Theresa May says Britain will be 'poorer' and public services 'weaker' without EU workers

First topic message reminder :

PM: Britain will be 'poorer' without EU workers
MPs debate Brexit Bill amendments
PM will refuse to offer a compromise to rebel Tory MPs
May hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Number 10 expects to win Wednesday's crunch vote
Government will not back any of the amendments
UK travellers could face higher roaming charges post Brexit
Theresa May has insisted that she will be able to get an "early agreement" on the rights of EU citizens living in Britain, as she sought to ease the concerns of rebel Tory MPs.

The Prime Minister said Britain would be "poorer" and public services "weaker" without the contribution of EU workers and that guaranteeing their rights would be a "priority" during the Brexit negotiations.

Speaking in the Commons this afternoon, Mrs May warned potential rebel MPs they will be "obstructing" the will of the people if they vote to amend the Brexit Bill.

She told MPs this afternoon that the "general view" from EU leaders during the summit in Valletta last week was that the UK and EU need to reach an agreement that applies equally to citizens of both parties.

This means that Britain taking a unilateral decision to guarantee EU nationals' status is "not the right way forward", she said.

She told MPs: I have every expectation from the good will I have seen that it will be possible to get an early agreement on this matter to give people the reassurance that they need.

"I have said before, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker.

"So we will make securing the reciprocal agreement that will guarantee their status a priority as soon as the negotiations begin, and I want to see this agreed as soon as possible because that is in everyone's interests."

Number 10 expects to win the crunch vote to trigger the formal exit of the EU on Wednesday, despite suggestions that as many as a dozen Tories could rebel and join with other parties to vote for "wrecking" amendments.

The changes MPs are demanding include protection for EU citizens and a vote on the final Brexit deal before it has been agreed.

Speaking this afternoon, Mrs May warned pro-Remain Tories against backing amendments seeking to ensure Parliament gets a say on the "endgame" if Brexit negotiations collapse without a deal.

The Bill is returning to the Commons today for a further three days of debate during committee stage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-debate-article-50-bill-live/

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That rather depends on how long one lives after retirement age.

No it does not Rags

They are being paid a retirement package, based of far greater more money, than they ever put into that pot.

well for much of my working life I paid in quite a lot more than the state pension each week.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not entitled to it if they're dead, so they might have paid in much more than they ever got out of it.

They were entitled to this when alive, and would be able to receive that money

Hence your point is utterly and completely moot

In that pot, they paid into, it increased to more money, than they paid in.
That means, no matter if they lived or died, that money increased.
Thus part of that pot was free money.

Quite simple really, just like when you buy prescriptions. As many medicines are far more expensive that the amount you pay under the NHS.

Again free money

Your education

Again off free money.

Your health care, again formed mostly from free money, far exceeding anything you placed into the system.

the money they pay in, goes to pay the pensions of those who are retired now. the state pension differs from a private pension in that respect

Thorin wrote:Unemployment is at its lowest for years Tommy

Youth unemployment has always been high, so please put up stats to back your claims it has rocketed over recent years?

Lets just start with that first fib shall we?

there are still well over 1million unemployed. if johnny foreigner does not get first dibs on a job then maybe that figure would fall further. If brits dont want to take that job then stop giving them free money, that concentrates the mind somewhat.
the young have been taught that the state owes them a living, it doesn't

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the figures of unemployed benefit claimants is not the true number of those actually unemployed...


Since 2004 the unemployed rate in poland halved while our youth unemployment rate doubled... with black and other minority ethnic group rate unemployment being even higher still...

PMSL

So now the figures are untrue?

WTF

You said youth unemployment sky rocketed over the last few years.

It massively went down

How badly are you showing you cannot admit you were wrong?

I mean what the fuck has Polish unemployment got to do with youth unemployment going down by nearly half since 2004?

young poles coming to britain might have something to do with that.

Tommy Monk wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/22/youth-unemployment-jobless-figure


And...





While...


"...At the time Poland joined the EU in 2004, the country’s unemployment rate was 19%, compared to 5% in the UK (Eurostat 2014). Furthermore, a youth unemployment rate of 40% in Poland had made employment in the UK, even in low-skilled jobs, an attractive option for young Poles. Given these numbers it is hardly surprising that migration from Eastern Europe to the UK inclined significantly after EU accession..."

https://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/01/what-is-the-actual-impact-of-migration-from-eastern-europe-to-the-uk-a-look-at-the-evidence/

Youth unemployment graph bumped for syl... youth unemployment has risen massively over last 20 years...

