Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Brexit self harm thread! ; merged with Learn to wipe your own arse?
Topic Started: Feb 22 2017, 10:43 AM (2,536 Views)
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
These incidents are going to become increasingly common, and very funny!

, A poll conducted last April by trade magazine Farmers Weekly concluded that 58% of farmers wanted out of the EU, and from today's Times, we now have farmers fretting about who is going to harvest their spring crops! With the £ so low and the message getting through that foreigners are no longer welcome in the way they once were the number of crop pickers from EE has plumeted, not to worry though farmers are calling for tens of thousands of NON EU citizens to be bussed in! No wonder David Davis wants mass immigration to continue!

!jk!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oh nearly forgot this, it was in the Indy four days ago and would have been missed by readers of the Mail, Express or Guido Fawkes website, probably to busy prattling on about immigrants or sumfink!

Anyway it now looks certain the European Medicine Agency will be moving out of Britain, this isn't some charity helping darkies but the quango that approves licences for pharmaceuticals, it has global reach as Europe is right up there with the best when it comes to medicines, initally a 1000 highly skilled jobs will go followed by the support staff.

Well done the elderly, xenophobic and poorly educated! :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
That'll help with the housing shortage!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Apr 3 2017, 05:05 AM
Curious Cdn
Apr 1 2017, 03:06 PM
Tigger
Feb 22 2017, 10:43 AM
These incidents are going to become increasingly common, and very funny!

, A poll conducted last April by trade magazine Farmers Weekly concluded that 58% of farmers wanted out of the EU, and from today's Times, we now have farmers fretting about who is going to harvest their spring crops! With the £ so low and the message getting through that foreigners are no longer welcome in the way they once were the number of crop pickers from EE has plumeted, not to worry though farmers are calling for tens of thousands of NON EU citizens to be bussed in! No wonder David Davis wants mass immigration to continue!

!jk!

It'll sure be a shocker when their subsidies run out and there is no more money in the English till to continue them. Imagine, if you will, UK grain farmers having to compete in the real world against American and Canadian farmers. You've already lost that competition, back in the early 19th century and the only reason that your farmers plant a crop at all is because of EU protection and subsidy. You are going to end up with a lot of un-employed farmers and slack, fallow farm land if you think that free trade with Australia, New Zealand, Canada is your ticket to salvation, post-Brexit.
I find your finger wagging and brow beating towards Brexit quite interesting Curious.

You often profess and imply, how great and wonderful your country is, yet it has only just made the top ten in countries with the most GDP PPP. A nation that is susceptible to commodity prices, and imports and exports significantly more with the US than any other nation - I can see why you've got on your soap box about Trump. That EU trade agreement can't come quick enough, eh. ;-)

If your nation is so great (which I won't doubt), at number 10 in the world's rankings why does the UK have to retain itself as the world's fifth largest economy when that wealth isn't reflected in society and frankly means diddly squat to the average Joe. Couldn't we become the world's 11th richest economy and just be as grrrreat and fantastic as you?

A hundred year's ago, my country was a very poor place with a rural population of eight million that had only just come into political existence fifty years before. Argentina was much bigger and richer than we were back then and and it was predicted to be the new, golden power of the future. We were also completely mobilized and engaged in a war that drained us even more at that time. A century later, we have grown 4-1/2 times in size and this humble, little agricultural colony now has the tenth largest economy on Earth ... up there with giants like India. Amazing, innit?

Many millions of Britons have immigrated to here and continue to do so. I'm not sure what the migration rate is in the other direction but it is certainly a teeny fraction of the movement westward.

Anyway, slagging me, my country or even the Europeans does not get you out of the dreadful pickle that you are all putting yourselves in. You will need to have place like Canada on your side in the future. Save your bile for your enemies, not for your friends, cousins and allies.

PS. Do read a little Canadian history before you make a comment like: You're only the tenth largest economy on Earth. In the context of where we have come from and where we are headed, it's a real knee-slapper.

It's a lot like saying "Oh, those Americans. They'll never amount to much"
Edited by Curious Cdn, Apr 9 2017, 06:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 8 2017, 07:47 PM
Oh nearly forgot this, it was in the Indy four days ago and would have been missed by readers of the Mail, Express or Guido Fawkes website, probably to busy prattling on about immigrants or sumfink!

Anyway it now looks certain the European Medicine Agency will be moving out of Britain, this isn't some charity helping darkies but the quango that approves licences for pharmaceuticals, it has global reach as Europe is right up there with the best when it comes to medicines, initally a 1000 highly skilled jobs will go followed by the support staff.

Well done the elderly, xenophobic and poorly educated! :thumbsup:
Oh blimey Tiggs, that was covered on the Radio MONTHS ago.

