back to article British jobs for British people: UK tech rejects PM May’s nativist hiring agenda

“If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means." So British Prime Minister Theresa May told her party’s conference last week. Home secretary Amber Rudd laid out plans at the conference to make it harder for British employers to hire …

Page:

        1. Aitor 1 Silver badge

          Re: @Jamie

          I have 20 years of experience and two degrees (Computer engineering and Economics and Business Administration).

          Training someone like me is VERY expensive.. so the companies and government of UK, US, etc, prefer to run on "free money" expended by someone else.

          That is the reason I am in the UK.. no cost for them, hire and produce money.

          I could jump ship and go to another country with higher wages.. problem is I like the UK, and wanted to take root here. All this bigotry and xenophobia might force me to decide to rent my house and move to the us (my wife is a US citizen), earn more than double, etc. No need to stay in Germany in the 30s.

          As for the referendum not being well framed.. I disagree. It was framed on purpose as an all or nothing question, to solve a problem the Tories had, not for the nation. It backfired.

        2. Tom Paine Silver badge

          Re: @Jamie

          I have no problem with them living and working here as long as they are doing something that cannot be provided by the local workforce

          Why not?

          To look at it another way -- why pick the nation state as the arbitrary regional border that defines how happy you are to have people working around you? What about the UK regions? Or counties?

          (This is a variation on the counterargument to the ""unaccountable faceless Brussels bureaucrats" point, namely that the same argument could be applied to, say, Gloucestershire being largely controlled by unaccountable, faceless Westminster bureaucrats. And why should we Foresters pay attention to those fancy book-larnin' types at Shire Hall? Let's take back our Borough Council from County control! And so on and so forth.)

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: @Tom Paine

            That is a good point. But the way I rationalise it is by considering the on-going employability of people in the UK.

            All the time that tax, benefits, health and other infrastructure services, education etc. are funded within an 'arbitrary regional border', I believe that pay and skills should also come mainly from within that arbitrary border.

            If it were the case that full movement allowed people at the lower end of the demographic spectrum to get worthwhile jobs in other countries, then it would be great. But what is happening, and will continue to happen, is that people move from poorer countries to richer ones, displacing the lower skilled locals from the workforce because they are prepared to work for lower wages than the locals.

            This occurs in two ways. One is the obvious one where locals just don't find work because it's being done by people who are prepared to work for less. The second, and much more subtle one, is that businesses in the UK don't bother training people from the UK. They just bring them in from abroad, saving themselves all of the costs of training.

            What this leads to is a de-skilling of the local workforce, and perpetuates the situation that businesses can't recruit skills from the local workforce, and then bring even more people in from abroad. It will become a self perpetuating issue, whilst all the time money could well be leached from the UK economy.

            But it is not just the UK that is harmed. If you look at countries like Poland, Hungary and even Ireland, such a large number of their young people who have got skills marketable in richer countries leave that they are starving their own countries of the skills they need!

            I saw a documentary on Ireland that stated some villages effectively don't have any residents between the ages of 18 and 30, because they've all gone somewhere else to find work.

            I would love to see a totally egalitarian world, where the resources of the world are equally shared, but we are so far away from that, with no possibility of ever getting there without some world-changing event, that we cannot afford to consider it.

            It's absolutely pointless having a country with a 'healthy' economy for the shareholders and owners of the companies, if the rest of the population is un-employed, un-employable, or are effectively wage-slaves of the rich.

          2. Terry 6 Silver badge

            Re: @Jamie

            As a Mancunian I saw the iron heel of London everywhere. Londoners keeping all the big head offices and government departments down South, so that the Old Etonian bosses can send their kids to the Old School, and not be too far away when they go to Oxbridge. Then they whine that London produces most of the income, when in reality it drains most of the income from the UK by holding the pork barrel close.

    1. qwertyuiop

      @Tom I don't think it's as simple as that. The problem is that those who voted to leave had a huge variety of reasons for doing so and are therefore a disparate group. They wanted everything from "soft Brexit" based possibly on the Norwegian or Swiss models through to the hardest possible Brexit severing absolutely every kind of tie with the EU and setting up deals (eventually) with every individual nation in the world. There was also everything in-between. Those of us who voted to say had a pretty consistent view by contrast.

