Brexit matters

[AlterEgo]

As I've said, rather more than you. What are your qualifications?

Nobody cares, you are anonymous and your appeals to (claimed) authority are all you have because you keep posting things which seem quite obviously naive and which you are unable to substantiate when pressed further.

It doesn't matter what you, an anonymous internet poster, claim your qualifications are if you keep responding with stuff that wouldn't pass muster in the school dining hall. Despite being located in Leith, you seem under the impression Scotland's constitutional settlement with the United Kingdom is the same as Greenland's with Denmark. It very much isn't.

It's fairly obvious most of our problems are caused by external factors - and even some internal ones like our failure to deal with the 2008 financial crisis effectively - but as @najaB says, our ability to respond is hampered by Brexit. It is like trying to drive a car without power steering.

 

[Perthsaint]

Nobody cares, you are anonymous and your appeals to (claimed) authority are all you have because you keep posting things which seem quite obviously naive and which you are unable to substantiate when pressed further.

It doesn't matter what you, an anonymous internet poster, claim your qualifications are if you keep responding with stuff that wouldn't pass muster in the school dining hall. Despite being located in Leith, you seem under the impression Scotland's constitutional settlement with the United Kingdom is the same as Greenland's with Denmark. It very much isn't.

It's fairly obvious most of our problems are caused by external factors - and even some internal ones like our failure to deal with the 2008 financial crisis effectively - but as @najaB says, our ability to respond is hampered by Brexit. It is like trying to drive a car without power steering.

Greenland is one of three countries in the Kingdom of Denmark. Scotland is one of four countries in the United Kingdom. Hope that helps.

Brexit isn't like trying to drive a car without power steering. It's like riding a penny farthing while our competitors drive Ferraris. While passing a Ferrari dealership. Again, hope that helps.

 

[AlterEgo]

Greenland is one of three countries in the Kingdom of Denmark. Scotland is one of four countries in the United Kingdom. Hope that helps.

That’s not the same as having the same constitutional settlement though. Each of the four constituent parts of the UK has a unique and different constitutional position to the other, so it’s a facile and incorrect assertion.

 

[Annetts key]

It's fairly obvious most of our problems are caused by external factors - and even some internal ones like our failure to deal with the 2008 financial crisis effectively - but as @najaB says, our ability to respond is hampered by Brexit. It is like trying to drive a car without power steering.

I would say that brexit is more like trying to drive a car with one flat (as in deflated) tyre…

You can still drive some cars at reasonable speeds with non-operational power steering. With a flat tyre, although at first you can keep moving, very soon it badly affects the operation of the car.

On the subject of dividing parts of the U.K., who’s up for extending the River Tamar so that Cornwall no longer has a land border with Devon?

And are there any other examples of where natural geographic dividers could be used to demarcate parts of the U.K.(other than existing boundaries)?

 

[najaB]

Greenland is one of three countries in the Kingdom of Denmark. Scotland is one of four countries in the United Kingdom. Hope that helps.

Though, as noted previously, the relationship between the constituent countries and the Kingdom of Denmark is nothing like the relationship between the Home Nations and the United Kingdom. It really isn't.

You seem to have completely missed the point I made earlier - Greenland is constitutionally allowed to have its own, independent diplomatic representation to foreign countries, the home nations of the UK are not. That fact, by itself, demonstrates the massive difference.

I would say that brexit is more like trying to drive a car with one flat (as in deflated) tyre…

That's a pretty good description, though you forgot to mention that the tire is only flat because we ignored everyone's advice and drove a nail into it "because sovereignty".

 

[Perthsaint]

That’s not the same as having the same constitutional settlement though. Each of the four constituent parts of the UK has a unique and different constitutional position to the other, so it’s a facile and incorrect assertion.

Though, as noted previously, the relationship between the constituent countries and the Kingdom of Denmark is nothing like the relationship between the Home Nations and the United Kingdom. It really isn't.