Obviously, any EU institution that is physically based in the UK will be transferred elsewhere once the UK ceases to be a member. As for "1000 staff".. well... a quick reading of the relevant Wikipedia article makes it sound like something out of Jim Hackers Department of Administrative Affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medicines_Agency#Operations

The UK-based staff would almost certainly be redeployed, as the function of the EMA would need to be replicated within the UK.

A bigger problem might be that the big Pharmaceutical companies will favour the EU institute ahead of the UK institute when it comes to getting a new drug authorised for public consumption. (because the potential marketplace is larger). Some have suggested that this could result in availability of such drugs being delayed to UK consumers. Personally I doubt this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 9 2017, 07:06 PM
Tigger
Apr 8 2017, 07:47 PM
Oh nearly forgot this, it was in the Indy four days ago and would have been missed by readers of the Mail, Express or Guido Fawkes website, probably to busy prattling on about immigrants or sumfink!

Anyway it now looks certain the European Medicine Agency will be moving out of Britain, this isn't some charity helping darkies but the quango that approves licences for pharmaceuticals, it has global reach as Europe is right up there with the best when it comes to medicines, initally a 1000 highly skilled jobs will go followed by the support staff.

Well done the elderly, xenophobic and poorly educated! :thumbsup:
Oh blimey Tiggs, that was covered on the Radio MONTHS ago.

Obviously, any EU institution that is physically based in the UK will be transferred elsewhere once the UK ceases to be a member. As for "1000 staff".. well... a quick reading of the relevant Wikipedia article makes it sound like something out of Jim Hackers Department of Administrative Affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medicines_Agency#Operations

The UK-based staff would almost certainly be redeployed, as the function of the EMA would need to be replicated within the UK.

A bigger problem might be that the big Pharmaceutical companies will favour the EU institute ahead of the UK institute when it comes to getting a new drug authorised for public consumption. (because the potential marketplace is larger). Some have suggested that this could result in availability of such drugs being delayed to UK consumers. Personally I doubt this.
Why do you doubt it? Any company director of any common sense will go for the 450 million person market before the 64 million market

And I see you touch on another issue without drawing the obvious conclusion. Unless the EU allows us to participate in their regulatory bodies (why would they?) then we are going to have to replicate such here. A huge cost we used to just put in the EU budget line now has to have its own UK funding line we pay for. More self harm.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 9 2017, 07:06 PM


A bigger problem might be that the big Pharmaceutical companies will favour the EU institute ahead of the UK institute when it comes to getting a new drug authorised for public consumption. (because the potential marketplace is larger). Some have suggested that this could result in availability of such drugs being delayed to UK consumers. Personally I doubt this.
My eldest son used to work for a US owned pharmaceutical based in Kent, he moved to Germany to further his career, he told me months ago the Germans can't wait to get their hands on this and avoid the awkward bugger over the North Sea, another case of taking back control! And we'll end up accepting the regulations from the EU anyway, minus the skilled jobs in this instance.

Britain, foot shooting specialist. :facepalm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 9 2017, 09:33 PM
RoofGardener
Apr 9 2017, 07:06 PM
Tigger
Apr 8 2017, 07:47 PM
Oh nearly forgot this, it was in the Indy four days ago and would have been missed by readers of the Mail, Express or Guido Fawkes website, probably to busy prattling on about immigrants or sumfink!

Anyway it now looks certain the European Medicine Agency will be moving out of Britain, this isn't some charity helping darkies but the quango that approves licences for pharmaceuticals, it has global reach as Europe is right up there with the best when it comes to medicines, initally a 1000 highly skilled jobs will go followed by the support staff.

Well done the elderly, xenophobic and poorly educated! :thumbsup:
Oh blimey Tiggs, that was covered on the Radio MONTHS ago.

Obviously, any EU institution that is physically based in the UK will be transferred elsewhere once the UK ceases to be a member. As for "1000 staff".. well... a quick reading of the relevant Wikipedia article makes it sound like something out of Jim Hackers Department of Administrative Affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medicines_Agency#Operations

The UK-based staff would almost certainly be redeployed, as the function of the EMA would need to be replicated within the UK.

A bigger problem might be that the big Pharmaceutical companies will favour the EU institute ahead of the UK institute when it comes to getting a new drug authorised for public consumption. (because the potential marketplace is larger). Some have suggested that this could result in availability of such drugs being delayed to UK consumers. Personally I doubt this.
Why do you doubt it? Any company director of any common sense will go for the 450 million person market before the 64 million market

And I see you touch on another issue without drawing the obvious conclusion. Unless the EU allows us to participate in their regulatory bodies (why would they?) then we are going to have to replicate such here. A huge cost we used to just put in the EU budget line now has to have its own UK funding line we pay for. More self harm.

Well, yes, obviously Steve. My reason for doubting the thesis is not that Pharma's would give higher priority to the EU, but because of the improbability that they would only do "one country/block at a time", and therefore cause the UK to have to wait in a queue.