I didn't look at figures Tommy, I was taking Thors statement that they had dropped and answering that.

I do believe the  the government has classed all under 18 year olds as not unemployed will appear to reduce the figures, seems it's not worked good enough if the figures still show a rise.

I don't go along with youngsters refusing to do mundane low paid work either.  Some might, but many don't get the chance to fill the vacancies if they are advertised abroad rather than here.
Costa coffee houses and Butlins ...places where young people would usually work apply for jobs, have both been guilty of NOT advertising locally.

Another thing, none academic kids just waste 2 years either not turning up for college or just killing time till they are legally allowed to look for full time work, what a waste.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Okay, but can they receive other benefits Syl?
You are talking a two year gap
That is not why unemployment has dropped with youth
So again, this view you have is on foreigners, correct?
What have they done?

I don't know about benefits Thor, I was talking numbers.....Governments have ways of manipulating statistics, and keeping youngster's in education till they are 18 is one way  of keeping youth unemployment figures down.

Presumably no under 18 can work full time without being in a training scheme, that would apply to foreign workers also.

Young people between 16 and 18 can work full time as long as they don't work more than 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know about benefits Thor, I was talking numbers.....Governments have ways of manipulating statistics, and keeping youngster's in education till they are 18 is one way  of keeping youth unemployment figures down.

Presumably no under 18 can work full time without being in a training scheme, that would apply to foreign workers also.

Young people between 16 and 18 can work full time as long as they don't work more than 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day.

They also have to be in some kind of training or apprenticeship, they cant just  leave school at 16 and get a job like kids used to be able to.

"In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18".



https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Young people between 16 and 18 can work full time as long as they don't work more than 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day.

They also have to be in some kind of training or apprenticeship, they cant just  leave school at 16 and get a job like kids used to be able to.

"In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18".



https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

Can't employers just say the young person is an apprentice and then pay them less?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

They also have to be in some kind of training or apprenticeship, they cant just  leave school at 16 and get a job like kids used to be able to.

"In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18".



https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

Can't employers just say the young person is an apprentice and then pay them less?

Probably, some employers know all the tricks to underpay.

The point I was trying to make though is if a person is under 18 they cant be counted as unemployed......one way of manipulating youth unemployment figures.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Can't employers just say the young person is an apprentice and then pay them less?

Probably, some employers know all the tricks to underpay.

The point I was trying to make though is if a person is under 18 they cant be counted as unemployed......one way of manipulating youth unemployment figures.

Yes, they can't normally get job seeker's allowance, so they would not be classed as unemployed.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Young people between 16 and 18 can work full time as long as they don't work more than 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day.

They also have to be in some kind of training or apprenticeship, they cant just  leave school at 16 and get a job like kids used to be able to.

"In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18".



https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

That is a fairly recent requirement... but only for those who are actually doing it... many aren't doing any work or training at all...

I don't see how anyone can force a 16-year old who has left school to undertake training or part-time education.

Yes Raggs... the requirement also makes them more unemployable to employers...

Syl wrote:I didn't look at figures Tommy, I was taking Thors statement that they had dropped and answering that.

I do believe the  the government has classed all under 18 year olds as not unemployed will appear to reduce the figures, seems it's not worked good enough if the figures still show a rise.

I don't go along with youngsters refusing to do mundane low paid work either.  Some might, but many don't get the chance to fill the vacancies if they are advertised abroad rather than here.
Costa coffee houses and Butlins ...places where young people would usually work apply for jobs, have both been guilty of NOT advertising locally.

Another thing, none academic kids just waste 2 years either not turning up for college or just killing time till they are legally allowed to look for full time work, what a waste.

Sorry Sly, its yourself that is skewing the figures.
Anyone that is under 18 is the responsibility of their parents, hence why only those not being supported by their parents can receive Universal credit.
So the Government has not classed all under 18's as not unemployed, as the majority are still classified as not adults and thus the responsibility of parents.
That is why many who are between 16 and 18 are not classed as unemployed, because their needs should be met by their parents and if not the Government steps into help them.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How do those people come to work in the first place?
Based off an education they do not pay for.
Children have a free education. Collectively society pays. Which without any education, those children would be unlikely to find work as adults in many industries.
What we contribute is minuscule individually and where even more, we end up creating far more cost to things we need, than we pay into the system. Hence you get plenty of free money and you will again when you retire. As the money you made working and paid into your pension, will never equate to what you then get paid in your retirement. You will get far more money than you put in.
That is free money.

most money you get in your pension comes from investments in the evil capitalist world and for state pensions they come from eh people who are working now. The state pension is little more than a glorified ponzi scheme which is just about getting to the point where it all collapses.
It worked when people rarely lived more than 5 years after retirement, now they can live 20 or 30 years drawing a pension,  this also explains why people are being expected to work longer before getting a state pension.