You seem to have completely missed the point I made earlier - Greenland is constitutionally allowed to have its own, independent diplomatic representation to foreign countries, the home nations of the UK are not. That fact, by itself, demonstrates the massive difference.

And yet the fact remains that Greenland has a different constutional position vis-a-vis the EU compared to the other member countries of the Kingdom of Denmark, just as Northern Ireland has a different constutional position vis-a-vis the EU compared to the other member countries of the United Kingdom.

Those multi-country kingdoms, eh? What are they like?

 

[najaB]

...just as Northern Ireland has a different constutional position vis-a-vis the EU compared to the other member countries of the United Kingdom.

No, Northern Ireland does not have a different constitutional position with respect to the EU. No part of the UK is an EU member. Northern Ireland has a different customs relationship with the EU, due to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland - a treaty between the United Kingdom and EU.

 

[Doppelganger]

EU biometric entry system could multiply delays at Dover

Additional requirements would be time-consuming and threaten capacity, Dover port boss says

www.theguardian.com

Non EU passport holders are going have a lot of fun.

"EU biometric entry system could multiply delays at Dover

Additional requirements would be time-consuming and threaten capacity, Dover port boss says

Post-Brexit Channel border delays could multiply from next May, with a five-person vehicle being held for up to 10 minutes if the EU goes ahead with a planned biometric entry system, the Port of Dover has said.

The entry-exit system (EES), which is due to start in May 2023, will require all non-EU nationals to register their fingerprints and be photographed before entering the bloc.

Doug Bannister, the chief executive of the Port of Dover, Britain’s main point of entry to Europe, said the additional requirements were likely to add up to 10 minutes for a family of five in a vehicle on their first trip after EES is introduced, compared with about 45 to 90 seconds for border checks today.

Bannister said the EU’s proposed system, which will apply at all border crossings around the bloc, could be implemented relatively easily at airports, as passengers already queued individually for passport control and, in some countries, biometric checks. But he said so far the port had received “no technical detail – none, zero, zip – for a ferry terminal that processes carloads of passengers on a dark stormy night”.

As currently designed, the scheme will require initial biometric registration to be done at the border, under the supervision of EU border police. Bannister said this part of the process would be the most time-consuming, making the implementation of EES a “threat to national trade resilience, regional traffic management and local air quality”.

While discussions were continuing, Bannister said Dover did not have a current solution.

Port capacity relies on the swift throughput of traffic, and the cumulative border delays could lead to long tailbacks on motorways approaching Dover.

Logistics UK has previously warned of huge queues – or the need for new, costly mitigation measures – if lorry drivers are required to leave their cabs for the biometric checks.

There are hopes that the EU may delay the scheme, after postponing the introduction of the parallel European Travel Information and Authorisation System (Etias) from next May until November 2023. The system, similar to the Esta requirement in the US, will mean UK holidaymakers and other non-EU nationals will have to pay €7 for a three-year permit to enter.

Earlier this week, the chief executive of Eurostar told the Commons transport select committee in a letter that existing post-Brexit checks, including the stamping of UK passports, had reduced capacity at the border by 30%. Jacques Damas said problems were not abating and that for the cross-Channel train service, the “uncertainty … hangs over us”."

 

[Gloster]

Another Brexit bonus...if you are a member of the temperance movement. A Kent brewery that was called an export champion for the south-east by the Department of International Trade and appeared in a government video promoting the potential to boost sales has seen its exports of beer fall from £600,000 to £2,000. The reason is the increased customs checks and paperwork.

Source: The Grauniad.

 

[alex397]

Another Brexit bonus...if you are a member of the temperance movement. A Kent brewery that was called an export champion for the south-east by the Department of International Trade and appeared in a government video promoting the potential to boost sales has seen its exports of beer fall from £600,000 to £2,000. The reason is the increased customs checks and paperwork.

Source: The Grauniad.

This is The Old Dairy Brewery in Tenterden, situated right next door to the Kent & East Sussex Railway's station. Very sad to read about, as they do some great beers. I shopped at one of their stalls at the recent Canterbury Food & Drink Festival in late September. I speculate that we will lose lots more similar businesses until our backwards government finally sees sense and rejoins the Customs Union.