      Given the huge range of views of the Brexiteers how do you possibly negotiate? Which particular constituency do you try to please? Go too soft and you'll alienate the hard liners, go too hard and you'll alienate the soft Bexiteers.

      1. Richard 81

        In which case, it becomes the government's (with the consent of parliament) job to go for a form of Brexit that would be best for the country. Or, if that's not workable then forget the whole thing. The problem seems to be that government are going for the best political solution (for them), rather than the best scocial and economical solution for everyone.

        1. qwertyuiop

          I totally agree. The real problem is that if it turns out that staying in the EU really is the best option* then what government would be brave enough to go back to the electorate with that proposition?

          1. Graham Cobb

            The real problem is that if it turns out that staying in the EU really is the best option* then what government would be brave enough to go back to the electorate with that proposition?

            It is a problem. I had hoped that the government would be planning to do that. After all, with the vote being 12-13 all they needed to do is to make the smallest change necessary to get the least convinced Brexiter in those 25 people to change their vote and it would get majority approval. So, no need of talk of a "hard Brexit" or any substantive changes at all (just changing the name over the door would probably be enough -- just call us associate members or something).

            But the process seems to have been overtaken by (i) personal ambition (Boris) and (ii) internal Conservative party politics (May) and the likelihood of doing whatever is best for the country has gone out of the window.

            1. Tom Paine Silver badge

              The country has voted to -- pardon my French, but it's the only word that fits -- give itself a really good thorough fucking-over. _I_ didn't vote for it either, but now it has, there are clear advantages to going ahead and giving it the rogering it's asked for. Perhaps people will get a little more sceptical about the tabloid hatesheets. Perhaps they'll remember that experts actually DO know what they're talking about, and that's what the word "expert" means. Perhaps in ten years' time or so we'll be back on our knees in Brussels, begging to be allowed to rejoin, with Schengen and the Euro and all that. I happen to think those would be good, beneficial things. OTOH, if we change course, all the xenophobes and Brexiteers will go beserk about being crushed beneath the iron heel of the socialist / facist / whatever heel of Brussels or Berlin. If you've ever seen them in full cry on a Grauniad, Mail or Torygraph comments page you'll know that wouldn't be very pretty at all (and they would actually have a point.) I want the xenophobes and bulgy-eyed ranters to shut up and fuck off, once and for all, and that'll only happen when they've had their faces rubbed in the metaphorical vomit of the consequences of their own insanity.

              (Or perhaps they're right, and the UK will be a workers' paradise by 2020? XD )

              1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Perhaps they'll remember that experts actually DO know what they're talking about, and that's what the word "expert" means

                So Einstein was correct when he said that the power of the atom would never be exploited. Scientific American was correct when it claimed the Wright brothers hadn't flown a heavier-than-air aircraft. Paul Ehrlich was correct when he said in a speech in 1969: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California.

                Et Cetera

                1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

                  'Paul Ehrlich was correct when he said in a speech in 1969: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”'

                  It is unfair to criticise Ehrlich for being a few years out. Brexit will achieve his forecast by 2050 at the latest.

                  1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                    It is unfair to criticise Ehrlich for being a few years out. Brexit will achieve his forecast by 2050 at the latest.

                    Churlish of me even.

                    Here are some more:

                    In 1968, in The Population Bomb he wrote that the battle to feed humanity had been lost and that there would be a major food shortage in the US. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death.”

                    In the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be gone. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million. Hint: it currently stands at more than 320 million.

                    He wrote in 1968, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever.” Hint: not only is India self-sufficient in food, it is a net exporter of same.

          2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            @qwertyuiop

            You clearly don't understand a referendum, do you.

            While this particular referendum on leaving Europe was not actually legally binding, I cannot see any government not implementing it, because it would simply crush any notion of the UK being a democratic country.

            There is no way back. We have to leave. The only way that it could be avoided is by this government calling a general election before invoking article 50, and the election being won by a party explicitly campaigning on not leaving Europe.

            I could see a centrist Labour offshoot campaigning in coalition with the Lib Dems. and possibly the Greens on this agenda, but I don't see that they would win a majority, although they could probably gain the largest share of the vote of all groups. But they would not have the clout to actually form a government able to carry out the policy.

            It is unlikely that the Conservatives campaigning on such an agenda would win (it would show severe hypocrisy) and would split the party, so it would be as much political suicide for the current incumbent as calling the referendum on such a blunt question in the first place was for the former one.