What has any of he above got to do with the points I made?

Zero

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:Unemployment is at its lowest for years Tommy

Youth unemployment has always been high, so please put up stats to back your claims it has rocketed over recent years?

Lets just start with that first fib shall we?

there are still well over 1million unemployed. if johnny foreigner does not get first dibs on a job then maybe that figure would fall further. If brits dont want to take that job then stop giving them free money, that concentrates the mind somewhat.
the young have been taught that the state owes them a living, it doesn't

You are making some very bold claims there.
Are you claiming prejudiced and discrimination upon employment?
The best person for the Job should get that job.

The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


And 16 year olds are entitled/willing/able to work... as at 16 they are issued with NI (National insurance) cards/numbers...

Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


And 16 year olds are entitled/willing/able to work... as at 16 they are issued with NI (National insurance) cards/numbers...

So you believe in a racist/inequality policy to employ people then and not the best person for the job.
I am sure there are many 16 year olds willing to be a surgeon, but does that mean they can carry out the surgery or the job Tommy?

I thought we were talking about youth unemployment and unskilled jobs...

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought we were talking about youth unemployment and unskilled jobs...

Did you?

Your words..

Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...

So back to my point Tommy

So you believe in a racist/inequality policy to employ people then and not the best person for the job.
I am sure there are many 16 year olds willing to be a surgeon, but does that mean they can carry out the surgery or the job Tommy?

[quote="Thorin"]

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought we were talking about youth unemployment and unskilled jobs...

Did you?

Your words..

Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...

On top of the above being racist and inequality, it could be extremely and highly dangerous dependent on the job.

And that was in the context of the last few posts...


As you well know by your misdirection about a 16 year old trying to be a surgeon...


If you want to expand the premise to that of highly skilled jobs... then obviously that would also expand the scope of applicants to be older than 16 as well as them having the necessary skills/qualifications/experience too...!


And in which case... the best person for the job here would still be a uk citizen in need of the job!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:And that was in the context of the last few posts...


As you well know by your misdirection about a 16 year old trying to be a surgeon...


If you want to expand the premise to that of highly skilled jobs... then obviously that would also expand the scope of applicants to be older than 16 as well as them having the necessary skills/qualifications/experience too...!


And in which case... the best person for the job here would still be a uk citizen in need of the job!!!

well unless that 16 year was dougie howser it is unlikely he could have trained for the required number of years.

Tommy Monk wrote:And that was in the context of the last few posts...


As you well know by your misdirection about a 16 year old trying to be a surgeon...


If you want to expand the premise to that of highly skilled jobs... then obviously that would also expand the scope of applicants to be older than 16 as well as them having the necessary skills/qualifications/experience too...!


And in which case... the best person for the job here would still be a uk citizen in need of the job!!!

Here is what Tommy said


Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


So much fun, when people end up with egg on their faces

Even if non-skilled Jobs, it should be the best person for the job, no matter if British or foreign

So either way, your view was based on prejudice and not the best person for the job

You would employ an unskilled person over a foreigner not based on ability, but geographically on where they were born

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
there are still well over 1million unemployed. if johnny foreigner does not get first dibs on a job then maybe that figure would fall further. If brits dont want to take that job then stop giving them free money, that concentrates the mind somewhat.
the young have been taught that the state owes them a living, it doesn't

You are making some very bold claims there.
Are you claiming prejudiced and discrimination upon employment?
The best person for the Job should get that job.

you appear to be saying that british people cannot get jobs and would not be the best person for a job. That sounds like a racist viewpoint to me.

If there is one job and it has gone to a non citizen, then surely that means there is one less job for a british citizen. I dont recall jobs being only available to non citizens.

It seems you cannot get that simple concept into your head.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see how anyone can force a 16-year old who has left school to undertake training or part-time education.

well unless they live off the bank of mum and dad they could shut down the money supply

Thorin wrote:So back to my point Tommy

So you believe in a racist/inequality policy to employ people then and not the best person for the job.
I am sure there are many 16 year olds willing to be a surgeon, but does that mean they can carry out the surgery or the job Tommy?

if there are any 16 year olds who have undertaken the decade or more of training required to become surgeon then there is nothing to stop them taking the job. But I am not sure many under 6's get into medical school

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

You are making some very bold claims there.
Are you claiming prejudiced and discrimination upon employment?
The best person for the Job should get that job.

you appear to be saying that british people cannot get jobs and would not be the best person for a job. That sounds like a racist viewpoint to me.

