In message sp7d8ch2gehlltumrg47cq0of42emajr5h@None, at 17:34:06 on
Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Arthur Conan Doyle remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

But what if I were to organise a meeting, booking a conference room,
greeting guests and holding a seminar (where I was speaking). Is that
closer to "work" than "business"?

I manage engineering teams in the US, India and the EU and I can say the rules
aren't black in white. They strongly depend on your visa legal counsel

I've never had one of those (other than perhaps the very first time I
got a classic USA 'indefinite' B1/B2, and that was decades ago).

and the mood of the border control agent on any given day.

In general, the rule of thumb I use is that talking in any format (one to one,
giving or receiving instruction to one or many people, etc.) falls under a
business visa.

Pick up a screwdriver, connect a cable, even in the context of training and
things start to get complicated.

I recall helping mount, populate (with leaflets and give-aways) and
later dismount a classic "trade show" booth at one of the Indian venues.

And of course hand things out to people walking past.

There are also ancillary rules - your paycheck needs to come from your
home country, your reporting manager needs to be in your home country

Home, or just "not India"?

and you are not allowed to take direction from any local person.

I'm pretty sure I must have come quite close to that when discussing
things with the chap from the Indian Telecoms Ministry who was the
official host for the meetings.

[However, as I said earlier, I had a UN 'access all areas' type of visa,
but I'm still interested in what the position would have been had the
conference been held under a different umbrella]
--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 20:48:22 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Paid to organise and hold the meeting, which is educating attendees
about things done by others elsewhere.

I'd suggest that is work, because you're paid for that specific thing,
it isn't meetings incidental to being paid to do something else which
is primarily not done in that country.

As per my example - meetings to obtain requirements for and then
demonstrate a piece of software which is built out of country =
business meetings. But I'd say providing paid training or on-site
implementation for said software is work.

I agree. Will this sort of thing require a work permit from the EU
country, post-Brexit?

I certainly hope not. I'm sure the business lobby is heavily twisting
the
government's arm to minimise this sort of pointless 'friction'.

That's "business" (buying and selling) not individuals going to the EU
to do the odd days work.

The rules will be the same for both. The last thing anyone wants is for
the
huge numbers of EU citizens passing through UK airports to all have to
have
even a two minute conversation with a Border Force officer. And any such
rules we dream up for them will be applied equally to UK citizens in the
EU.

I don't believe for one minute it will be *us* dreaming up the rules

that will be them and we will follow

tim

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 21:33:10 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

In effect, by closing the busier of the two taxiways, you'd be reducing the
effective capacity by about 24 gates. At least this slashing of capacity
should dramatically reduce the queues at Immigration!

How busy is it? I don't recall ever seeing a plane using it. Certainly
not the nose-to-tail queue you imagine it to be.

Again, you give the impression of never having used Gatwick South.

I've flown from it several times. The last occasion the baggage handling
system had broken down, and everything was delayed by an hour or two.

Of course that taxiway is used by planes using any of the 20 or so gates
for which it provides the best route to/from the takeoff and landing
runway. If you'd used the South terminal, you'd know that. And when when
you're waiting in North pier 6, you don't see any planes (eg, Virgin or
Norwegian) from the South terminal passing under the bridge.

There's something wrong with the arithmetic. You said that merging the
taxi-ways would reduce capacity by 24, and I think we agreed that the
total in that bit of the airport was 30, so where's the 6 come from?

Your enormous new cul-de-sac could work acceptable well with half a dozen
gates, but not with more. So 24 of the 30 in the blighted zone would be
lost. That's roughly the capacity of the North terminal (minus its
satellite).

Perhaps you've not noticed, but the modern approach to airport design is to
eliminate cul-de-sacs. One way to do so is to have island satellite
terminals which can be accessed from all sides, with the passenger
connections not obstructing taxiways: they're normally underground, but are
sometimes by high bridge or bus. That way, you get a free flow of taxiing
aircraft, which are never bottled in. Heathrow's original terminals did it
the bad old way; T5 did it the better, modern way. T2 will be like T5, once
the remaining bits of T1 are demolished.

