Brexit matters

[Falcon1200]

EU authorities aren't able to enforce other countries' standards.

Why should they care about items being shipped outside? And if they did, Brexiters would be up in arms about the EU interfering with British trade.

So what we appear to be saying is that EU countries such as Poland and Romania, when exporting foodstuffs including meat (with an obvious potential risk to health) to other EU countries must meet the appropriate production, packaging and transport standards, which are presumably enforced and policed; But if exporting the same product to non-EU countries, of which the UK is just one of many, they can dump any old rubbish?

Hopefully the disgraceful situation described in Post #5431 will result in lorries from the culprit countries being put straight on the next ferry or train back to France if they have not or cannot be checked.

 

[ainsworth74]

Hopefully the disgraceful situation described in Post #5431 will result in lorries from the culprit countries being put straight on the next ferry or train back to France if they have not or cannot be checked.

We would have to check them to know whether or not they're compliant with our standards though and seeing as the Government don't appear to be interested in doing that in any significant way we have no way of knowning which lorries to send back...

 

[Falcon1200]

We would have to check them to know whether or not they're compliant with our standards though and seeing as the Government don't appear to be interested in doing that in any significant way we have no way of knowning which lorries to send back...

Yes, a valid point, but given the results of the checks in Post #5431 (21 out of 22 found to be illegal) perhaps they should all be refused until the originating country guarantees that every shipment and every vehicle meets EU standards?!!

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes, a valid point, but given the results of the checks in Post #5431 (21 out of 22 found to be illegal) perhaps they should all be refused until the originating country guarantees that every shipment and every vehicle meets EU standards?!!

That would cause a few supply chain issues I'd wager!

 

[najaB]

So what we appear to be saying is that EU countries such as Poland and Romania, when exporting foodstuffs including meat (with an obvious potential risk to health) to other EU countries must meet the appropriate production, packaging and transport standards, which are presumably enforced and policed; But if exporting the same product to non-EU countries, of which the UK is just one of many, they can dump any old rubbish?

In a word, yes. It is up to the importing country to ensure that goods entering their market comply with their standards. That's the way international trade works.

Yes, a valid point, but given the results of the checks in Post #5431 (21 out of 22 found to be illegal) perhaps they should all be refused until the originating country guarantees that every shipment and every vehicle meets EU standards?!!

So, the UK refused to either (a) maintain EU standards, or (b) commit to UK minimum standards aligning with EU minimum standards but it's up to EU authorities to ensure that EU manufacturers are complying with the very standards that we have rejected?

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, a valid point, but given the results of the checks in Post #5431 (21 out of 22 found to be illegal) perhaps they should all be refused until the originating country guarantees that every shipment and every vehicle meets EU standards?!!

For which they would charge us handsomely, and no doubt the Brexit faction wouldn't be keen on relying on the word of a foreigner. It would also prevent us moving to the sunny uplands of having our own special British standards - maximum length of maggots to be specified in Imperial units?

 

[Cloud Strife]

So what we appear to be saying is that EU countries such as Poland and Romania, when exporting foodstuffs including meat (with an obvious potential risk to health) to other EU countries must meet the appropriate production, packaging and transport standards, which are presumably enforced and policed; But if exporting the same product to non-EU countries, of which the UK is just one of many, they can dump any old rubbish?

Hopefully the disgraceful situation described in Post #5431 will result in lorries from the culprit countries being put straight on the next ferry or train back to France if they have not or cannot be checked.

Yes. That's exactly how it works: goods that are being exported are rarely checked. The way that customs declarations works means that the relevant authorities can see that these goods are on their way out, and so there's no reason to check anything. The UK (as a third country) has the responsibility to control imports, not the EU.

The UK can refuse to accept anything, but who will lose here? Certainly the cost of imports will rise further as a result. One reason why Norway and Switzerland are so expensive is because of the very secure border as far as commercial imports are concerned.