If there is one job and it has gone to a non citizen, then surely that means there is one less job for a british citizen. I dont recall jobs being only available to non citizens.

It seems you cannot get that simple concept into your head.

Do I?

Show me where I stated any of the above?

I have said, not matter whether British or foreign, the best person should get the job

So explain how I appear to be saying otherwise?

If a foreign born person gets a job over a Brit, then they have been picked because they are deemed better for that role.

Your argument is again based on racism, why should it go to the UK citizen, if they are not the best person for the job?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And that was in the context of the last few posts...


As you well know by your misdirection about a 16 year old trying to be a surgeon...


If you want to expand the premise to that of highly skilled jobs... then obviously that would also expand the scope of applicants to be older than 16 as well as them having the necessary skills/qualifications/experience too...!


And in which case... the best person for the job here would still be a uk citizen in need of the job!!!

Here is what Tommy said


Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


So much fun, when people end up with egg on their faces

Even if non-skilled Jobs, it should be the best person for the job, no matter if British or foreign

So either way, your view was based on prejudice and not the best person for the job

You would employ an unskilled person over a foreigner not based on ability, but geographically on where they were born

yes all jobs should be filled by uk unemployed people first before being offered abroad.

what is wrong with that?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:So back to my point Tommy

So you believe in a racist/inequality policy to employ people then and not the best person for the job.
I am sure there are many 16 year olds willing to be a surgeon, but does that mean they can carry out the surgery or the job Tommy?

if there are any 16 year olds who have undertaken the decade or more of training required to become surgeon then there is nothing to stop them taking the job. But I am not sure many under 6's get into medical school

So you agree they would not be the best person for the Job, but if there was no other British citizens trained in this field, Tommy would hire them over any foreign surgeon.
You do realise that don;t you, based off his view point?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you appear to be saying that british people cannot get jobs and would not be the best person for a job. That sounds like a racist viewpoint to me.

If there is one job and it has gone to a non citizen, then surely that means there is one less job for a british citizen. I dont recall jobs being only available to non citizens.

It seems you cannot get that simple concept into your head.

Do I?

Show me where I stated any of the above?

I have said, not matter whether British or foreign, the best person should get the job

So explain how I appear to be saying otherwise?

If a foreign born person gets a job over a Brit, then they have been picked because they are deemed better for that role.

Your argument is again based on racism, why should it go to the UK citizen, if they are not the best person for the job?

and we have argued that all jobs should be offered to uk citizens first.
that is right and proper when there are more than a million unemployed. I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with that.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Here is what Tommy said


Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


So much fun, when people end up with egg on their faces

Even if non-skilled Jobs, it should be the best person for the job, no matter if British or foreign

So either way, your view was based on prejudice and not the best person for the job

You would employ an unskilled person over a foreigner not based on ability, but geographically on where they were born

yes all jobs should be filled by uk unemployed people first before being offered abroad.

what is wrong with that?

Because its discrimination
Why should a Brit get a job over someone better qualified?
We live in a global climate that allows for over 6 million ex pats working abroad.
So you are telling me, your views to employ someone is not based on ability, but geography.

Priceless

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
if there are any 16 year olds who have undertaken the decade or more of training required to become surgeon then there is nothing to stop them taking the job. But I am not sure many under 6's get into medical school

So you agree they would not be the best person for the Job, but if there was no other British citizens trained in this field, Tommy would hire them over any foreign surgeon.
You do realise that don;t you, based off his view point?

you are the one who brought up 16 year old surgeons for some reason.

I cannot be responsible for the ridiculous nonsense that comes out of your addled brain

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes all jobs should be filled by uk unemployed people first before being offered abroad.

what is wrong with that?

Because its discrimination
Why should a Brit get a job over someone better qualified?
We live in a global climate that allows for over 6 million ex pats working abroad.
So you are telling me, your views to employ someone is not based on ability, but geography.

Priceless

how is it discrimination? if it is a requirement that all jobs are offered to citizens first.
it is discrimination when jobs are not even advertised in the UK

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Do I?

Show me where I stated any of the above?

I have said, not matter whether British or foreign, the best person should get the job

So explain how I appear to be saying otherwise?