On that basis, and with about 196 sovereign nations in the world, The Federated Nations of Micronesia would still be waiting to discover aspirin !

Pharma's can negotiate with the EU and the UK (among many others) at the same time . This is obviously in their interests, as they want to maximise the return on their investment as quickly as possible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 10 2017, 03:42 PM
Steve K
Apr 9 2017, 09:33 PM
RoofGardener
Apr 9 2017, 07:06 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medicines_Agency#Operations

The UK-based staff would almost certainly be redeployed, as the function of the EMA would need to be replicated within the UK.

A bigger problem might be that the big Pharmaceutical companies will favour the EU institute ahead of the UK institute when it comes to getting a new drug authorised for public consumption. (because the potential marketplace is larger). Some have suggested that this could result in availability of such drugs being delayed to UK consumers. Personally I doubt this.
Why do you doubt it? Any company director of any common sense will go for the 450 million person market before the 64 million market

And I see you touch on another issue without drawing the obvious conclusion. Unless the EU allows us to participate in their regulatory bodies (why would they?) then we are going to have to replicate such here. A huge cost we used to just put in the EU budget line now has to have its own UK funding line we pay for. More self harm.

Well, yes, obviously Steve. My reason for doubting the thesis is not that Pharma's would give higher priority to the EU, but because of the improbability that they would only do "one country/block at a time", and therefore cause the UK to have to wait in a queue.

On that basis, and with about 196 sovereign nations in the world, The Federated Nations of Micronesia would still be waiting to discover aspirin !

Pharma's can negotiate with the EU and the UK (among many others) at the same time . This is obviously in their interests, as they want to maximise the return on their investment as quickly as possible.
The thing is having the regulator in your country gives you many advantages, apart from the thousands of highly skilled workers it employs. Nations outside the EU who wish to market medicines in a block of half a billion will not be stopping off here first, we'll yet again lose vital influence in an exceptionally lucrative industry, we could even see British manufacturers follow the regulator into exile, not good at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
I can only repeat the point I made (and which you quoted). The companies will seek to market their products (through the relevant regulatory authorities) in as many nations as possible simultaneously. So YES, they could well stop of here "first"... and in the EU "first", and in the USA "first"... all at the same time.

I can't see any commercial advantage in Pharma companies moving to the physical location of the EU regulator. They have to pass the regulators criteria regardless of where they are. Geographical proximity is hardly a factor, unless you are proposing corruption ?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 10 2017, 06:33 PM
I can only repeat the point I made (and which you quoted). The companies will seek to market their products (through the relevant regulatory authorities) in as many nations as possible simultaneously. So YES, they could well stop of here "first"... and in the EU "first", and in the USA "first"... all at the same time.

I can't see any commercial advantage in Pharma companies moving to the physical location of the EU regulator. They have to pass the regulators criteria regardless of where they are. Geographical proximity is hardly a factor, unless you are proposing corruption ?

Of course there's a commercial advantage through the obvious logistical advantages
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Umm... logistics ? Well, for manufacture, yes. Although I had imagined that most pharmaceutical products are small and light and hence very cheap to trans-ship. So logistics shouldn't be that much of a burden ?

.. take one of these pills twice a day Mr Roofgardener. Here's the prescription. Oh.. and a block and tackle to lift them up with... .

However, the opening post was talking about the acceptance/regulation authority. That's just an exchange of electronic data, or so I had assumed ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 10 2017, 06:56 PM
Umm... logistics ? Well, for manufacture, yes. Although I had imagined that most pharmaceutical products are small and light and hence very cheap to trans-ship. So logistics shouldn't be that much of a burden ?

.. take one of these pills twice a day Mr Roofgardener. Here's the prescription. Oh.. and a block and tackle to lift them up with... .

However, the opening post was talking about the acceptance/regulation authority. That's just an exchange of electronic data, or so I had assumed ?
For a start they will have evidence review meetings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Apr 10 2017, 06:56 PM


However, the opening post was talking about the acceptance/regulation authority. That's just an exchange of electronic data, or so I had assumed ?
It's a bit more complicated than that, regulating medicines also involves further testing to see if the product is safe in the way it is taken and the way it is being marketed, if you like it acts as a regulator and has the power to licence or not licence particular drugs, ever wondered why knock off medicines are quite rare in this country?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
It may have slipped by some folk, but the government is recruiting Decision Makers to make asylum decisions.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1535599 It's 12-18 month fixed contract, so they would expect to be clear by 2019. ( !jk! )

Seems like they're clearing the backlog of immigration cases before a wave of some sort of EU decisions which may have to be made soon.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Apr 11 2017, 07:22 PM
It may have slipped by some folk, but the government is recruiting Decision Makers to make asylum decisions.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1535599 It's 12-18 month fixed contract, so they would expect to be clear by 2019. ( !jk! )

Seems like they're clearing the backlog of immigration cases before a wave of some sort of EU decisions which may have to be made soon.