The UK has quite a few tools available to combat this situation, it's just a matter of political will. Unfortunately, that political will isn't there.

 

[class ep-09]

(EDIT: Above quote misattributed - was actually Berliner)

Since I don't live in Scotland, I don't really know much of what the media portrays there. However, my experience of politics is that *every* party, and people of every persuasion almost invariably believe that the media is biased against them and in favour of their opponents. So unless there is some solid reason to think that things are different in this case, I'd take any claim of bias with a strong pinch of salt.

I'd be especially sceptical of any claim that the BBC is anti-independence since all my experience South of the border is that here the BBC reports the independence debate reasonably impartially, giving a similar coverage to voices on both sides of the debate.



I think you're misrepresenting the argument against FOM. There's some truth in what you say, to the extent that the fact that FOM was actually used by such a small proportion of the population does have some weighting in any judgement about how valuable it is. However, the core argument against FOM is that it came with huge disadvantages: It was great for the people who wanted to move abroad, but pretty crap for all the people who were unable to find somewhere decent to live or get adequate healthcare services etc. in their home towns because FOM had caused significant population increases in their locality without there being time to plan for adequate corresponding infrastructure improvements. Generally speaking, if you're pitting the right to have somewhere to live against the right to roam the World, I'd say the right to have somewhere to live is just a tad more important

The “disadvantages “ of FOM you are talking about , have they got better or worse since FOM ended ?

Of course not , since that the these issues were caused by the tories austerity and their mismanagement , and got no better but worse , since FOM ceased .

Also - I had no idea 25+ ago that I’d be benefitting from the FOM myself , so I was in the category of the people that were not benefiting from it .
Since then a lot changed , and FOM was one of the best thing that did happen to me .

So getting rid of OUR right to FOM is the one of stupidest ideas you could think of.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The “disadvantages “ of FOM you are talking about , have they got better or worse since FOM ended ?

I would say the disadvantages of FOM have become more important: Immigration from non-EU countries has increased for reasons that largely have nothing to do with Brexit, and so would have happened whether or not we were in the EU (most notably, the need to take in people from Hong Kong and Ukraine). If we'd still been in the EU, that increase in non-EU immigration combined with continuing FOM-based immigration would have pushed net immigration rates to levels significantly higher than anyone could have seriously expected in 2016, making the strain on infrastructure/society/etc. from migration even more acute. With hindsight, Brexit allowed us to dodge a very large bullet in that regard.

 

[najaB]

Immigration from non-EU countries has increased for reasons that largely have nothing to do with Brexit, and so would have happened whether or not we were in the EU (most notably, the need to take in people from Hong Kong and Ukraine)

Only around 100,000 HK nationals have moved to the UK in almost two years. And we have received a similar number of Ukrainians.

Around 200,000 people over the best part of two years isn't really very many in the grand scheme of things.

Britons welcome Hong Kongers as figures show UK issues over 110,000 BN(O) visas - British Future

As new figures show 110,000 visas issued to Hong Kongers to live in the UK, polling finds the public ready to take part in welcoming efforts.

www.britishfuture.org

100,000 Ukrainians welcomed to safety in the UK

More than 100,000 people from Ukraine have arrived in the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme and Homes for Ukraine Scheme.

www.gov.uk

If we'd still been in the EU, that increase in non-EU immigration combined with continuing FOM-based immigration would have pushed net immigration rates to levels significantly higher than anyone could have seriously expected in 2016, making the strain on infrastructure/society/etc. from migration even more acute. With hindsight, Brexit allowed us to dodge a very large bullet in that regard.

