Why does the illegal trafficking have to stop first? Open legal routes and it puts it out of business just about. Problem solved. But we know why - it wouldn't satisfy those who want to blame immigrants.
Answered your own question Paul, first it's illegal activity; second it is not priority for a large section of the public and is taking the headlines away from other matters; thirdly the problems inherent in setting up coherent legal entry routes (even if the government has the will to do so) cannot be solved overnight, it needs a 'joined up' and 'thought out' policy on migration, covering; asylum seekers, economic migrants, returners, dependents, etc. and crucially that has the support of the majority of the UK public.
Wages were lower because of freedom of movement from Europeans? Another myth of Brexit. If that was the case why were/are the salaries in many EU countries higher than the UK - they must have moved to be poorer?
Not another myth (Brexit or not), in many areas outside of the main conurbations, wages did fall in retailing, parts of hospitality, and in certain areas of health and social care. Even in skilled areas relating to construction, hourly rates fell. It was because wages in the EU had
begun to rise that many people decided to move back to their homeland,
even before the Brexit vote, in particular Polish construction workers.
I know you believe Brexit will work and so does Starmer
No, I believe a way has to be found, and especially in the longer term, to make sure this country survives the aftermath of Brexit. That decision taken in 2016 cannot be reversed, because what we had and the position we had with the EU can never be replaced. Even if the majority in the UK wants to return to the EU, in say ten years, the currency questions, the rebates, the 'opt outs' etc. will not be replaced or indeed replicated. We are now a third country as far as the EU rhetoric is concerned. Also if a new J
acques Delor becomes EU President the march towards
ever closer union will once again prove a stumbling block.
Starmer knows he has to make the 'best of a bad' job he knows that very well and will have to move carefully with the EU, as well as at home, to try to fix what can be fixed and to seek new arrangements going forward. The world has changed since 2016 and will change even more in the next two decades, old habits and instincts will linger but they have to be over come, starting from where we are, not where we would like to be. Even the Tories (most of them anyway) who are unlikely to have much of a say in matters for the foreseeable future have realised the sense of retaining the EU laws in many areas... that could be a place for Starmer to start?
British people were supposed to be doing after 'x' years of training.
No Paul, I was heavily involved in Education, Industrial Training and related Management issues before I retired in 2012. British companies regularly under invested in training, after the ITB's and TECS etc had run their course and government direct funding support virtually dried up. What money there was from the late 1990's was being gradually diverted to establishing a 14 -19 Vocational Pathway, this was suppose to bridge the latter part of secondary education 14-16 and the first part of tertiary education 16-19, and eventually for some leading to High Education Degree's. However this never happened, as it was envisage, since the 14-16 (secondary) was running on 'narrow gauge' and the 16-19 (tertiary) running on 'wide gauge' and nobody noticed until it was too late.
A lot of British industry felt let down and wanted the support of the ITB's to be returned and funded by the Government, but that didn't happen and a lot of British companies effectively 'took their ball home' and effective widespread industrial and some commercial training died out, well almost. From my view point, it was usually the foreign-owned companies, who were more committed to and undertook to provide training themselves or occasionally with private training outlets. Probably why they had a surplus of expertise?