I will expect that there will be successful applicants that either were immigrants themselves or of immigrant stock.
Their decisions of course will not be influenced by prejudice.

Edited by Affa, Apr 11 2017, 08:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Apr 11 2017, 08:50 PM
ranger121
Apr 11 2017, 07:22 PM
It may have slipped by some folk, but the government is recruiting Decision Makers to make asylum decisions.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1535599 It's 12-18 month fixed contract, so they would expect to be clear by 2019. ( !jk! )

Seems like they're clearing the backlog of immigration cases before a wave of some sort of EU decisions which may have to be made soon.





I will expect that there will be successful applicants that either were immigrants themselves or of immigrant stock.
Their decisions of course will not be influenced by prejudice.

The vetting required would weed out people likely to be prejudiced, as it is 'Counter Terrorist' level.

The job is open to UK, Commonwealth and European Economic Area (EEA) and certain non EEA nationals, as long as they can pass the vetting procedure.

As it is a job which would include face-to-face interviews, multiple languages would clearly be an advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Apr 11 2017, 07:22 PM
It may have slipped by some folk, but the government is recruiting Decision Makers to make asylum decisions.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1535599 It's 12-18 month fixed contract, so they would expect to be clear by 2019. ( !jk! )

Seems like they're clearing the backlog of immigration cases before a wave of some sort of EU decisions which may have to be made soon.




They could try the David Brent lucky/unlucky method?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 12 2017, 01:00 PM
ranger121
Apr 11 2017, 07:22 PM
It may have slipped by some folk, but the government is recruiting Decision Makers to make asylum decisions.

https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1535599 It's 12-18 month fixed contract, so they would expect to be clear by 2019. ( !jk! )

Seems like they're clearing the backlog of immigration cases before a wave of some sort of EU decisions which may have to be made soon.




They could try the David Brent lucky/unlucky method?

Forms completed in blue ink are always first in the bin.

Because the form will instruct 'complete in BLACK ink only', and anyone who cannot follow a simple instruction cannot be working for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Apr 12 2017, 12:53 PM


As it is a job which would include face-to-face interviews, multiple languages would clearly be an advantage.

And now you reveal why I do expect applicants from immigration stock to be enlisted in these decisions makings!
Edited by Affa, Apr 12 2017, 04:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Apr 12 2017, 04:05 PM
ranger121
Apr 12 2017, 12:53 PM


As it is a job which would include face-to-face interviews, multiple languages would clearly be an advantage.

And now you reveal why I do expect applicants from immigration stock to be enlisted in these decisions makings!
...and from the fact that the 'immigrant stock' is able to apply for these jobs and might possibly pass Counter-Terrorist vetting, you're making an assumption that

They will make asylum decisions favourable to people of similar origins, and make unjust unfavourable ones to people perceived as 'enemies'

They will let terrorists through and give them asylum

Their decisions will somehow be different to everyone else's

Is it all or just one?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Apr 12 2017, 08:11 PM
Affa
Apr 12 2017, 04:05 PM
ranger121
Apr 12 2017, 12:53 PM


As it is a job which would include face-to-face interviews, multiple languages would clearly be an advantage.

And now you reveal why I do expect applicants from immigration stock to be enlisted in these decisions makings!
...and from the fact that the 'immigrant stock' is able to apply for these jobs and might possibly pass Counter-Terrorist vetting, you're making an assumption that

They will make asylum decisions favourable to people of similar origins, and make unjust unfavourable ones to people perceived as 'enemies'

They will let terrorists through and give them asylum

Their decisions will somehow be different to everyone else's

Is it all or just one?

My implication is that will allow, be influenced by, personal experience - which will be very different from the experience of ethnic Brits that have no foreign ties.
To imagine it would not happen is to deny the existence of prejudice, bias, human nature.
Edited by Affa, Apr 12 2017, 09:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
If you're still 'worried':

Section 3 – Reserved Posts

3.1 Only UK nationals may be employed in reserved posts in the Civil Service.
Reserved posts are generally those which, due to the sensitive nature of the work,
require special allegiance to the Crown such that they can only be held by a UK
national.

3.2 Under no circumstances may any other nationals be employed in reserved
posts.


Reserved posts include:

(iv) border control or decisions about immigration.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536134/civil_service-nationality_rules_20_june__2016.pdf





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
It may be my memory playing tricks but I do recall there being an asylum decision maker being sacked that had his loyalties challenged - he was Asian.
As I say I cannot recall when or where I formed this belief.

National Security Vetting Requirement -pdf

Which vetting of applicants will apply?
Edited by Affa, Apr 13 2017, 12:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Apr 13 2017, 12:24 PM
If you're still 'worried':

Section 3 – Reserved Posts

3.1 Only UK nationals may be employed in reserved posts in the Civil Service.
Reserved posts are generally those which, due to the sensitive nature of the work,
require special allegiance to the Crown such that they can only be held by a UK
national.