If a foreign born person gets a job over a Brit, then they have been picked because they are deemed better for that role.

Your argument is again based on racism, why should it go to the UK citizen, if they are not the best person for the job?

and we have argued that all jobs should be offered to uk citizens first.
that is right and proper when there are more than a million unemployed. I cannot see why anyone would have an issue with that.

We?

How is it right and proper to discriminate based geographically?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Because its discrimination
Why should a Brit get a job over someone better qualified?
We live in a global climate that allows for over 6 million ex pats working abroad.
So you are telling me, your views to employ someone is not based on ability, but geography.

Priceless

how is it discrimination? if it is a requirement that all jobs are offered to citizens first.
it is discrimination when jobs are not even advertised in the UK

Which is discrimination

You are placing an preference on jobs, over others

It fails to be equal and thus discriminates

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you agree they would not be the best person for the Job, but if there was no other British citizens trained in this field, Tommy would hire them over any foreign surgeon.
You do realise that don;t you, based off his view point?

you are the one who brought up 16 year old surgeons for some reason.

I cannot be responsible for the ridiculous nonsense that comes out of your addled brain

lol so when I rubbish your views, you resort to 2 year old mode

Priceless

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

You are making some very bold claims there.
Are you claiming prejudiced and discrimination upon employment?
The best person for the Job should get that job.

you appear to be saying that british people cannot get jobs and would not be the best person for a job. That sounds like a racist viewpoint to me.

If there is one job and it has gone to a non citizen, then surely that means there is one less job for a british citizen. I dont recall jobs being only available to non citizens.

It seems you cannot get that simple concept into your head.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I will explain why both Tommy and Deeeano's argument is based off not only stupidity, but prejudice.
How do I know?
Well my late father, when he left Canada, after my mum did not want to live there, after marrying. Move to Ireland. My father sort work across the border in Northern Ireland and told me that he went to many interviews. Many were eager to take him on, until he told them his religious affiliation.
Catholic.
After that, he was quickly shown the door and would later join the British army, which did not discriminate on recruitment.
You see, the view to claim people geographically born someone should take preference is born from an ignorant prejudice. That somehow geographically born onto an area supersedes ability.

Its about as dumb and prejudice argument you can get

HoratioTarr wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you appear to be saying that british people cannot get jobs and would not be the best person for a job. That sounds like a racist viewpoint to me.

If there is one job and it has gone to a non citizen, then surely that means there is one less job for a british citizen. I dont recall jobs being only available to non citizens.

It seems you cannot get that simple concept into your head.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Immaturity at its best

How about counter my points, instead of acting like a 2 year old

Same points to you

I will explain why both Tommy and Deeeano's argument is based off not only stupidity, but prejudice.
How do I know?
Well my late father, when he left Canada, after my mum did not want to live there, after marrying. Move to Ireland. My father sort work across the border in Northern Ireland and told me that he went to many interviews. Many were eager to take him on, until he told them his religious affiliation.
Catholic.
After that, he was quickly shown the door and would later join the British army, which did not discriminate on recruitment.
You see, the view to claim people geographically born somewhere should take preference is born from an ignorant prejudice. That somehow geographically born onto an area supersedes ability.

Its about as dumb and prejudice an argument you can get

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And that was in the context of the last few posts...


As you well know by your misdirection about a 16 year old trying to be a surgeon...


If you want to expand the premise to that of highly skilled jobs... then obviously that would also expand the scope of applicants to be older than 16 as well as them having the necessary skills/qualifications/experience too...!


And in which case... the best person for the job here would still be a uk citizen in need of the job!!!

Here is what Tommy said


Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


So much fun, when people end up with egg on their faces

Even if non-skilled Jobs, it should be the best person for the job, no matter if British or foreign

So either way, your view was based on prejudice and not the best person for the job

You would employ an unskilled person over a foreigner not based on ability, but geographically on where they were born

Unskilled foreigners should not be allowed to come here to try to get work in any Unskilled jobs here when we already have unskilled uk citizens willing and able to do the work.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Here is what Tommy said


Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


So much fun, when people end up with egg on their faces

Even if non-skilled Jobs, it should be the best person for the job, no matter if British or foreign

So either way, your view was based on prejudice and not the best person for the job

You would employ an unskilled person over a foreigner not based on ability, but geographically on where they were born

Unskilled foreigners should not be allowed to come here to try to get work in any Unskilled jobs here when we already have unskilled uk citizens willing and able to do the work.

