How many people from Eastern Europe speak Spanish?
Obviously not as important for low-skilled, manual labour, but we're talking about highly skilled jobs in the tech sector here.
1,852 karma · joined October 25, 2012
Obviously not as important for low-skilled, manual labour, but we're talking about highly skilled jobs in the tech sector here.
a) Language barrier — Spanish is only the fifth most spoken language in the EU, with only 15% speaking it as a first or second language (around half of whom are Spanish citizens);
b) Lower salaries on offer (as others have noted) as opposed to working in the UK, Germany, or France;
b) Given the economic situation in the country, and high levels of unemployment, Spain isn't anywhere near as attractive to skilled migrants as the other leading EU economies.
See this paper [1] from the ASI which sets out the benefits of EEA membership over being a full member of the EU.
Sensationalist nonsense. Banks are considering long-term options for the worst case scenario if the UK leaves the single market. That is unlikely to happen.
> Even worse the uk won't secure any trade deal with Europe because the will want to discourage other nations to follow the same path.
The EU needs free trade with the UK more than UK needs it with the EU. The EU cannot afford to freeze the UK out.
Get a grip.
Has the UK economy been destroyed? No, the FTSE 100 dropped 3.15% on Friday, reacting to temporary uncertainty, and is up 1% on last week.
European markets fell far more, reflecting the fact they have more to lose from an acrimonious Brexit than the UK does.
What is narrow minded about voting to leave an anachronistic, sclerotic, anti-democratic political union, to which the UK contributes more money than it receives back, and from which the UK imports more than it exports to?
In all likelihood, the UK will leave the EU, but retain access to the single market through the EEA. This will enable us to enter into free trade deals with the rest of the world, which we are not able to do as EU members. There is nothing narrow minded about that.
This does mean the UK will have to continue allowing free movement.
That said, members of the EEA have the power (under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement) to place an "emergency brake" on free movement if "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties" liable to persist are arising.
Although much of the leave vote was driven by opposition to uncontrolled migration, and continued participation in the single market will be seen by many as backtracking on this, this power (which the UK does not currently have as an EU member state) should be a sufficient degree of control for most.
This is just markets responding to temporary uncertainty. Far more was wiped off European stocks than the FTSE, reflecting the fact that investors are more worried about the future of the EU than they are the UK.
> He promises he'll make America great again, but has never bothered discussing HOW he proposes to achieve that.
The argument for a better future upon leaving the EU was clear and realistic. Leaving the EU puts power back in the hands of the British people to decide their own destiny, for better or worse.
> Guess what, UK was not in the Schengen to begin with, so they always were in control of their border.
Although the UK was not in the Schengen Area, it had absolutely no control over migration from other EU countries.
As a member of the EU, every single citizen of the EU has a right to live and work in the UK indefinitely. 700 million people could turn up on the UK's doorstop tomorrow and there's nothing the UK could do about it.
That's what is meant by the term 'uncontrolled immigration'
> The money it costs to be part of the EU, guess what, is not a much as we stated before - and we'll need to pay a fee if we want to trade with the EU. The UK will never get a better trade with the EU - that would be delusional. I could ramble on...
The UK was a net contributor to the EU. That is undeniable. For all the funding the EU provided to projects in the UK, we were getting back pennies on the pound.
Who says we will need to pay a fee to retain access to the single market? Norway does, but it is a net exporter to the EU. The UK is a net importer. If anything, the EU should be paying the UK to join the single market.
I disagree. The UK was the third largest net contributor to the EU, and one of only ~10 member states that have historically made positive net contributions.
Its influence and role as a net importer from the EU will see it win a relatively favorable exit, including access to the single market.
The UK exit, in addition to the financial impact on the EU, will inspire many other member states on the verge of leaving to do the same.
The EU is already on thin ice, and the UK voting to leave may have just been the straw that broke the camel's back.
a) Conflating campaign promises (it was Vote Leave who made the promise, not UKIP, so Farage is not backtracking on anything);
b) Misunderstanding the nature of promises made during this campaign; there is no real 'official' leave campaign, and by voting to leave in the referendum, we have not elected any campaign group into power.