            But Teresa May has said that she won't do this, so it's moot.

            1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

              Re: @Me.

              On second thoughts, add in the SNP to a Remain coalition party in a General Election, and you may get closer to an overall majority, but it would still require a lot of people with disparate ideas campaigning together, and the resultant government would be squabbling amongst themselves about issues other than Europe.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @qwertyuiop

              >There is no way back. We have to leave. The only way that it could be avoided is by this government calling a general election before invoking article 50, and the election being won by a party explicitly campaigning on not leaving Europe.

              Or they could go ahead with the negotiations, bring the economy to its knees, let the country realise that we're truly fucked and put *that* to a referendum. Are you still sure about this? And make voting compulsory this time, which is a pre-req for any proper referendum.

              There are a lot of Brexiteers who have a "fuck the lot of them" attitude and think we'd all be better off without those self-serving European politicians. What we will have instead, as is already happening is a bunch of self-serving politicians who are a little bit closer to home, but couldn't give a shit about anyone other than themselves and their establishment chums. That includes a completely unelected prime minister who is apparently intent on bringing down the country based on a notion of what a minority actually wanted.

              There may be a miracle and the negotiations might prove to be beneficial to Britain. I'd welcome it, and would even vote for it, but I doubt there's going to be any free lunch.

              1. ckm5

                Re: @qwertyuiop

                That's not possible. Once you invoke Article 50, there is no going back.

                1. Paul Shirley

                  Re: @qwertyuiop

                  From the leavers pov it's much worse. There no chance of retaining any opt outs if we do go back. Almost none if brexit is cancelled. The bridge is already burnt, the only way out now is to burn the fuckwits that caused that and accept the uk has already lost a lot.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @qwertyuiop

              > it would simply crush any notion of the UK being a democratic country.

              I thought everyone from Bliar onwards had taken care of that already.

              1. Triggerfish

                Re: @qwertyuiop

                Actually you could possibly stall Brexit by getting the exiters debating what they actually want, there's enough partisanship in that camp that they might never come to an agreement.

            4. Aitor 1 Silver badge

              Re: @qwertyuiop

              Well, there is an absolute majority Tory government with less than 37% of the cast votes.

              And we are having hard brexit ignoring the wishes of almost 50% of the electorate.

              Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner and the sheep not being dinner...

              So no, the democratic level of the UK can´t be called "great".

              1. PatientOne

                Re: @qwertyuiop

                "And we are having hard brexit ignoring the wishes of almost 50% of the electorate."

                "And we are facing a brexit in response to the expressed wishes of over 50% of the electorate who bothered to vote."

                FTFY.

                As ever, I might not agree with the outcome (or specifically with how the referendum was run) but as over half of those who decided to vote said 'out' then that's the majority vote. Would you have them ignored instead? Have you considered that Nicola Sturgen might be right: That the reason for so many wanting out of the EU is they've become disenfranchised over it? That they can no longer see the point of it? That they see just more beaurocracy and foreign rule and our own politicians, our MEP's, have been inadequate in addressing that?

                "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner and the sheep not being dinner"

                No, it's a herd of sheep voting over who gets eaten by a wolf: The wolf wins regardless.

                1. Terry 6 Silver badge

                  Re: @qwertyuiop

                  " bothered to vote."

                  That's the error - or one of them.

                  Anyone who was a "don't know" or couldn't make their minds up strongly enough to take the decision is, in effect, being considered as not actively wanting to remain. There was no option in the referendum for "I'm not sure if I want to remain but I don't actually want to commit us to leave" or words to that effect.

                  It was very much a matter of forced choice or no choice. In effect the voices of an undoubtedly large minority for Leave had greater weight than the majority who didn't vote for changing the status quo.

                  For this reason, most constitutional changes, even for a sports club let alone a group of nations, there usually has to be a threshold. For a strike ballot to be valid there's a proposed 40% of all members. But we are saying that the electorate have spoken because a minority who actively wanted change outvoted the majority who either didn't or weren't sure

                2. Havin_it

                  Re: @qwertyuiop

                  I struggle to believe Nicola Sturgeon said anything so contrary to the narrative on which she's basing her current manoeuvring. Got a source?

          3. PatientOne

            They should have come to the Public *WITH* the options already formulated *BEFORE* the referendum.