 

[Typhoon]

Those Brexit bonuses just keep on coming.

Revolut has blamed Brexit for forcing it to shift more than one million trading customers from London to Lithuania in order to market its products to European clients.

The fintech company will transfer all European Economic Area (EEA) customers from Revolut Trading Ltd, its UK-based subsidiary, to its Lithuanian business by the end of this year, according to accounts filed at Companies House.

The company did not disclose how many customers will be affected, but it is understood it will shift over one million accounts to its Lithuanian arm.

The fintech’s trading business, which allows customers to invest in shares and cryptocurrencies, has become a significant revenue stream for the company in recent years.

In the accounts, Revolut said: “Due to legislation introduced after the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, the company cannot currently offer marketing of its products to its EU based customers.

“As a result, the business plans to migrate these customers to Revolut’s European licenced trading entity towards the end of 2022.”

The accounts also reveal that the City watchdog has yet to grant Revolut a so-called Mifid licence, highlighting the regulatory hurdles it is continuing to face in the UK. The company obtained this licence for its Lithuanian business last year.

It comes as the $33bn (£29.5bn) company is still awaiting a decision on its UK banking licence application, which it applied for in January 2021 and is regarded as a key milestone in its development.

Story originated in - the Daily Telegraph! https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...sedgntp&cvid=8d8acddc0f2a4fcdb0ff077dc56e2505

 

[najaB]

Another one - Aer Lingus can no longer operate their Belfast/London service:

Aer Lingus is reportedly set to axe its long-standing Belfast-Heathrow shuttle at the end of the month, with Irish trade union Fórsa placing the blame squarely on Brexit.

Brexit Blamed By Union For Aer Lingus Belfast-London Route Cut

The Irish airline's air operator's certificate expires this month.

simpleflying.com

 

[WatcherZero]

The Torygraph saying we shouldnt have left the EU and 'Project Fear' was right.

Call it revenge of the Remainer Establishment, if you like. The revolution in the British economy promised by Leave campaigners six years ago finally seemed to go the way of all revolutionary movements this week: it ended up eating itself.

Downbeat predictions by the Treasury and others on the economic consequences of leaving the EU, contemptuously dismissed at the time by Brexit campaigners as "Project Fear", have been on a long fuse, but they have turned out to be overwhelmingly correct, and if anything have underestimated both the calamitous loss of international standing and the scale of the damage that six years of policy confusion and ineptitude has imposed on the country.

Project Fear was right all along

Six years of policy confusion and ineptitude has brought a calamitous loss of standing

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Cloud Strife]

Those Brexit bonuses just keep on coming.

In this one specific case, it's a good thing. Revolut are a disgusting company who treat people incredibly badly, and to get rid of their EEA operations is not a bad thing for the UK.

The lack of licence in the UK shouldn't be seen as a bureaucratic issue, but rather a potential governance issue. Lithuania cannot hope to cover Revolut in the event of failure, and a little-known fact about the European deposit guarantee schemes is that they are only guaranteed by national governments. I checked about 2-3 years ago about how many money Lithuania's Central Bank had to hand, and it was around 20bn EUR.

It's one business that I really wouldn't cry about.

 

[najaB]

In this one specific case, it's a good thing. Revolut are a disgusting company who treat people incredibly badly, and to get rid of their EEA operations is not a bad thing for the UK.

Can you provide a succinct explanation of that - I have several friends who use Revolut, some as their primary/only bank account. Is this something I should be warning them about?

 

[Gloster]

Can you provide a succinct explanation of that - I have several friends who use Revolut, some as their primary/only bank account. Is this something I should be warning them about?

You can start with Wikipedia. I had to look up what Revolting were as I had never heard of them.

 

[najaB]

You can start with Wikipedia. I had to look up what Revolting were as I had never heard of them.