3.2 Under no circumstances may any other nationals be employed in reserved
posts.


Reserved posts include:

(iv) border control or decisions about immigration.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536134/civil_service-nationality_rules_20_june__2016.pdf






You omitted that it is a Ministerial decision!
Quote:
 
Where a post falls within one of the categories in this paragraph the Minister
responsible for the department or agency must consider whether it is necessary to
reserve that post for UK nationals only. Where the responsible Minister does not
consider that to be necessary, the post will not be reserved for UK nationals
.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Apr 13 2017, 01:02 PM

You omitted that it is a Ministerial decision!
Quote:
 
Where a post falls within one of the categories in this paragraph the Minister
responsible for the department or agency must consider whether it is necessary to
reserve that post for UK nationals only. Where the responsible Minister does not
consider that to be necessary, the post will not be reserved for UK nationals
.
The minister is allowed to decide on what will be a 'reserved post' in very, very few specialist posts, the discretion is extremely limited.

At this grade in the immigration department, (starting grade is EO) the option to 'de-reserve' very rarely available. The 'default' is 'reserved', and the minister MAY have some discretion, but it is used extremely rarely, I've never seen it in over 20 years of service.

It's a CTC vetted post, one up from basic scrutiny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Apr 13 2017, 02:30 PM
Affa
Apr 13 2017, 01:02 PM

You omitted that it is a Ministerial decision!
Quote:
 
Where a post falls within one of the categories in this paragraph the Minister
responsible for the department or agency must consider whether it is necessary to
reserve that post for UK nationals only. Where the responsible Minister does not
consider that to be necessary, the post will not be reserved for UK nationals
.
The minister is allowed to decide on what will be a 'reserved post' in very, very few specialist posts, the discretion is extremely limited.

At this grade in the immigration department, (starting grade is EO) the option to 'de-reserve' very rarely available. The 'default' is 'reserved', and the minister MAY have some discretion, but it is used extremely rarely, I've never seen it in over 20 years of service.

It's a CTC vetted post, one up from basic scrutiny.

Now I am satisfied!
I accept that these decision makers will be linguistically and patriotically ideal citizens to perform their duties to the letter and spirit of the laid down criteria.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'm sure that they'll have a British passport, British Citizenship, they will speak English and will sign the Official Secrets Act and will work for HM Queen to the letter of the law and if they don't, expect to be prosecuted.

Any problem with that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Apr 13 2017, 04:31 PM
I'm sure that they'll have a British passport, British Citizenship, they will speak English and will sign the Official Secrets Act and will work for HM Queen to the letter of the law and if they don't, expect to be prosecuted.

Any problem with that?

None at all, As I said I am reassured that there will be no dodgy people let through.

I have in the past raised doubts about political involvement in relaxing the criteria for granting asylum (nominally to ease the appeals backlog), and still do not have complete confidence in the system - but the staff are blameless ....... except didn't May blame the Border Agency chief for her own failed fast-track policy. He was eventually vindicated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Pat
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Curious Cdn
Apr 9 2017, 06:05 PM
Mr Pat
Apr 3 2017, 05:05 AM
Curious Cdn
Apr 1 2017, 03:06 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I find your finger wagging and brow beating towards Brexit quite interesting Curious.

You often profess and imply, how great and wonderful your country is, yet it has only just made the top ten in countries with the most GDP PPP. A nation that is susceptible to commodity prices, and imports and exports significantly more with the US than any other nation - I can see why you've got on your soap box about Trump. That EU trade agreement can't come quick enough, eh. ;-)

If your nation is so great (which I won't doubt), at number 10 in the world's rankings why does the UK have to retain itself as the world's fifth largest economy when that wealth isn't reflected in society and frankly means diddly squat to the average Joe. Couldn't we become the world's 11th richest economy and just be as grrrreat and fantastic as you?

A hundred year's ago, my country was a very poor place with a rural population of eight million that had only just come into political existence fifty years before. Argentina was much bigger and richer than we were back then and and it was predicted to be the new, golden power of the future. We were also completely mobilized and engaged in a war that drained us even more at that time. A century later, we have grown 4-1/2 times in size and this humble, little agricultural colony now has the tenth largest economy on Earth ... up there with giants like India. Amazing, innit?

Many millions of Britons have immigrated to here and continue to do so. I'm not sure what the migration rate is in the other direction but it is certainly a teeny fraction of the movement westward.

Anyway, slagging me, my country or even the Europeans does not get you out of the dreadful pickle that you are all putting yourselves in. You will need to have place like Canada on your side in the future. Save your bile for your enemies, not for your friends, cousins and allies.

PS. Do read a little Canadian history before you make a comment like: You're only the tenth largest economy on Earth. In the context of where we have come from and where we are headed, it's a real knee-slapper.