There's also the counter-argument that, absent Brexit and the cracks it caused in European unity, Putin may well not have felt emboldened enough to have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

 

[Annetts key]

I would say the disadvantages of FOM have become more important: Immigration from non-EU countries has increased for reasons that largely have nothing to do with Brexit, and so would have happened whether or not we were in the EU (most notably, the need to take in people from Hong Kong and Ukraine). If we'd still been in the EU, that increase in non-EU immigration combined with continuing FOM-based immigration would have pushed net immigration rates to levels significantly higher than anyone could have seriously expected in 2016, making the strain on infrastructure/society/etc. from migration even more acute. With hindsight, Brexit allowed us to dodge a very large bullet in that regard.

There are far more variables involved. Some of the people that came to the U.K. from other parts of the E.U. would have eventually returned to their own countries anyway. And as the relative cost and standard of living changed between countries, that affects the number of people entering and leaving each country.

As I said before, the alleged “strain on infrastructure/society/etc.” is also not straightforward. The lack of investment and funding in this country and therefore the lack of capacity, let alone some spare/over capacity comes down to the austerity policies of the Conservative governments.

In my area, the biggest problem is a lack of qualified employees. The lack of G.P.s has resulted in doctors surgeries closing. It’s even resulted in A&E units closing either completely or between 22:00 and 08:00. If you need medical help, you now get a much longer journey. Just what you want when in pain or otherwise suffering

Companies have difficulty finding the employees they need. The previous changes to the way dentists are funded means it’s hard for people to find a NHS dentist that they can register with. Similarly, the poor funding of residential and care homes means patients stay far longer that they should in hospitals, causing bed blocking.

The list goes on. The point is, it’s government failures that are the primary cause of most of the problems in this country. Not people moving here who generally speaking want to find a better life and earn money by working, and hence contribute to the tax coffers of the treasury.

You know, the treasury that at the moment is trying to perform a Paul Daniels magic trick to fill the 40 billion black hole.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Only around 100,000 HK nationals have moved to the UK in almost two years. And we have received a similar number of Ukrainians.

Around 200,000 people over the best part of two years isn't really very many in the grand scheme of things.

I wasn't trying to imply those are the only sources of non-EU migration: I was simply citing those as examples why non-EU migration has increased.

There's also the counter-argument that, absent Brexit and the cracks it caused in European unity, Putin may well not have felt emboldened enough to have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

That seems a bit tenuous to me. Yes, maybe that was a factor in Putin's thinking, but there are lots of other things that have far more obvious military relevance that would have therefore been likely to embolden him. In plausible decreasing order, I would expect Putin to have felt more confident about invading Ukraine because of

1. No consequences that seriously hurt Russia when he annexed Crimea and subverted Donbas to install puppet regimes there.
2. Our chaotic pullout from Afghanistan
3. The West didn't do anything significant when Russia intervened in Syria and committed/supported mass human rights violations there.
4. We only took fairly limited action over the Salisbury poisonings
5. NATO took no military action when Lukashenko's regime effectively hijacked a civilian airliner that was flying between two NATO countries. I mean, what's NATO even for if it just ignores attacks like that? Similarly, no military action when Lukashenko used migrants to assault the border of Poland - a NATO country.
6. We did nothing about Lukashenko's effective coup in Belarus in 2020

I can't see that Brexit would make much difference when Putin could see all those signs of military weakness/indecisiveness by NATO/the West.

 

[edwin_m]

I wasn't trying to imply those are the only sources of non-EU migration: I was simply citing those as examples why non-EU migration has increased.



That seems a bit tenuous to me. Yes, maybe that was a factor in Putin's thinking, but there are lots of other things that have far more obvious military relevance that would have therefore been likely to embolden him. In plausible decreasing order, I would expect Putin to have felt more confident about invading Ukraine because of

1. No consequences that seriously hurt Russia when he annexed Crimea and subverted Donbas to install puppet regimes there.
2. Our chaotic pullout from Afghanistan
3. The West didn't do anything significant when Russia intervened in Syria and committed/supported mass human rights violations there.
4. We only took fairly limited action over the Salisbury poisonings
5. NATO took no military action when Lukashenko's regime effectively hijacked a civilian airliner that was flying between two NATO countries. I mean, what's NATO even for if it just ignores attacks like that? Similarly, no military action when Lukashenko used migrants to assault the border of Poland - a NATO country.
6. We did nothing about Lukashenko's effective coup in Belarus in 2020

I can't see that Brexit would make much difference when Putin could see all those signs of military weakness/indecisiveness by NATO/the West.

