Category Archives: Britain

Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK firms alarmed over Government crackdown on migrants

IMMIGRATION/BREXIT

BUSINESS leaders have clashed with the Government over Brexit following the pledge by Theresa May to curb the flow of cheap, low-skilled labour from Europe.

Business lobby groups reacted with fury to leaked Government proposals outlining a tough new immigration system after Britain leaves the EU.

Downing Street hit back, saying business needs to end its reliance on cheap migrant labour and do more to train British workers. Mrs May said ministers had a duty to curb immigration after last year’s EU referendum, and restated her pledge to slash net immigration to the “tens of thousands”.

But the Government was in disarray as Cabinet ministers, including Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Business Secretary Greg Clark are understood to have concerns about slashing immigration from the EU too quickly.

Damian Green, the First Secretary of State and one of Mrs May’s closest allies, is also thought to have misgivings, and believes the plan can be toned down.

It has also emerged that FTSE 100 leaders have refused to sign a letter backing the Government’s Brexit strategy. Downing Street quietly asked executives to sign an open letter saying they wanted to “make a success of Brexit”, and welcoming the Government’s push for a transitional deal.

But this was not welcomed by some, with one executive reportedly saying: “There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the talks.”

It is understood the letter, drafted by No. 10, was due to be made public as Mrs May tries to create support for the legislation going through Parliament about our EU withdrawal.

The row followed the leak of a Home Office document setting out plans to curb immigration from the EU after Brexit.

The Prime Minister said: “Immigration has been good for the UK, but people want to see it controlled as a result of our leaving the EU.

“The Government continues to believe it is important to have net migration at sustainable levels, particularly given the impact it has on people at the lower end of the income scale in depressing their wages.”

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: “We have always welcomed to this country those who can make a contribution to our economy, people with high skills.

“On the other hand, we want British companies to do more to train up British workers, to do more to improve skills of those who leave our colleges. So, there’s always a balance to be struck. We’re not closing the door on all future immigration but it has to be managed properly and people do expect to see the numbers coming down.”

The document, which has caused uneasiness among some ministers, suggests low-skilled workers from the EU would only be allowed to stay for a year or two, and EU citizens would be barred from moving to the UK to look for a job. Ministers are also considering a ‘direct numerical cap’ on the numbers who come here from Europe after the UK leaves in March 2019.

Big businesses reacted angrily to the proposals. The chief executive of the British Hospitality Association said the proposals would be “catastrophic” for the industry, one which relies heavily on cheap EU labour.

The executive said: “We understand the wish to reduce immigration but we need to tread carefully and be aware of the unintended consequences – some businesses will fail, taking UK jobs with them.”

A spokesperson for the Confederation of British Industry, said: “An open approach to our closest trading partners is vital for business, as it attracts investment to the UK. It also helps keep our economy moving by addressing key labour shortages.”

The Institute of Directors said business leaders would not welcome the proposals and its members would be hoping for changes in the Government’s final position.

The National Farmers’ Union said a cut in migrant workers could cause “massive disruption” for the industry. Its deputy president said 80,000 seasonal workers a year are needed “to plant, pick, grade and pack over 9 million tonnes of fruit, vegetable and flower crops”.

But Migration Watch, a think-tank, said ministers were right to pressure businesses to wean themselves off cheap foreign labour.

In a statement, it said: “We want to encourage employers to train local people and make more of an effort to prepare for a time when there won’t be all these people coming in with readymade skills prepared to work for lower wages.”

The leaked document was a draft of proposals due to be published this autumn.

Sources said a further six drafts have since been produced and it has not yet gone to ministers for approval. Senior figures in Brussels raised concerns about the document.

Gianni Pittella, leader of a large group within the European Parliament, said it revealed the “nasty side of Theresa May’s Government”, adding: “Should the British Government follow the position outlined, it will certainly not help the negotiations. It adds uncertainty and confusion.”