Gatwick North gets it right (and Gatwick South almost does), but you want
to ruin both terminals by adopting a particularly egregious version of
1950s airport design.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 15:54:19 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders",
which
a slim majority voted for?

They weren't objecting to tourists and casual visitors. They wanted to
limit the number of foreign workers potentially taking jobs from British
workers, and foreign users of the NHS and other welfare services.

What about foreign workers in the NHS? I accompanied someone today for a
minor operation, and of the dozen or more staff we came into contact
with (from receptionist to surgeon) only three appeared (from their
accents) to be born and bred in the UK.

Nobody ever accused the Bexiteers of being excessively rational!

Except that they do, mostly, accept we need the skilled workers

it's the unskilled ones (without jobs, when they arrive) that we don't need

tim

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 20:48:22 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Paid to organise and hold the meeting, which is educating attendees
about things done by others elsewhere.

I'd suggest that is work, because you're paid for that specific thing,
it isn't meetings incidental to being paid to do something else which
is primarily not done in that country.

As per my example - meetings to obtain requirements for and then
demonstrate a piece of software which is built out of country =
business meetings. But I'd say providing paid training or on-site
implementation for said software is work.

I agree. Will this sort of thing require a work permit from the EU
country, post-Brexit?

I certainly hope not. I'm sure the business lobby is heavily twisting
the
government's arm to minimise this sort of pointless 'friction'.

That's "business" (buying and selling) not individuals going to the EU
to do the odd days work.

The rules will be the same for both. The last thing anyone wants is for
the
huge numbers of EU citizens passing through UK airports to all have to
have
even a two minute conversation with a Border Force officer. And any such
rules we dream up for them will be applied equally to UK citizens in the
EU.

I don't believe for one minute it will be *us* dreaming up the rules

that will be them and we will follow

Huh? "They" were quite happy with the existing rules. It's *us* that are
planning to change them. The more restrictive we make the new rules for EU
citizens, the more they will be for us.

And remember that the CTA will remain, so EU citizens will be free to visit
Dublin, and then freely travel to the UK. So there's no point in dreaming
up some complicated arrangement for UK airports if there's a simple, legal
backdoor.

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 15:54:19 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders",
which
a slim majority voted for?

They weren't objecting to tourists and casual visitors. They wanted to
limit the number of foreign workers potentially taking jobs from British
workers, and foreign users of the NHS and other welfare services.

What about foreign workers in the NHS? I accompanied someone today for a
minor operation, and of the dozen or more staff we came into contact
with (from receptionist to surgeon) only three appeared (from their
accents) to be born and bred in the UK.

Nobody ever accused the Bexiteers of being excessively rational!

Except that they do, mostly, accept we need the skilled workers

it's the unskilled ones (without jobs, when they arrive) that we don't need

So simply limit the number of work permits (and new NI numbers) for such
roles.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news
In message , at 16:30:21 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017,
Clank remarked:

Of course, everyone has the right to do things their own way. I'm
intimately familiar with Russian visas, and there they do have a separate
visa for business as opposed to tourism. That's mainly a mechanism for
charging more for the benefits of a business visa - not, surprisingly the
right to do business in particular (you don't even have to show you intend
to to get one, you just buy your invitation from a different place), but
rather the more expensive business visa gives you multiple entries over a
year, rather than the tourist visa which is issued for the exact number of
days of your planned trip.

Just to show Usenet is living up to its reputation of provoking
counter-examples, I've got a Russian visa for what they classified as a
business trip, valid for one entry/exit during a 30 day window.

Having recently looked into this, I think Clank has his cause and effect the
wrong way round

ISTM that the fixed dates (up to 30 days) single (or dual) entry visa is
available to anyone, for any reason, provided that it is supported by proof
of the appropriate travel and accommodation bookings (or if you want to stay
with friends/family an official invitation)

For the above the dual entry visa is designed for people transiting though
Russia to go somewhere else (whether lodging in Russia for part of the trip,
or not), in *both* directions. It is not meant to be used because you have
two single trips booked within the allowed availability.