There's nothing in the Wikipedia article that is anything worse or more extreme than I've seen with other fintech companies. The business practices towards employees (eg. the "voluntary" salary sacrifice rather than redundancies) is something that wouldn't be out of place in many organisations (though usually those based in the USA).

 

[zero]

Can you provide a succinct explanation of that - I have several friends who use Revolut, some as their primary/only bank account. Is this something I should be warning them about?

Revolut isn't a bank in the UK, so while its account functions like a UK bank account it is actually only an e-money account.

This means client funds are not protected by the FSCS, but also that they cannot be lent out. So any money you hold with Revolut is meant to be held in full, in ring-fenced accounts at Revolut's banks - I believe they use Lloyds and Barclays. If Revolut goes bust, your money should still be in those accounts and can't be used to pay Revolut's debts.

In practice, the FSCS seems to pay out very quickly when a bank collapses, but getting your money back from a failed Revolut may be more complicated.

Revolut Bank UAB is a bank in Lithuania which functions across the EEA. Money in accounts held by EEA residents is protected by the Lithuanian deposit guarantee scheme. What was being alluded to is that the Lithuanian government/central bank would be unable to bail out Revolut should its Lithuanian subsidiary fail. (I have not verified this for myself.)

Regarding the issues from the Wikipedia article, their employment practices are not really relevant to the operation of accounts, but the issues with overzealous KYC and account suspension are. Not to say that proper UK banks don't also freeze accounts but anecdotally I hear it happens a lot more frequently with Revolut; Revolut can take months to respond and there is no way of contacting them other than the app chat, unlike banks with physical branches (not that that is really useful since the branch staff don't really have any special way to speed up a fraud / money laundering investigation).

My own Revolut was frozen when I tried to pay my water bill of £20, they didn't believe my water company was a real company (well it isn't really, it's a shambles but that's a separate issue). Inexplicably, Revolut wanted to know the name of the CEO before unfreezing my account, which I obtained by searching Google.

Anyway, everybody should hold bank accounts with at least two different banking groups, and keep enough money in each one to wait out an account freeze at the other (provided you actually have savings - I know many people don't). Revolut does have uses particularly the multi-currency functions and occasionally the retailer offers. There's nothing wrong with using it as your main transactional account as long as you have backups. I keep as little £ in there as possible, but sometimes I have 3 figures of euros there which will stay until my next trip to the Eurozone.

 

[najaB]

@zero Thanks for that.

 

[adrock1976]

Another thought regarding the present mess of Brexit is that the Leave campaign focused on immigration as one of their aspects.

My own thoughts are that it is not necessarily an immigration problem we have, but a racism problem.

For example, below is a list of some unsavoury events (it is not exhaustive):

1) The present points system used in Australia (mentioned many pages back) according to an academic study done circa 2010-12 (this appeared in the Metro rag) found that it was a racist policy as it discriminated against and did nothing for the indigenous population - the Aborigines (who were displaced and had land consficated when we invaded, took over, and carved up areas by drawing straight lines on the map.

2) The New Cross fire in which there were several fatalities of black people. Nobody has been sent to jail today, even though there were two white new Nazis that were seen nearby.

3) The passing of Dorothy Croce in Brixton in 1985, who was suffering from cardiac problems when the Met cops burst into her home without warning. This was the catalyst for the riots that started soon after.

4) The murder of Stephen Lawrence which resulted in a damning report branding the Met as having "institutionalised racism" in its ranks.

5) The beating up of the lawyer Aamer Anwar in Ashton Lane, Glasgow by two white cops from the former Strathclyde Police because he is of Asian descent. The beating was so severe that Anwar had to spend time in hospital recovering from the beating.

6) Cecil Rhodes who was involved in the diamond trade and slavery in Africa, where the locals hardly saw a penny of the proceeds. (part of South Africa where we invaded and took over, and established white rule).

7) The wearing of Nazi Swastika armbands by Steve Severin and Siouxsie Sioux of Siouxsie and the Banshees. They have never given a satisfactory explanation, other than "everyone else was doing it at the time" in regards shocking the government.