It's a lot like saying "Oh, those Americans. They'll never amount to much"
Nobody is slagging your country, but it's not as if your a shrinking violet when it comes to you looking down your nose at Brit's, is it?

For all the talk of knee slapping and jingoism on anything maple syrupy you seemed to have missed the point I was making and gone a rant about how great your country is, eh... again.

My point was, and I'll reiterate it - if your nation is so wonderful, it therefore assumes it doesn't need to be the richest or biggest or best economy on the Earth - because it isn't.

Your talking down of most things British, and Brexit especially, assumes that we'll soon drop as one of the biggest economies on the planet - and that maybe so.

However, you are the proof in the pudding, you don't need to be the biggest and best-est of everything to be such a wonderful nation. If Britain dropped, and at the same time turned into a nation as so wonderfully brilliant as yours; then surely there is no problem with it being as such? ge' it?

Talking of where you are heading well, extracting 173bn barrels of oil in the tar sands and pushing hard on US and Canadian pipelines, and comprising of 0.5% of the world's population then selling off that oil to be burned using one-third of the Earth's remaining carbon budget. All while, simultaneously setting targets at the Paris climate talks, shows us where your heading. That orange bloke south of you may insult the Earth and it's climate, but at least he isn't pretending not to.
Edited by Mr Pat, Apr 18 2017, 03:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr Pat
Apr 18 2017, 03:42 AM
Curious Cdn
Apr 9 2017, 06:05 PM
Mr Pat
Apr 3 2017, 05:05 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepfantastic as you?

A hundred year's ago, my country was a very poor place with a rural population of eight million that had only just come into political existence fifty years before. Argentina was much bigger and richer than we were back then and and it was predicted to be the new, golden power of the future. We were also completely mobilized and engaged in a war that drained us even more at that time. A century later, we have grown 4-1/2 times in size and this humble, little agricultural colony now has the tenth largest economy on Earth ... up there with giants like India. Amazing, innit?

Many millions of Britons have immigrated to here and continue to do so. I'm not sure what the migration rate is in the other direction but it is certainly a teeny fraction of the movement westward.

Anyway, slagging me, my country or even the Europeans does not get you out of the dreadful pickle that you are all putting yourselves in. You will need to have place like Canada on your side in the future. Save your bile for your enemies, not for your friends, cousins and allies.

PS. Do read a little Canadian history before you make a comment like: You're only the tenth largest economy on Earth. In the context of where we have come from and where we are headed, it's a real knee-slapper.

It's a lot like saying "Oh, those Americans. They'll never amount to much"
Nobody is slagging your country, but it's not as if your a shrinking violet when it comes to you looking down your nose at Brit's, is it?

For all the talk of knee slapping and jingoism on anything maple syrupy you seemed to have missed the point I was making and gone a rant about how great your country is, eh... again.

My point was, and I'll reiterate it - if your nation is so wonderful, it therefore assumes it doesn't need to be the richest or biggest or best economy on the Earth - because it isn't.

Your talking down of most things British, and Brexit especially, assumes that we'll soon drop as one of the biggest economies on the planet - and that maybe so.

However, you are the proof in the pudding, you don't need to be the biggest and best-est of everything to be such a wonderful nation. If Britain dropped, and at the same time turned into a nation as so wonderfully brilliant as yours; then surely there is no problem with it being as such? ge' it?

Talking of where you are heading well, extracting 173bn barrels of oil in the tar sands and pushing hard on US and Canadian pipelines, and comprising of 0.5% of the world's population then selling off that oil to be burned using one-third of the Earth's remaining carbon budget. All while, simultaneously setting targets at the Paris climate talks, shows us where your heading. That orange bloke south of you may insult the Earth and it's climate, but at least he isn't pretending not to.
Issues ... issues... Did some Canadian piss in your cornflakes, this morning?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I've been reading much of the foreign press as ours is often hopelessly compromised and an awful lot goes unreported.

The following from last Friday's Irish Times makes for some intresting reading, it reports British officials based in Europe are starting to realise the UK has done itself a huge amount of self harm and there is a scramble under way to minimise this, this could be why remainer May has called a GE to whip the "bastards" in her own party into shape, the paper reports chaotic exchanges between London and it's officials where the demands and wants change on an almost daily basis, as one avenue is blocked by reality something else it vainly tried.

At the root of this is that the UK will be booted out of over 40 regulatory agencies that work behind the scenes in all manner of capcities such as trade agreements and common standards that need to be settled before those trade agreements are settled, basically it's the people that cross the T's and dot the I's to ensure things work and that there are no legal problems, but it gets worse, these agencies are tied into the rest of the global system and work with other trade blocks to regulate not only trade but international standards, Britian will be a small player with none of this expertise, it is therefore very likely the UK will try and remain in this set up as it's leverage outside will be close to zero.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oh dear more bad news for uber Brexiters

Several papers today reporting that Boris and May's great hope of Trump doing a quick deal with the UK have been somewhat dashed (well destroyed actually) as Trump is now committed to doing a deal with the EU first.