If you want a visa for multiple, as yet to be booked visits within a year,
that is only available for a valid business reason with supporting official
invitations (though there must be something special available for people who
have settled in Russia, without a job)

tim

In message , at 09:40:38 on Tue, 24 Jan
2017, tim... remarked:
They weren't objecting to tourists and casual visitors. They wanted to
limit the number of foreign workers potentially taking jobs from British
workers, and foreign users of the NHS and other welfare services.

What about foreign workers in the NHS? I accompanied someone today for a
minor operation, and of the dozen or more staff we came into contact
with (from receptionist to surgeon) only three appeared (from their
accents) to be born and bred in the UK.

Nobody ever accused the Bexiteers of being excessively rational!

Except that they do, mostly, accept we need the skilled workers

it's the unskilled ones (without jobs, when they arrive) that we don't need

You think are lots of people arriving like that? Well, perhaps the
asylum seekers, but generally they aren't EU citizens (even Assange
isn't).

No, they are recruited by the employers and come here to work on jobs
the locals are not qualified for (in the sense they would rather be on
the dole than do them).
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 09:46:34 on Tue, 24 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
What about foreign workers in the NHS? I accompanied someone today for a
minor operation, and of the dozen or more staff we came into contact
with (from receptionist to surgeon) only three appeared (from their
accents) to be born and bred in the UK.

Nobody ever accused the Bexiteers of being excessively rational!

Except that they do, mostly, accept we need the skilled workers

it's the unskilled ones (without jobs, when they arrive) that we don't need

So simply limit the number of work permits (and new NI numbers) for such
roles.

I could be wrong, but I think you need to be sponsored by an employer to
get an NI number. And they don't expire when you go back home for the
winter. Next summer, that person now has an NI number already when they
return to be working.

Much of the discussion here has been about it being "too difficult" to
administer a widespread work-permit scheme, and then weed out the
economic migrants from the tourists at the border.
--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 20:48:22 on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Paid to organise and hold the meeting, which is educating attendees
about things done by others elsewhere.

I'd suggest that is work, because you're paid for that specific
thing,
it isn't meetings incidental to being paid to do something else
which
is primarily not done in that country.

As per my example - meetings to obtain requirements for and then
demonstrate a piece of software which is built out of country =
business meetings. But I'd say providing paid training or on-site
implementation for said software is work.

I agree. Will this sort of thing require a work permit from the EU
country, post-Brexit?

I certainly hope not. I'm sure the business lobby is heavily twisting
the
government's arm to minimise this sort of pointless 'friction'.

That's "business" (buying and selling) not individuals going to the EU
to do the odd days work.

The rules will be the same for both. The last thing anyone wants is for
the
huge numbers of EU citizens passing through UK airports to all have to
have
even a two minute conversation with a Border Force officer. And any such
rules we dream up for them will be applied equally to UK citizens in the
EU.

I don't believe for one minute it will be *us* dreaming up the rules

that will be them and we will follow

Huh? "They" were quite happy with the existing rules. It's *us* that are
planning to change them.

no, we are leaving

on terms, more or less, dictated by them

Whilst I accept that on immigration, once we have left, we can do what we
like, and will almost certainly impose restrictions on people coming here to
work, there would seem to be no plan to impose restrictions on Europeans
coming here as tourists or on incidental business trips UNLESS they do that
on us (which, at least one of, the "we must punish them" brigade has
suggested that they should do.)

FTAOD enforcement of work visas will be done by employment checks, not at
port of entry. (I accept that we don't make a brilliant job of that now,
that will have to change)

The more restrictive we make the new rules for EU
citizens, the more they will be for us.

but only for "working" visits.

And remember that the CTA will remain, so EU citizens will be free to
visit
Dublin, and then freely travel to the UK. So there's no point in dreaming
up some complicated arrangement for UK airports if there's a simple, legal
backdoor.

As above, there will be no enforcement of working visas at point of entry,
even if we didn't have this issue (but the fact that we do makes it all the
more certain)

tim