German MEP Elmar Brok, an ally of Angela Merkel, said he was “shocked by the language and content of this paper”, adding: “I think we are in a situation that EU citizens are seen as an enemy for the UK. This is not an atmosphere where you can find solutions.”

. How other countries control their borders

In the United States immigration law provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 newcomers, with certain exceptions for close family members.

The Immigration and Naturalisation Act allows a foreign national to work and live lawfully and permanently in the States.

Each year it admits foreign citizens on a temporary basis. Annually, Congress and the president also determine a separate number for admitting refugees.

Immigration to the States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the US economy, protecting refugees and promoting diversity. In Australia, a tough immigration points system is credited with keeping numbers under control while ensuring the economy has the skills it needs.

Extra points are given for factors such as experience, qualifications and age. But critics argue there is no guarantee it would bring numbers down, pointing out that Australia has proportionately higher immigration than the UK.

Since 1967, most immigrants to Canada have been admitted on purely economic grounds. Each applicant is evaluated on a nine-point system that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at age, education, skills, language ability and other attributes.

Standard
Britain, China, Government, North Korea, United Nations

Britain hints it could hit North Korea with cyber war

NORTH KOREA

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT has refused to rule out using cyber warfare to target North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un in the wake of his latest missile launch.

Theresa May has pledged to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with Japan whose territory was targeted.

The prime minister, who had arrived in the Japanese city of Kyoto 36 hours after Pyongyang sent a missile over the north of the country, said she was keeping the door open to launching a retaliatory cyber strike. Mrs May also provoked a row with China after heaping pressure on Beijing to rein in the rogue state.

At the commencement of her three-day trip to Japan, she said: “We are very clear that the actions of North Korea are illegal. I think they are significant actions of provocations.

“I think that is outrageous, that is why we will be working with our international partners and re-doubling our efforts to put pressure on North Korea, to stop these illegal activities.” Mrs May refused three times to say if Britain could use its cyber capabilities to take on North Korea, as she repeatedly avoided questions about the prospect of future military action.

Britain has doubled its investment in defensive and offensive cyber warfare to £1.9billion and set up a National Cyber Security Centre, which is part of GCHQ.

National Cyber Centre

The new National Cyber Security Centre is the authoritative voice on information security in the UK. It is part of GCHQ and an integral part of the intelligence community.

Last month, the Prime Minister said she had told China’s President Xi that she believes his country has a “key role in putting pressure on North Korea to stop the actions they are taking”.

She said: “We want to ensure that North Korea desists in this action. We see that the best way of doing that is for China to be bringing pressure to bear on North Korea.”

But this week the Chinese foreign ministry criticised those claiming China should step up the pressure on North Korea. A statement released, said: “They only pay attention to sanctions and pressure, and ignore peace talks. When we promote peace talks, they ignore this. You will reap what you sow… The parties directly concerned should take responsibility.”

Mrs May attended Japan’s national security council and announced the deployment of HMS Argyll to the region in December 2018.

Matthew Rycroft, British ambassador to the UN, said Britain wants new sanctions against North Korea which would target workers who are sent to countries such as Russia and China, and whose wages are a source of revenue for Pyongyang.

Meanwhile, a former GCHQ expert has warned that Britain’s enemies would use cyber-attacks to create panic and disrupt key services such as banks, power plants and the NHS if a Third World War erupts.

Brian Lord, who was deputy director for intelligence and cyber operations at GCHQ, said countries are engaged in a cyber arms race and “unpredictable” North Korea is one of those developing capabilities to penetrate global computer systems.

BRITAIN’S relationship with China has suffered a setback after Beijing accused Theresa May of being a “weak” leader.

After the Prime Minister called for the Chinese to do more to rein in North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, a state-linked newspaper taunted her over her disappointing general election performance.

The Global Times attacked Mrs May in an article headlined, “Beijing does not need London to teach it how to deal with North Korea”.

“May’s Conservative Party lost many seats, turning her into a vulnerable Prime Minister,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial column. It also accused her of copying Donald Trump’s stance.