8) Eric Clapton's racist rant and diatribe when he "performed" at a show in Birmingham in the mid 1970s, where he used both the "c" and "w" words (rhymes with moon and dog respectively) to describe black people, and stated that he "did not want them to just leave the building, but to leave the country". This (combined with David Bowie's recent comments at the time) is what led to the Rock Against Racism movement.

9) Andrew Brons and/or Nick Griffin from the BNP stated that Theo Walcott should not be playing for England as he is not pure white.

10) The Crown Jewels that will be used for the coronation of Charlie next year were robbed from India, when we invaded and took over. Elected representatives in India, Pakistan, maybe Bangladesh still have to pledge allegiance to the British monarch, even though they are also head of a non native religion (Church of England).

Again, the above is not exhaustive.

I admit that I am of the view that it is not an immigration problem we have, but rather concerningly a racism problem.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Another thought regarding the present mess of Brexit is that the Leave campaign focused on immigration as one of their aspects.

My own thoughts are that it is not necessarily an immigration problem we have, but a racism problem.

For example, below is a list of some unsavoury events (it is not exhaustive):

1) The present points system used in Australia (mentioned many pages back) according to an academic study done circa 2010-12 (this appeared in the Metro rag) found that it was a racist policy as it discriminated against and did nothing for the indigenous population - the Aborigines (who were displaced and had land consficated when we invaded, took over, and carved up areas by drawing straight lines on the map.

2) The New Cross fire in which there were several fatalities of black people. Nobody has been sent to jail today, even though there were two white new Nazis that were seen nearby.

3) The passing of Dorothy Croce in Brixton in 1985, who was suffering from cardiac problems when the Met cops burst into her home without warning. This was the catalyst for the riots that started soon after.

4) The murder of Stephen Lawrence which resulted in a damning report branding the Met as having "institutionalised racism" in its ranks.

5) The beating up of the lawyer Aamer Anwar in Ashton Lane, Glasgow by two white cops from the former Strathclyde Police because he is of Asian descent. The beating was so severe that Anwar had to spend time in hospital recovering from the beating.

6) Cecil Rhodes who was involved in the diamond trade and slavery in Africa, where the locals hardly saw a penny of the proceeds. (part of South Africa where we invaded and took over, and established white rule).

7) The wearing of Nazi Swastika armbands by Steve Severin and Siouxsie Sioux of Siouxsie and the Banshees. They have never given a satisfactory explanation, other than "everyone else was doing it at the time" in regards shocking the government.

8) Eric Clapton's racist rant and diatribe when he "performed" at a show in Birmingham in the mid 1970s, where he used both the "c" and "w" words (rhymes with moon and dog respectively) to describe black people, and stated that he "did not want them to just leave the building, but to leave the country". This (combined with David Bowie's recent comments at the time) is what led to the Rock Against Racism movement.

9) Andrew Brons and/or Nick Griffin from the BNP stated that Theo Walcott should not be playing for England as he is not pure white.

10) The Crown Jewels that will be used for the coronation of Charlie next year were robbed from India, when we invaded and took over. Elected representatives in India, Pakistan, maybe Bangladesh still have to pledge allegiance to the British monarch, even though they are also head of a non native religion (Church of England).

Again, the above is not exhaustive.

I admit that I am of the view that it is not an immigration problem we have, but rather concerningly a racism problem.

Almost every example in your list is from 20+ years ago. Most are from 40+ years ago, and one of them isn't even related to the UK.

If I wanted to convince people that - to take a hypothetical example - pollution in the UK is today at appalling levels, then citing examples of pollution from 40+ years ago plus an example of pollution in Australia is probably not going to convince many people (even if those pollution examples were genuinely awful).

 

[GS250]

Another thought regarding the present mess of Brexit is that the Leave campaign focused on immigration as one of their aspects.

My own thoughts are that it is not necessarily an immigration problem we have, but a racism problem.