            Instead we had the terror clown (tm) circus of FUD (you can fill in your own options as to which clown fits to which politician)

      2. Triggerfish

        @ qwertyuiop

        This is also my impression, I think if you split the brexit vote into how many want full hard brexit; no free trade no movement, how many want delusional brexit; we get free trade and free movement but EU countries do not, how many just do not want Syrians turning up, how many want a soft brexit, how many want a Rupert Murdoch brexit etc, the vote would have been all over the place.

      3. Queasy Rider

        huge variety of reason

        Silly me, I thought the reason people voted to leave was because the P.M promised to quit if they did.

      4. Tom Paine Silver badge

        It's pretty obvious which voters the current gov tactics are designed to appeal to: the ones editing the Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Torygraph and Times. And THEY are pretty red hot on immigration being the biggest deal. Take a look, if you have a strong enough stomach.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      when that's not the basis the campaign was fought on and, when asked, not the outcome those voting leave say they wanted (on the whole)

      We probably talk to different people.

      All leavers I have talked to have complained of "They come and eat our benefits" and "They come and take our jobs". I have not heard a single answer different from either one of these.

      As one of my neighbors has noted this is rather idiotic as you cannot do both - it is either, or. You either take the jobs or you take the benefits. You cannot quite take both.

      I have not seen a single European on long term benefits (there is a legend that they exist) and I have yet to see a Brit that would like to wash cars in the freezing cold in the Sainsbury's parking lot or collect potatoes in Lankashire or catch chickens in Norfolk while being subjected to outsourced (to a similarly imported Eastern European henchman) abuse by the gangmaster. If you know of such legendary person, a lot of us would like to see him. He is the stuff of a legend.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I don't know about sainsburys but would you wash cars at Tesco?

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37499241

        This is exploitation, now about that gangmaster...

      2. Tom Paine Silver badge

        (Small point:

        it is either, or. You either take the jobs or you take the benefits. You cannot quite take both.

        Actually, yes you can. Your search terms are "UK in-work benefits".

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I've had a different array of answers as to why people voted leave, which mostly boil down to the people becomming disenfranchised with the EU thanks to our own MEPs. AKA: They can no longer see the point of the EU. Some also feared being swamped by migrants thanks to the current crisis rather than the regular migrants and immigrants. Some do feel that the large numbers trying to get here through Greece do include radicals.

        "I have not seen a single European on long term benefits (there is a legend that they exist)"

        Oh, they exist. The ones I know to are former Kosovan refugees* who decided to stay. There aren't many, but they were responsible for a lot of bad feelings towards refugees in the area after they refused to go back to Kosova and were being blamed for an increase in crime in the area. Most were on benefits, and some still are (I could even give the addresses of some - they're well known in the community). They are still associated with the illegal work gangs known to operate in parts of the Midlands, although these are slowly being shut down.

        * We had a large community of refugees given shelter around where I live. Most were fine, some even great, but there are always a few who had to go spoil everything. Not even 1%, but those are the ones people remember and taint the very idea of giving shelter to those who need it.

        "I have yet to see a Brit that would like to wash cars in the freezing cold in the Sainsbury's parking lot"

        Maybe not if it's freezing, but I've seen charity car washes take place when it's cold, even when it's raining. Not quite what you're meaning, I know, but I doubt Sainsburies would allow a private firm to offer car washing on their car parks as most have their own car wash attached to the petrol station, so the opportunity is rather restricted.

        " ...or collect potatoes in Lankashire or catch chickens in Norfolk while being subjected to outsourced (to a similarly imported Eastern European henchman) abuse by the gangmaster."

        Which is illegal, and while I don't know about Norfolk or Lancs, there have been gangs operating in the Midlands that import 'cheap' (aka slave) labour from Eastern Europe*. I really don't see why you'd want someone to work like that, if that was what you were suggesting (am hoping it's just ambiguity in how you phrased it).

        * Not only reported in local news, but I've had police call around to check gardens after a crash when illegal immigrant workers fled an RTA at 2am (the van they were in crashed into a lamp post when a worn tire blew). The workers were hiding from the work boss as much as from the police. Near a dozen were found in the end - not all of them - and raids of houses followed that were identifed as locations other such workers were being kept. Was a few years back, true, and a lot has been done to crack down on such operations, but with so many fruit farms relying on cheap migrant labour, it's possible it still happens.