“Weak people often look for opportunities to show their strength”, it said. “Perhaps Prime Minister May doesn’t know much about the Korean Peninsula. Her comments sounded just like a rehashing of Washington’s rhetoric.

“If the British Government genuinely wants to protect its businesses and investment interests in the region, it should speak and act cautiously… rather than pointing fingers and making irrelevant remarks.”

But an undeterred Mrs May doubled down on her demands, calling for “actions as well as words” as Britain, America and Japan all urged China to sign up to oil sanctions against the rogue state.

Confronted by the criticism from Beijing, Mrs May said she was not deterred, adding: “We need to ensure it’s not just words of condemnation, but that action is taken. China does have a leverage in the region and we should be encouraging China to exercise that leverage.”

The Prime Minister and her Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe both agreed to an increase in sanctions to bring North Korea to heel. A Government source said these could include implementing current sanctions more quickly, as well as looking at new areas to target.

It is understood China is resisting increasing sanctions to North Korean oil, on the back of a coal export slapped on the international pariah two weeks ago.

Following the North Korean missile test over Japan earlier this week, Mr Abe said: “The threat is felt not only by our country or Asia alone, it has become a global threat including Europe.

“North Korea will launch an intercontinental ballistic missile and the range would include almost the entire region of Europe.” Mrs May added: “We are very clear that the actions of North Korea are illegal.”

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has said the UK and its NATO allies must compete on the “cyber battlefield”.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government

Leading firms must say how chief executive salaries compare with staff

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

LEADING companies will be forced to disclose how much their chief executive is paid compared to their average worker . . . and justify the sum.

Business Secretary Greg Clark is due to announce this week that nearly 1,000 listed firms will have to publish the ratio in a crackdown on excessive boardroom salaries.

It is also believed that a new public register will name and shame those whose investors revolt over the pay of bosses.

The plans will be announced as ministers seek to rebut criticism that they have watered down the tough approach promised by Theresa May.

Last year the Prime Minister unveiled radical proposals, such as workers being granted representation on boards, but she has since backed away from these ideas. The plans follow criticism over the high pay of executives following scandals such as the collapse of BHS.

Mr Clark will announce that the Investment Association, the fund managers’ trade body, will oversee the creation of the new register to include any company which faces opposition from at least 20 per cent of shareholders.

Ministers say the publication of ratios between bosses and UK-based workers will shine a spotlight on boardroom pay. It is unclear if the figure for chief executives would be their total package, which averaged £4.5million last year in the FTSE-100, or only their much lower base salary.

Mr Clark is also expected to say that the Government will guarantee workers at listed companies a louder voice in the boardroom by amending the Corporate Governance Code. This will be achieved, according to sources, by designating a non-executive director to represent workers, nominating a director from the workforce or a new advisory council which would have access to board members.

That would meet a commitment made in the 2017 Conservative manifesto although the Government is abandoning a general election pledge to ‘legislate to make executive pay packages subject to strict annual votes by shareholders’.

Companies will also have to produce an annual statement explaining how they acknowledge the interests of workers and wider stakeholders. In addition to the rules to be imposed on big public companies, privately owned businesses, including Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia Group, will become subject to a new voluntary code of corporate governance principles supervised by the Financial Reporting Council.

The proposals will be hailed by ministers as a robust package of reforms designed to make big firms more accountable. They come after corporate governance failings at Sports Direct International and a bitter revolt over a £14million deal for BP chief executive Bob Dudley. This has spurred the Government to pledge a crackdown on boardroom excesses.

The collapse of high street chain BHS after being sold for £1 by Sir Philip was also a factor in hardening public and political opinion against the bosses of big businesses.

This year, there were fewer major protests over the pay of executives at FTSE-100 companies but there was a significantly higher number of revolts over bosses in the FTSE-250 index.

Under Sir Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary and now Liberal Democrat leader, shareholders in public companies were handed a binding say every three years on remuneration policy.

But the annual vote on what directors receive is on a non-binding basis and looks likely to continue that way.

Standard