For example, below is a list of some unsavoury events (it is not exhaustive):

1) The present points system used in Australia (mentioned many pages back) according to an academic study done circa 2010-12 (this appeared in the Metro rag) found that it was a racist policy as it discriminated against and did nothing for the indigenous population - the Aborigines (who were displaced and had land consficated when we invaded, took over, and carved up areas by drawing straight lines on the map.

2) The New Cross fire in which there were several fatalities of black people. Nobody has been sent to jail today, even though there were two white new Nazis that were seen nearby.

3) The passing of Dorothy Croce in Brixton in 1985, who was suffering from cardiac problems when the Met cops burst into her home without warning. This was the catalyst for the riots that started soon after.

4) The murder of Stephen Lawrence which resulted in a damning report branding the Met as having "institutionalised racism" in its ranks.

5) The beating up of the lawyer Aamer Anwar in Ashton Lane, Glasgow by two white cops from the former Strathclyde Police because he is of Asian descent. The beating was so severe that Anwar had to spend time in hospital recovering from the beating.

6) Cecil Rhodes who was involved in the diamond trade and slavery in Africa, where the locals hardly saw a penny of the proceeds. (part of South Africa where we invaded and took over, and established white rule).

7) The wearing of Nazi Swastika armbands by Steve Severin and Siouxsie Sioux of Siouxsie and the Banshees. They have never given a satisfactory explanation, other than "everyone else was doing it at the time" in regards shocking the government.

8) Eric Clapton's racist rant and diatribe when he "performed" at a show in Birmingham in the mid 1970s, where he used both the "c" and "w" words (rhymes with moon and dog respectively) to describe black people, and stated that he "did not want them to just leave the building, but to leave the country". This (combined with David Bowie's recent comments at the time) is what led to the Rock Against Racism movement.

9) Andrew Brons and/or Nick Griffin from the BNP stated that Theo Walcott should not be playing for England as he is not pure white.

10) The Crown Jewels that will be used for the coronation of Charlie next year were robbed from India, when we invaded and took over. Elected representatives in India, Pakistan, maybe Bangladesh still have to pledge allegiance to the British monarch, even though they are also head of a non native religion (Church of England).

Again, the above is not exhaustive.

I admit that I am of the view that it is not an immigration problem we have, but rather concerningly a racism problem.

Yet...the vast majority of immigration issues that led to the brexit vote were based upon the arrival of very white, Christian and generally conservative minded people.

The examples you've listed above may be factually correct. However to suggest a country of over 60 million people has a 'racism problem' because an extreme minority of its population has acted in a racist manner is absurd.

Sadly comments like that simply cause divide and feed into the media frenzy that is clearly trying to divide us.

I actually grew up and socialise with different races. When the subject comes up, most are happy to say they sense pockets of racism are present, but a big attraction of living in the UK is it's general tolerance for different communities.

 

[reddragon]

It is said that all racist people voted Brexit but not all who voted Brexit were racist.

Not a good ad for Brexit!

 

[GS250]

It is said that all racist people voted Brexit but not all who voted Brexit were racist.

Not a good ad for Brexit!

So engaging with the rest of the (mainly non white) World as opposed to a relatively small, predominantly white political union is 'racist'?

I'm getting all a bit confused by this!

 

[najaB]

So engaging with the rest of the (mainly non white) World as opposed to a relatively small, predominantly white political union is 'racist'?

That's not what is being said.

The majority of racists supported Brexit because they are opposed to *any* inward migration.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is said that all racist people voted Brexit but not all who voted Brexit were racist.

Yes, it's probably true that anyone who is strongly racist would have been likely to vote for Brexit.

But - so what? I would equally imagine that anyone who doesn't want the UK to exist as a nation, but wants instead the UK to be subsumed into a European super-state would have voted Remain. But that of course tells you nothing about the vast majority of people who voted Remain, who would have simply believed for various reasons that it was better for the UK to remain in the EU.