Agreed all those factors were in play too, but you don't mention Russia's highly probable interference in the US elections, where getting the Trumpits back into power may be their only remaining route to success in Ukraine. Damaging European unity by encouraging Brexit was less important but still contributes to the same objective.

Another video on economic impacts of Brexit, this time from the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63426412

 

[najaB]

Damaging European unity by encouraging Brexit was less important but still contributes to the same objective.

Precisely. It wasn't the only thing that emboldened Russia but it definitely was a factor.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Agreed all those factors were in play too, but you don't mention Russia's highly probable interference in the US elections, where getting the Trumpits back into power may be their only remaining route to success in Ukraine.

This is a genuine concern of mine. However, at least right now, the Republicans in Congress are very much for continuing to support Ukraine. It is a truly frightening thought to think that some Americans will prefer Trumpanzees over supporting the US military machine, although the GOP seem to be quietly saying that Tucker Carlson's open support of Russia is really causing them problems in some areas.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Agreed all those factors were in play too, but you don't mention Russia's highly probable interference in the US elections, where getting the Trumpits back into power may be their only remaining route to success in Ukraine.

That interference was atrocious. But I can't see that how it could have been a factor in emboldening Putin to invade Ukraine, which is why I didn't include it in the list. It is plausible that that interference was a key factor in getting Trump into power in 2016, but by the time Putin was putting his invasion plans into effect, that had already been reversed by the 2020 US elections.

 

[edwin_m]

That interference was atrocious. But I can't see that how it could have been a factor in emboldening Putin to invade Ukraine, which is why I didn't include it in the list. It is plausible that that interference was a key factor in getting Trump into power in 2016, but by the time Putin was putting his invasion plans into effect, that had already been reversed by the 2020 US elections.

Although Trump is out of power he still exerts a lot of influence within the Republican party, which may get control of either or both houses of Congress next week. Probably the concensus on Ukraine will survive that, but it could be a different matter in 2024 if Trump or someone with similar attitudes and more competence ends up in the White House. Putin may be looking to freeze the conflict to re-build his forces before attacking again in spring 2025 when he might hope that the US will no longer support Ukraine. After all, we know that Trump was prepared to use that support as a bargaining chip for his own political gain.

In 2016 both Brexit and the election of Trump were advantageous to Russia, and probably facilitated by Russian interference. This could have given Putin confidence that the West was weak, contributing to his expectation that he could walk into Ukraine without facing serious consequences. Of course we don't have access to Putin's thoughts or even his actions in this respect, but it seems at least a plausible explanation.

 

[najaB]

That interference was atrocious. But I can't see that how it could have been a factor in emboldening Putin to invade Ukraine, which is why I didn't include it in the list.

Perhaps you missed the fact that the Trump administration blocked the export of arms to Ukraine for quite a while? There may have been an impeachment over it...

 

[317 forever]

What is it about keeping the £ pound that gets people excited? I would have thought the recent wild currency fluctuations would have been enough to show that not many outside of the U.K. hold our currency up as being anything special.

And to the young plus others who don’t mind paying electronically, money is fast becoming just a number. As just a number, it does not really matter when making a transaction what the currency is called, as long as you understand if you can afford the goods or services…

Personally, I don’t much care if we do move to using the Euro.

Suppose we had already joined the Euro. We would not have seen the Pound devalued against the Dollar following the mini budget. We might still have had Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng in charge of government and our finances.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2022 ==

There are far more variables involved. Some of the people that came to the U.K. from other parts of the E.U. would have eventually returned to their own countries anyway. And as the relative cost and standard of living changed between countries, that affects the number of people entering and leaving each country.