        " If you know of such legendary person, a lot of us would like to see him. He is the stuff of a legend."

        Am really not sure this is true: Someone forced to work under an abusive gangmaster is a victim, not a legend. I wouldn't exect to see anyone - Brit or not - wanting to work under such conditions.

        1. Triggerfish

          @AC

          I worked for a company in an area that did not have great employment rates, we actually had a high paying factory jobs going (high paying due to piece work bonus, it actually made them some of the more attractive wages in the area - which otherwise was mostly farmiland, and tourist hotels) with a stroppy union to protect them as well, we could not get one candidate to apply from the local area, it was a bit depressing really, in the end we had a couple of Romainian guys come over from one of our suppliers abroad and they worked their arse off.

    3. Aitor 1 Silver badge

      Errr no

      A few people really wanted just more control.

      But most people who said this was not about xenophobia are keeping mum about the slurs.

      So yes, the correct interpretation is being done.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cost

    "The competition for skills and qualified staff isn’t just intense – it’s global. Which is one reason why firms are tapping up talent in centres of specialization outside the UK."

    Wrong.

    Firms are looking outside not because of lack of talent but because they can pay less, so are cheaper resource. If India or Romania gets expensive, due to expectation that their salaries should go up, then move elsewhere. Repeat till you are hiring from the worlds least capable, cheapest resource

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      GBP vs EUR

      And pretty soon UK resource should be cheaper that EU ones so if 'Wet Dream Brexit' happens (that's like a hard Brexit with a happy ending) and UK staff can work in Europe but not vice versa then they can undercut the Romanians by exporting Britains worst and dimmest.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cost

      > Firms are looking outside not because of lack of talent but because they can pay less

      Sorry but it doesn't work like that. Many thought it did, tried, and failed.

      As an employer myself, I could pay *a lot* less, but then I wouldn't be able to attract the same sort of talent, the product would be shit, nobody would buy it, and I would go bankrupt.

      Now, if you come to me offering X and asking 50, and someone else is also offering X and asking 30, that's 20 that the company can use for other things, perhaps even creating more jobs. So can you tell me why I should give it to you?

    3. ckm5

      Re: Cost

      Well, I hire people and have P&L responsibility, I can say categorically that your assumption is false, at least in high-tech. We used to have an overseas team in a 'low cost' location. We fired all of them and hired local staff at almost 10x the cost.

      Why? Because the talent we needed was not overseas and the overhead of managing different cultural expectations was killing us. I've seen this over and over again in tech, both in the financial & pure tech sectors.

      If you are trying to actually build something, hiring 'the worlds least capable resource' is a sure fire way of going out of business.

      1. Terry 6 Silver badge

        Re: Cost

        We used to have an overseas team in a 'low cost' location.

        That means that your organisation has stopped doing it. It doesn't mean you didn't do it.

        Maybe your bean counters have been taken out the back and taught about medium and long term goals. But too many companies are still on short-term-cut-costs-raise-margins-keep the share price high-get me my bonus thinking.

        1. Paul Shirley

          Re: Cost

          It doesn't mean you didn't do it.

          Sometimes you have to try something to find out it doesn't work. It's just more catastrophic when a country tries something after being stampeded into it by loathsome media magnates, traitorous politicians putting self above country and a pissed off underclass only hearing what they want to hear.

          I will be watching, not taking part.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Cost

          @Terry 6

          "But too many companies are still on short-term-cut-costs-raise-margins-keep the share price high-get me my bonus thinking."

          UK public sector .... we are currently doing everything possible to annoy contractors so they leave, to cut short-term costs. Project deliverables and due dates are being completely ignored, as are benefits from projects, just get the headcount down and grab the promotion before anyone realises. It's not just a share price thing, it's a focus on short-term results come what may.

    4. Voland's right hand Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Cost

      Wrong.

      Firms are looking outside not because of lack of talent

      Both.

      Britain educates < 50% of what it presently consumes across the board in high tech. The number differs. It is probably less than 20% in molecular biology and pharmaceutics, going up to about 60% in various engineering disciplines. IT is about middle of the road. At the same time we do have an oversupply of humanitarian graduates of all sorts though and graduates with humanitarian degrees are taking jobs like real estate management, etc which do not need a degree.