But having nailed their colours to the USA mast they will now be in a far weaker position when they meet the EU, what a stupid further own goal. It's not like I didn't warn of this back in 2014

http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8230234&t=10690197 (just substitute 'Boris' for 'Farage')

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 22 2017, 10:19 AM
Oh dear more bad news for uber Brexiters

Several papers today reporting that Boris and May's great hope of Trump doing a quick deal with the UK have been somewhat dashed (well destroyed actually) as Trump is now committed to doing a deal with the EU first.

But having nailed their colours to the USA mast they will now be in a far weaker position when they meet the EU, what a stupid further own goal. It's not like I didn't warn of this back in 2014

http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8230234&t=10690197 (just substitute 'Boris' for 'Farage')

Well, only a few main papers are showing it.

But the point which seems weird is why both can not happen at the same time, because it seem he was trying to do deals with separate EU members, then realised they have to deal with the EU, which will probably take about a decade or never because they never seem to agree.

But we won't be soon, which helps not having to agree with all EU members.

This isn't a business approach, but a political one, there's no reason to slow down talks with separate countries.

Edited by Dan1989, Apr 22 2017, 10:33 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 22 2017, 10:31 AM
Steve K
Apr 22 2017, 10:19 AM
Oh dear more bad news for uber Brexiters

Several papers today reporting that Boris and May's great hope of Trump doing a quick deal with the UK have been somewhat dashed (well destroyed actually) as Trump is now committed to doing a deal with the EU first.

But having nailed their colours to the USA mast they will now be in a far weaker position when they meet the EU, what a stupid further own goal. It's not like I didn't warn of this back in 2014

http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8230234&t=10690197 (just substitute 'Boris' for 'Farage')

Well, only a few main papers are showing it.

But the point which seems weird is why both can not happen at the same time, because it seem he was trying to do deals with separate EU members, then realised they have to deal with the EU, which will probably take about a decade or never because they never seem to agree.

But we won't be soon, which helps not having to agree with all EU members.

This isn't a business approach, but a political one, there's no reason to slow down talks with separate countries.

At some point it will sink in, (unless you are a lost cause of course) the World does not owe us a living and nor will former colonies, present and past friends or anyone else for that matter do us any favours because they think we are brave and moral for the great act of self harm we have inflicted on ourselves.

They will look at a Britain on bad terms with it's largest trade partner, they will see our nation losing influence and clout, they will also see a country that cannot get along with equals and has insisted it is a special case deserving better deals from everyone else.

This is the backdrop from which all negotiations start from, not very encouraging is it? :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 22 2017, 10:46 AM
Dan1989
Apr 22 2017, 10:31 AM
Steve K
Apr 22 2017, 10:19 AM
Oh dear more bad news for uber Brexiters

Several papers today reporting that Boris and May's great hope of Trump doing a quick deal with the UK have been somewhat dashed (well destroyed actually) as Trump is now committed to doing a deal with the EU first.

But having nailed their colours to the USA mast they will now be in a far weaker position when they meet the EU, what a stupid further own goal. It's not like I didn't warn of this back in 2014

http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8230234&t=10690197 (just substitute 'Boris' for 'Farage')

Well, only a few main papers are showing it.

But the point which seems weird is why both can not happen at the same time, because it seem he was trying to do deals with separate EU members, then realised they have to deal with the EU, which will probably take about a decade or never because they never seem to agree.

But we won't be soon, which helps not having to agree with all EU members.

This isn't a business approach, but a political one, there's no reason to slow down talks with separate countries.

At some point it will sink in, (unless you are a lost cause of course) the World does not owe us a living and nor will former colonies, present and past friends or anyone else for that matter do us any favours because they think we are brave and moral for the great act of self harm we have inflicted on ourselves.

They will look at a Britain on bad terms with it's largest trade partner, they will see our nation losing influence and clout, they will also see a country that cannot get along with equals and has insisted it is a special case deserving better deals from everyone else.

This is the backdrop from which all negotiations start from, not very encouraging is it? :)
No, it's just bad business simple as that.

The reason America hasn't been able to forge a deal with the EU is because the members can not agree.

Why would they not deal with us even on a limited case when they only have to deal with one government, again that's political, not business.

Nearly every business person is asking for a fast resolution, not politics.

Also, we don't need favours, but people willing to enter into negotiation with us, if they want to punish us for leaving the EU, then so be it, but one can only hope that people's desire for money outstrips their want to punish.

Edited by Dan1989, Apr 22 2017, 10:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 22 2017, 10:52 AM


Also, we don't need favours, but people willing to enter into negotiation with us, if they want to punish us for leaving the EU, then so be it, but one can only hope that people's desire for money outstrips their want to punish.