As I said before, the alleged “strain on infrastructure/society/etc.” is also not straightforward. The lack of investment and funding in this country and therefore the lack of capacity, let alone some spare/over capacity comes down to the austerity policies of the Conservative governments.

In my area, the biggest problem is a lack of qualified employees. The lack of G.P.s has resulted in doctors surgeries closing. It’s even resulted in A&E units closing either completely or between 22:00 and 08:00. If you need medical help, you now get a much longer journey. Just what you want when in pain or otherwise suffering

Companies have difficulty finding the employees they need. The previous changes to the way dentists are funded means it’s hard for people to find a NHS dentist that they can register with. Similarly, the poor funding of residential and care homes means patients stay far longer that they should in hospitals, causing bed blocking.

The list goes on. The point is, it’s government failures that are the primary cause of most of the problems in this country. Not people moving here who generally speaking want to find a better life and earn money by working, and hence contribute to the tax coffers of the treasury.

You know, the treasury that at the moment is trying to perform a Paul Daniels magic trick to fill the 40 billion black hole.

As if to add insult to injury, the government brag by proclaiming the lowest unemployment since 1974. Some vacancies resulting from EU nationals returning home or not moving here after all have been filled by born and bred British people - hence the lower unemployment figures - but nowhere near enough to prevent some staff shortages.

 

[REVUpminster]

Suppose we had already joined the Euro. We would not have seen the Pound devalued against the Dollar following the mini budget. We might still have had Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng in charge of government and our finances.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2022 ==


As if to add insult to injury, the government brag by proclaiming the lowest unemployment since 1974. Some vacancies resulting from EU nationals returning home or not moving here after all have been filled by born and bred British people - hence the lower unemployment figures - but nowhere near enough to prevent some staff shortages.

As the euro has parity with the dollar maybe we should join the dollar.

 

[AM9]

As the euro has parity with the dollar maybe we should join the dollar.

Ah!, the 51st state solution.

 

[reddragon]

So there is no justified reason to remove my FOM rights then.

The problem is that several million people mostly British lots significant rights that should have been probably protected by the Human Right legislation given that the alleged protections were not actually real.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2022 ==

The “disadvantages “ of FOM you are talking about , have they got better or worse since FOM ended ?

Of course not , since that the these issues were caused by the tories austerity and their mismanagement , and got no better but worse , since FOM ceased .

Also - I had no idea 25+ ago that I’d be benefitting from the FOM myself , so I was in the category of the people that were not benefiting from it .
Since then a lot changed , and FOM was one of the best thing that did happen to me .

So getting rid of OUR right to FOM is the one of stupidest ideas you could think of.

The very reason I have applied for am EU passport, to get around this folly!

 

[Luke McDonnell]

What do you think the chance of the UK re-joining the EU or at least the single market in the medium term - I used to think that it was very unlikely that we would rejoin the EU but looking at some of the more recent opinion polls on the matter it looks like Brexit has become increasingly unpopular which surprises me why some parties especially Labour don't see more capital in a least seeking to rejoin the Single Market? Do you think the reason for Labours timidity on this issue is that Starmer is scared about how this will go down in the northern Red Wall seats with the working class voters that voted for Brexit. For me I voted Remain but I have accepted the result to a degree but IMO any attempt to rejoin will require a referendum in which voters are better informed than the last one but do you think the Labour Party are more likely to move in that direction once they get into government especially if the polls show Brexit becoming increasingly unpopular - especially the hard form of Brexit? as re-joining SM/CU could help to solve many of the issues making Brexit unpopular.