Leaving the EU will open up a whole range of challenges and opportunities, some of which may see young people ending up slightly less screwed.
1. Falling house prices (George Osborne estimated 18%, helped by rising interest rates) will help many, many young people get on the housing ladder. You can look at this as a massive redistribution of wealth from old to young;
2. Although full of optimism while studying at university, many UK graduates have been crowded out of the job market by more experienced EU migrants, coming from countries with far worse unemployment rates.
3. Young people didn't have much invested in the UK, and in many ways had the least to lose.
In all likelihood the UK will join the EEA and retain free movement, but even if not, economic migration will still be encouraged and a visa system will be in place, just as the country has for the rest of the world.
The second, judging by the photos, is a small living room which has been converted into an 'open plan' studio. Doesn't even look like there's room for a double bed.
Both are in Croydon, so you get all the downsides of living in London, with virtually none of the upsides.
There are doubtless other catches to both properties, as decent properties never make it online.
Neither property is remotely commensurate with a young professional earning £50k.
Most major employers include the waiver as part of their onboarding process, and if you refuse to sign, although legally they cannot do anything, in practice you're going to start off on the wrong foot with that employer.
Likewise, if you turn around to your manager and refuse to work more than 48 hours (having not signed a waiver), although legally they cannot punish you for that, it's hardly going to help your career.
I agree this dataset is not ideal for these sort of calculations, but the figures are supported by my anecdotal experience.
People are, by and large, aware of what they are getting into when they start a new job, and working hours are a factor in most remuneration calculations.
If the working hours are simply too much for you, then you should find a different job.
That's a strawman.
Plenty of people are not interested in all or part of a democratic system, but appreciate that it exists, and that it provides channels through which they can influence the way they are governed, if they deem it necessary.
I assume you're referring to the EU Working Time Directive, which pretty much every major employer requires their staff to opt-out of when starting a new job?
It's a pointless EU law that just adds more paperwork to the recruitment process.
That leaves £1250pcm disposable. At least £100 will go on a Travelcard. If you're sensible, you'll be putting some money away in a pension as well. Let's say another £100 of net income.
That really doesn't leave much to lead a lifestyle commensurate with a young professional earning £50k. Yes, you can scrimp and save, but even then you're not going to be putting more than £500 away in savings each month.
At that rate, it would take you upwards of 10 years to save even a measly 10% deposit on a £600k property (which, at this rate, would get you an even worse one bed flat than the one you're renting).
Counter-argument to that is that immigrants are simply crowding out British citizens (particularly young people, huge numbers of which are unemployed, or significantly underemployed) in the jobs market.
It is effectively jobs that make the contribution, whether they are filled by British citizens or EU nationals.
It's enough to live quite comfortably in a house/flat share, or if you share a single bed apartment with a partner, but if you live independently (in a studio or single bed) you're still firmly in "mere existence" territory, unlikely to be able to add much to savings each month.
In what way are they better than private spaces? The main difference is that people can use public spaces for free, but only because the cost is borne by those who don't use them.
Meanwhile, using such facilities carries a social stigma, because they are, by and large, only used by people who cannot afford to congregate in private spaces (bars, restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, clubs, classes, etc.)
This article demonstrates how it's possible for companies to provide de facto public spaces, at minimal cost (the cost of a coffee, or similar), in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
The law will still require ISPs to log every website visited by every UK internet user for a year, and allow police and intelligence officers to interrogate this data without a warrant.
Meanwhile the security and intelligence agencies will be allowed to continue their bulk intercepts and collection of bulk communications data (i.e. collecting everything, whether you're an MP, a doctor, a lawyer, a trade unionist, etc.)
Of course there's nothing wrong with this because the intelligence agencies are trustworthy institutions who wouldn't do anything unlawful... [1] [2]
[1] https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/482 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-in...
Once we have more accurate profiles on individuals, and the profiles are shared more widely, you could make much more informed decisions about who you want to share public spaces, interact, work, live, or even enter into relationships with.
Let's not kid ourselves, though. The US scored 19 and UK scored 24 (on the scale of 0-100, 0 being most free)
Censorship is alive and well in the West.
The UK scored 24 out of 100, 0 being the most free.