      As far as Romanian being cheap, the starting salary for university qualified software developer in Romania and Bulgaria is already higher than in the UK. I would not call that cheap. It is only a matter of time until they have enough positions in other high tech areas (due to companies opening R&D there) to make the current British pharmaceutical and life sciences completely unsustainable.

      1. Paul Shirley

        Re: Cost

        oversupply of humanitarian graduates

        Is the entirely predictably result of using higher education as a way to hide youth unemployment. STEM qualifications are hard work even for clever students, if you're trying to get 50% of youngsters off the unemployment list for a few years there have to be easier courses with little other value to the country to get them there.

        That in the age of fees so many still sign up for so many soft, pointless courses shocks me.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Cost

          That in the age of fees so many still sign up for so many soft, pointless courses shocks me.

          I suspect you'd be even more shocked by the absolute drivel the students undertaking those courses come out with then.

  2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

    This article is a load of leftie rubbish

    Those bloody foriners, nicking our jobsAND benefits(!) , and taking over our towns.

    We are GREAT Britain - all those jobs foriners do could easily be done by our own elite, who - because of foriners - have no choice but to watch, and go on, the Jermy Kyle show.

    You will always see us true brits showing the bulldog spirit - buying all booze and fags from British companies, and buying 60inch plasmas at 5 times the price from Shite-house - damn good honest British '"on tick" - where else could you get a big tele when you can't even afford to properly clothe and feed the kids?

    Those foriners speak funny anyway, and cause all sorts of crime.

    We don't need them They need us. They needed our empire. We tried to domesticate these savages, and they turn around and take advantage of us.

    Next we need to blow up that Frenchie channel tunnel, and then build a wall - a big big wall, and all the foriners will pay for it - that will sort out those rapist scum

    Let's make Britain GREAT Britain again.

    ♩ ♪ ♫ Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves!...♬ ♭ ♯

    1. Arctic fox
      Thumb Up

      @Jamie Jones Re: This article is a load of leftie rubbish

      Were you by any chance being a touch satirical old chap? See icon.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: This article is a load of leftie rubbish

      I don't think we need to blow up the tunnel.

      Just build an extra semi-circular section joining the two tunnels at one end.

      I give you ... The euro-U-bend !

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This article is a load of leftie rubbish

      You forgot about re-enacting Kristallnacht, once the Government have collected (and published) the list of companies employing foriners...

      Being an ex-pat, living and working in the EU - our politician do realize that this works both ways and that British citizens are also working abroad? - I am seriously considering taking on local citizenship here, so that I don't get caught in any retaliatory tactics!

      At the moment, the UK seems to be taking the worst of the US xenophobia from the 30s and 40s and mixing it with a good dose of National Socialist ideals directly out of the Germany from the same period...

      This, combined with the US presidential race, which seems to be coming down to them voting to elect either a machine gun or a hand grenade as president, the world is becoming a pretty scary place.

      Time to sell up and move to an isolated island somewhere.

      1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

        Re: This article is a load of leftie rubbish

        "If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means"

        I was giving May the benefit of the doubt right up to that point. I think a lot of people know full well what was meant by "rootless cosmopolitans". May is giving an anti-Semitic dog whistle. It would be almost as bad if she didn't know what the words she used meant, because those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.

        Citizenship means being a good citizen wherever you live, paying your taxes and playing a part in society. It doesn't say that the place has to be within a certain radius of where you happened to be born. We have the government saying we have to be outward looking and then we have the Prime Minister suggesting that people who are outward looking are inferior - incapable of understanding their responsibilities.

        80th anniversary of the biggest battle of Cable Street and history seems to be repeating itself.

        1. Aitor 1 Silver badge

          Re: This article is a load of leftie rubbish

          Those lines are almost as if taken from mein kampf. And I know because I read the damn book...

          I have no doubt May knows perfectly well what she was saying.

          1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: This article is a load of leftie rubbish

            Those lines are almost as if taken from mein kampf

            Critique of the so called comspolitan mentality is common across the "Slightly to the right of Atilla The Hun" spectrum. I could have sworn she has picked it up word by word from one of Stalin's speeches ravishing cosmopolitan mentality and praising patriotism. But if you say it is mein kampf, it is mein kampf (for me it sounds like one of his speeches to the graduates of the NKVD academy during the purges - forgot the exact year).

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019