 

[Gloster]

Because the Mail/Sun/Telegraph/Express and others will fill their papers with screaming headlines about ‘Traitor Starmer ignoring the will of the people’. (No mention of the will of the newspaper proprietors.) This will be used to deflect interest away from the chaos and incompetence in the Conservative Party, and from any attempt by Labour to put forward other policies.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What do you think the chance of the UK re-joining the EU or at least the single market in the medium term - I used to think that it was very unlikely that we would rejoin the EU but looking at some of the more recent opinion polls on the matter it looks like Brexit has become increasingly unpopular which surprises me why some parties especially Labour don't see more capital in a least seeking to rejoin the Single Market?

I'd say, the chances are close to zero.

1. Someone thinking that Brexit was a mistake and we shouldn't have left the EU in the first place is not the same thing as someone thinking that, even though we've already left, we should apply to re-join. I'm sure Starmer is well aware of that distinction.
2. The grass is always greener on the other side. Now that we're out of the EU, it's easy to forget the things that motivated people to want to leave. But if we re-joined, you can bet that those concerns would come back very quickly. Keir Starmer is pretty clever. I'd be surprised if he hasn't realised that too.

 

[Annetts key]

I think none of the main political parties want to even think about, let alone have discussions on brexit. It damaged and split these parties. Even the Liberal Democratic Party tries to avoid the subject.

Hence I don’t see anything other than “working more closely with other European countries” within our current arrangements until well past the first term of the next Labour government. That assumes that Labour actually gets in with a good majority. And they still may not want to touch it anyway for years.

If the Conservatives manage to win, I don’t see them wanting to change anything significantly, not while they are leaning towards the right and the more centre leaning are still being sidelined.

 

[reddragon]

What do you think the chance of the UK re-joining the EU or at least the single market in the medium term - I used to think that it was very unlikely that we would rejoin the EU but looking at some of the more recent opinion polls on the matter it looks like Brexit has become increasingly unpopular which surprises me why some parties especially Labour don't see more capital in a least seeking to rejoin the Single Market? Do you think the reason for Labours timidity on this issue is that Starmer is scared about how this will go down in the northern Red Wall seats with the working class voters that voted for Brexit. For me I voted Remain but I have accepted the result to a degree but IMO any attempt to rejoin will require a referendum in which voters are better informed than the last one but do you think the Labour Party are more likely to move in that direction once they get into government especially if the polls show Brexit becoming increasingly unpopular - especially the hard form of Brexit? as re-joining SM/CU could help to solve many of the issues making Brexit unpopular.

Running such a referendum with a majority of one to win was always going to be a bad idea as in such contentious issues & inability to change the consequences unlike a normal vote for an MP etc You also have to take into account that the most affected as in EU citizens in the UK & UK citizens in the EU were not allowed to vote. What happened to human rights bills here?

The UK can only survive by re-joining the single market, it's only a matter of time before the muppets who pushed for this get it or are got rid of.

As for Labour, I don't blame them for staying neutral on the matter and waiting until they need to share their opinion, I would do that for sure!

As it turns out there are no Brexit wins, just huge losses by following such a nationalistic & racist dogma. Does anyone still believe that any country still has full control of much at all in todays global world?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Starmer is as much a popular hungry figure as all of them. He won’t make any really big statements for fear of losing a vote.

 

[najaB]

Do you think the reason for Labours timidity on this issue is that Starmer is scared about how this will go down in the northern Red Wall seats with the working class voters that voted for Brexit.

Because they recognise that Brexit is still very divisive. It is likely to take the better part of a decade for enough sanity to return to UK politics to make re-joining the EU palatable to enough of the population for it have a realistic chance of happening.

Starmer is as much a popular hungry figure as all of them. He won’t make any really big statements for fear of losing a vote.

You need to have power to wield power.

 

[edwin_m]

Because they recognise that Brexit is still very divisive. It is likely to take the better part of a decade for enough sanity to return to UK politics to make re-joining the EU palatable to enough of the population for it have a realistic chance of happening.

Joining the EU takes much longer than one Parliament, so at best it would be a policy of working towards joining. The EU probably wouldn't entertain an application unless there was support from all the main UK parties including the Tories.