You are naive! ;D

When it comes to trade and business it's about money and the security of that money plus how you can lever the best deal for yourself, longer term confidence and stability if you like. The latter two have had the shit kicked out of them recently because some people who barely think about what is involved in trade got a bit ahead of themselves without looking at the small print. To help you out a bit, might is right and never miss the chance the kick a sucker when he is down.

You lot need to start understanding we are not a special case and we will not get our own way because of who or what we once were, no one cares apart from idiots still living in the past.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Apr 22 2017, 11:33 AM
Dan1989
Apr 22 2017, 10:52 AM


Also, we don't need favours, but people willing to enter into negotiation with us, if they want to punish us for leaving the EU, then so be it, but one can only hope that people's desire for money outstrips their want to punish.

You are naive! ;D

When it comes to trade and business it's about money and the security of that money plus how you can lever the best deal for yourself, longer term confidence and stability if you like. The latter two have had the shit kicked out of them recently because some people who barely think about what is involved in trade got a bit ahead of themselves without looking at the small print. To help you out a bit, might is right and never miss the chance the kick a sucker when he is down.

You lot need to start understanding we are not a special case and we will not get our own way because of who or what we once were, no one cares apart from idiots still living in the past.
Again, strawmanning.

When have I ever said that other countries should do us a "favour", that's seems to be your misconception.

I said, why would things like punishing us have any place within trade deals, it shouldn't.

As long as they even prepared to negotiate, that's good enough, who the hell thought people would bend over for us, well I didn't, maybe your caricature of leavers gave you that impression, but you are no stranger to demonising your political opponents.

Also, considering the enlargement of the EU, trade deals have happened less often, could not the protectionist attitude of the EU hurt our future prospects.

You know the sad part about all of this, neither option sings its own praises and saddest part we all know how to fix this, removal of the EU and reinstatement of the common market, capitalist get their market and working & middle class people don't feel worried about migration.
Edited by Dan1989, Apr 22 2017, 11:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Dan1989
Apr 22 2017, 11:40 AM
. . . saddest part we all know how to fix this, removal of the EU and reinstatement of the common market, capitalist get their market and working & middle class people don't feel worried about migration.
No the saddest thing is there are still some who cannot get it through their skulls that most people in the EU see it as flawed here and there but on the whole OK as it is. They know the Common Market was right for its time but its time was over 40 years ago. It was the likes of us joining that forced it down the road of more EEC/EU control of matters conducive to a true single market.

Delusions that the EU will go back to what it was before we joined are just that: delusions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 22 2017, 10:19 AM
Oh dear more bad news for uber Brexiters

Several papers today reporting that Boris and May's great hope of Trump doing a quick deal with the UK have been somewhat dashed (well destroyed actually) as Trump is now committed to doing a deal with the EU first.

But having nailed their colours to the USA mast they will now be in a far weaker position when they meet the EU, what a stupid further own goal. It's not like I didn't warn of this back in 2014

http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8230234&t=10690197 (just substitute 'Boris' for 'Farage')

I should not laugh, but why not! ;D The Express is also reporting this and it's hilarious the way it's being spun! It's readers are very confused to say the least!

May went to Washington and got to hold hands with Donald, Merkel went a bit later and got a trade deal! The Express article mentions that Trump asked Merkel ten times for a bespoke trade deal with Germany given that Germany is by far the US's biggest European trade partner, ten times Merkel repeated that Germany cannot do a trade deal without the rest of the EU being involved. It seems to have sunk in eventually and Merkel convinced Trump that a new deal with the EU could and will be done quickly.

So Obama wasn't lying was he? Now Trump is saying we are at the back of the queue, is it sinking in yet Brexiteers? !wav!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan1989
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Apr 22 2017, 11:49 AM
Dan1989
Apr 22 2017, 11:40 AM
. . . saddest part we all know how to fix this, removal of the EU and reinstatement of the common market, capitalist get their market and working & middle class people don't feel worried about migration.
No the saddest thing is there are still some who cannot get it through their skulls that most people in the EU see it as flawed here and there but on the whole OK as it is. They know the Common Market was right for its time but its time was over 40 years ago. It was the likes of us joining that forced it down the road of more EEC/EU control of matters conducive to a true single market.

Delusions that the EU will go back to what it was before we joined are just that: delusions.
Well, obviously, many in Britain do not like the current course the EU is going.

But I did say the saddest, I know it's impossible to go back, there's literally no parties who wish it to be returned to a common market, neither national or EU, well if they are, they are very small.

And if things keep going as they do in France, I can see it agreeing in part with the UK, but no Germany, they believe in the state too much.

But as I like to remind people one the main causes of war through history is separatism so thinking that the EU would go without noise, well let just see, trying to cram large group of people together.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Europe · Next Topic »
Add Reply