle for those seeking to kick up immogewant scaremongering in low immigrant areas, and of course allow London to keep doing its thing and Scotland to try and target the immigrants it wants.

Although - to return to Tamas' point - I don't see how you police that without ID cards and I'm not comfortable with regional residence permits. I feel like if you're in, you're in. But two other points on that.

That would make it easier for sure but it's not necessarily totally necessary.
If you only have a visa for Scotland and you try to get a job or flat in London then background checks shoukd pick that up.
There's always illegal work of course. But that needs tackling anyway.

Polls show that even people who are generally anti-immigration don't think of students as immigrants and I think the same could apply to other university roles. It's better now because the Tories didn't campaign/arent' trying to achieve a numeric target as they were under Cameron and May, so they have relaxed the rules for foreign students. But I think there needs to be a shift because for at least a decade government wanted to reduce immigration and the low-hanging fruit was universities - that needs to end and we need to go further on relaxing the rules.

The other is that part of this is asylum and it started under New Labour. They removed the right for individuals to work while their asylum claim was pending because they were "losing" too many people while their case was being reviewed. They then made it stricter on the benefit rules and said they would settle refugees (while their claim was being reviewed) rather than allowing them to choose where to settle in the UK - again normally people would choose an area with an existing community and too many were "disappearing". Because of that and the benefit changes and the desire to keep costs low - huge numbers of asylum seekers are settled in some of the most deprived areas of the country, in sub-standard housing run by G4S.

So per capita the South-East, East and South-West have the fewest asylum seekers and resettled refugees. The most are in the North East (by far), the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and Northern Ireland.

There's often not much of a community there. They are people who are legally unable to work/have to live on benefits. And they're being dumped on already deprived communities. It's a catastrophically bad policy. So even aside from regional controls I'd just let people work and live where they want and if nothing else I imagine many would move from the shittiest neighbourhood of Middlebrough to London which I think would be better for everyone.

Better for everyone.... Except Tamas :p

Eh. I can see pros and cons to it.

One possible pro which is being missed out on and is something that really needs better communicating.... Is that these places where they will be placed are shit.
I've seen a fair bit about a lot of them believing the right wing propeganda that they'll be handed a great job, massive benefits, and a lovely house in Central London.
Rather than throwing money at militarising the channel I do think we should be put a lot more effort into highlighting the shittiness of life for an assylum seeker or illegal immigrant in the UK. It should help filter out a few of the invalid assylum seekers if they know what they're coming to.

Another pro.... It just makes economic sense to house these people where its cheapest. But then yes. It puts the burden disproportionately on poor towns. Things need rebalancing a bit there but not too much. The same goes for stuff like homeless shelters, rubbish dumps, etc... Put some of them in wealthier places but don't totally ignore economic considerations.

There being no established community... Some would argue that's the point. Makes disappearing harder and massively boosts integration.

I do think there's something to putting people in deprived areas with no housing problems though just dumping them isn't great. Really jobs shoukd be made for locals in helping them adjust. But we all know with the current government this would be a horrific privatised mess.

[Sheilbh]

That would make it easier for sure but it's not necessarily totally necessary.
If you only have a visa for Scotland and you try to get a job or flat in London then background checks shoukd pick that up.
There's always illegal work of course. But that needs tackling anyway.

But that still relies on hostile environment style privatisation of immigration enforcement - I have no issue with employers checking on visas but I don't like the way it has creeped into other things. Also wouldn't that just ban some types of commuters?

One possible pro which is being missed out on and is something that really needs better communicating.... Is that these places where they will be placed are shit.
I've seen a fair bit about a lot of them believing the right wing propeganda that they'll be handed a great job, massive benefits, and a lovely house in Central London.
Rather than throwing money at militarising the channel I do think we should be put a lot more effort into highlighting the shittiness of life for an assylum seeker or illegal immigrant in the UK. It should help filter out a few of the invalid assylum seekers if they know what they're coming to.

Another pro.... It just makes economic sense to house these people where its cheapest. But then yes. It puts the burden disproportionately on poor towns. Things need rebalancing a bit there but not too much. The same goes for stuff like homeless shelters, rubbish dumps, etc... Put some of them in wealthier places but don't totally ignore economic considerations.

There being no established community... Some would argue that's the point. Makes disappearing harder and massively boosts integration.

I do think there's something to putting people in deprived areas with no housing problems though just dumping them isn't great. Really jobs shoukd be made for locals in helping them adjust. But we all know with the current government this would be a horrific privatised mess.

Yeah I don't agree with any of those benefits I think for example on integration - you are more likely to be able to integrate if you have a community and a support network because you can engage in life in the city/country/society. I think if you and your family are just dumped in a terraced house in Middlesbrough with no community, you won't integrate you'll be more and more isolated both from the wider community of the area but also just on a perosnal level.

I think the whole set of policies on this over the last 25 years have been morally disgraceful and had really bad consequences

[garbon]

I'm not sure I get the current story on babies in parliament. Not sure why Labour is keen on headlines about pushing for changes to benefit MPs right now.

It has broader applications about support for working mothers in the world at large.
If an MP, that especially priveleged lot, can't do it then what chance does anyone else have?

I do think tackling the UKs failures here are, though not the key problem in the country, somewhere some big points can be scored.

Should there be a goal to get more working mother's to have their children at their workplace?

[Josquius]

Should there be a goal to get more working mother's to have their children at their workplace?

I'm not one so can't comment on how widespread this desire is but I have seen more than one politician globally doing it.
Certainly support for working parents overall is sorely lacking.

But that still relies on hostile environment style privatisation of immigration enforcement - I have no issue with employers checking on visas but I don't like the way it has creeped into other things. Also wouldn't that just ban some types of commuters?

It shouldn't be.
To legally rent a property or get a job checks should go through the government systsem.
True on commuters. Note I'm not just making this idea up, it's how things work in Switzerland. I really don't know how they handle living vs working.
Hopefully there could be a smart and logical approach there. I've always been fond of the idea of border areas being fuzzy rather than sudden cliff edges.
Living in Bristol and supposidely working in Glasgow...yeah you're taking the piss most likely.
Living in Berwick and working in Edinburgh? Sure. Checks out.

Yeah I don't agree with any of those benefits I think for example on integration - you are more likely to be able to integrate if you have a community and a support network because you can engage in life in the city/country/society. I think if you and your family are just dumped in a terraced house in Middlesbrough with no community, you won't integrate you'll be more and more isolated both from the wider community of the area but also just on a perosnal level.

I think the whole set of policies on this over the last 25 years have been morally disgraceful and had really bad consequences

Having a well integrated family from your homeland around to help is great.
Having a large and fairly self contained community including a large number of unsavoury characters who seek to profit from those going off the grid - less so.
As said I do think just dumping them is bad and there needs to be people to help them integrate. But this shouldn't be wherever they fancy. It does make sense to try and spread them out a bit.

The current system is broken its true. But really a lot of the causes of this are less down to immigration itself and more how the UK is organised as a for profit enterprise. .

[Savonarola]

The Literature Prize is a lifetime achievement award (because the Swedish Academy is a collection of doofi)

There was concern with Camus winning the literature prize since he was so young (44).  As it turns out it was a lifetime achievement award, but how could the committee have known that?