So your view is one of discrimination

Nobody should be allowed to better their lives and come to the UK

Do you apply the same methodology, to unskilled Brits seeking work abroad?

Again the best person for the Job should get the job.

You would rather discriminate absurdly based on where someone was born

So again

Here is what Tommy said


Tommy Monk wrote:The best person for a job here would be a uk citizen in need of the job...


So much fun, when people end up with egg on their faces

Even if non-skilled Jobs, it should be the best person for the job, no matter if British or foreign

So either way, your view was based on prejudice and not the best person for the job

You would employ an unskilled person over a foreigner not based on ability, but geographically on where they were born

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you appear to be saying that british people cannot get jobs and would not be the best person for a job. That sounds like a racist viewpoint to me.

If there is one job and it has gone to a non citizen, then surely that means there is one less job for a british citizen. I dont recall jobs being only available to non citizens.

It seems you cannot get that simple concept into your head.

Do I?

Show me where I stated any of the above?

I have said, not matter whether British or foreign, the best person should get the job

So explain how I appear to be saying otherwise?

If a foreign born person gets a job over a Brit, then they have been picked because they are deemed better for that role.

Your argument is again based on racism, why should it go to the UK citizen, if they are not the best person for the job?

For an unskilled job here in uk... how would an unskilled foreigner in a foreign land be better for the job than an unskilled British person here in uk...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Do I?

Show me where I stated any of the above?

I have said, not matter whether British or foreign, the best person should get the job

So explain how I appear to be saying otherwise?

If a foreign born person gets a job over a Brit, then they have been picked because they are deemed better for that role.

Your argument is again based on racism, why should it go to the UK citizen, if they are not the best person for the job?

For an unskilled job here in uk... how would an unskilled foreigner in a foreign land be better for the job than an unskilled British person here in uk...!!!???

Work experience
Good attitude.
Come across well in an interview
Good time keeping
No criminal record
Very presentable
Positivity
Confidence
Enthusiasm
Knowledge and understanding of the company

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


For an unskilled job here in uk... how would an unskilled foreigner in a foreign land be better for the job than an unskilled British person here in uk...!!!???

Work experience
Good attitude.
Come across well in an interview
Good time keeping
No criminal record
Very presentable
Positivity
Confidence
Enthusiasm
Knowledge  and understanding of the company

It's hard for a youngster to gain work experience if they are not being offered the work.
I agree with Tommy that jobs, especially unskilled work should be oferred to locals before they are advertised abroad.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Work experience
Good attitude.
Come across well in an interview
Good time keeping
No criminal record
Very presentable
Positivity
Confidence
Enthusiasm
Knowledge  and understanding of the company

It's hard for a youngster to gain work experience if they are not being offered the work.
I agree with Tommy that jobs, especially unskilled work should be oferred to locals before they are advertised abroad.

Is it Syl?

I was doing a paper-round at 10 syl
After that, Tesco's at 16, whilst at school
Why should jobs be offered to people based geographically?
Once you open the door to discrimination, you open the door to discriminate to all.
A job should not be given based off any predjudice, full stop
That is how women were once denied the ability to work in many industries Syl
The best person should get the job

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
It's hard for a youngster to gain work experience if they are not being offered the work.
I agree with Tommy that jobs, especially unskilled work should be oferred to locals before they are advertised abroad.

Is it Syl?

I was doing a paper-round at 10 syl
After that, Tesco's at 16, whilst at school
Why should jobs be offered to people based geographically?
Once you open the door to discrimination, you open the door to discriminate to all.
A job should not be given based off any predjudice, full stop
That is how women were once denied the ability to work in many industries Syl
The best person should get the job

There is nothing wrong with encouraging a work ethic in young kids, but we are talking of youth unemployment, not part time jobs for schoolkids.

When unskilled full time paid jobs are advertised abroad and filled by foreign workers, the 18 plus kids here are missing the opportunity to work and gain experience.
How are they expected to fill the criteria you posted above if the jobs that may suit them are being given to foreigners?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


For an unskilled job here in uk... how would an unskilled foreigner in a foreign land be better for the job than an unskilled British person here in uk...!!!???

Work experience
Good attitude.
Come across well in an interview
Good time keeping
No criminal record
Very presentable
Positivity
Confidence
Enthusiasm
Knowledge  and understanding of the company

These are all things that an unskilled uk worker is capable of having...!


So question still stands...


For an unskilled job here in uk... how would an unskilled foreigner in a foreign land be better for the job than an unskilled British person here in uk...!!!???