The real point there is that you can take pretty much any policy proposal, and you'll find a few people who have strange/extremist/weird/whatever views who happen to support that proposal. Usually that tells you very little about the merits of that policy. The statement 'all racist people voted Brexit' is a perfect example of that. I'm not sure why Remainer supporters keep repeating it as if it had any significance.

 

[najaB]

Yes, it's probably true that anyone who is strongly racist would have been likely to vote for Brexit.

But - so what?

So that. It is a statement that stands on its own merit.

It's an response to those who say that Brexit support was driven mainly/entirely by racism: Racists supported Brexit but most people who supported Brexit are not racist.

 

[Annetts key]

Some of the big problems with brexit are:

• the perception of who has or does not have control, in many areas of ‘government’,
• (partial) isolation from the nearest countries that we trade with, and travel to/from.

Despite what people think, the U.K. government does not have, and has never had (since we ‘lost’ the empire) as much control as it likes to make out. As demonstrated very recently where the Liz Truss government found out that a government can’t do what it likes and ignore the consequences…

Irregular migration certainly has increased significantly compared to 2018 (link to source), demonstrating that we are hopeless at trying to defend ‘our borders’ (not a shock, we’ve never been able to defend the islands of the U.K. from individuals using boats).

Which is worse, irregular migration or the arrangements when we were part of the E.U.?

It could in fact be argued, that as an important member of the E.U., before we left, we, as the U.K. actually had more power then, compared to now.

There are many reasons why people voted they way they did for the brexit referendum. Certainly some people used it as a protest vote. Personally I don’t think we gain anything by going over it again.

And while we have a conservative government (however long that is for is anyones guess at the moment), things with regards to the E.U. are not likely to change significantly.

I do think, that a future government will however move away from the hard brexit isolationist stance and find ways of moving closer to the E.U. at least in trade, even if not in other areas.

World wide, the long term trend for more ‘level’ trading arrangements are likely to continue (apart from countries that are isolationist or are subject to sanctions). Unless someone starts another trade war…

 

[Enthusiast]

Which is worse, irregular migration or the arrangements when we were part of the E.U.?

Are you suggesting it's one or the other?

The recent influx of people in rubber boats has nothing to do with Brexit. It would have occurred with or without it as the UK is in no way disadvantaged by Brexit when it comes to preventing "irregular" migration. It simply does not have the political will to prevent it - on the contrary it is allowing maritime agencies to actively facilitate it and that would be the case, Brexit or not.

The issue with the "arrangements" that existed when we were an EU member is that some 450 million people had the inalienable right to settle here. This was a profoundly disturbing state of affairs for many people. I accept that some people voted to leave believing it would see an end to the irregular migration. Of course if they had thought it through, they would have realised it never would. Equally many voted to remain believing it would maintain the status quo. They, too, were wrong because if they had thought it through (by comparing the EU now with its earlier incarnations, even as recently as just 20 years ago) they would have realised that the EU does not do the status quo.

 

[class ep-09]

Are you suggesting it's one or the other?

The recent influx of people in rubber boats has nothing to do with Brexit. It would have occurred with or without it as the UK is in no way disadvantaged by Brexit when it comes to preventing "irregular" migration. It simply does not have the political will to prevent it - on the contrary it is allowing maritime agencies to actively facilitate it and that would be the case, Brexit or not.

The issue with the "arrangements" that existed when we were an EU member is that some 450 million people had the inalienable right to settle here. This was a profoundly disturbing state of affairs for many people. I accept that some people voted to leave believing it would see an end to the irregular migration. Of course if they had thought it through, they would have realised it never would. Equally many voted to remain believing it would maintain the status quo. They, too, were wrong because if they had thought it through (by comparing the EU now with its earlier incarnations, even as recently as just 20 years ago) they would have realised that the EU does not do the status quo.

All EU countries have the “dilemma” of 450mil people being “allowed “ to move to their countries .
Many of them being much more attractive places to live and work than UK .
Yet 95%+ people of the EU prefer to stay , where they were born , which means that the worries about “uncontrolled “ immigration are pile of BS.