Brexit matters

[Falcon1200]

Nicola has lasted nearly 10 years now and doesn't appear to show any concrete signs of stepping down, has not had any major personal scandals, never acted morally questionable either,

She was Deputy Leader, appointed successor, friend and protege of Alex Salmond, yet knew nothing, at all, whatsoever, at any time, about his behaviour.

anyone would look at Scotland and say it's a worse state than anywhere else in the UK

Drug deaths.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact that I don't make use of a right is no justification for taking that right away from you.

Indeed it’s certainly not a justification in and of itself.

But I’m only trying to illustrate how much of a non-starter the “you can work anywhere!” argument is. Most people don’t care and you can’t expect them to. There are far better arguments to be made for the EU than that.

Consider it like the smoking ban. This eliminated people’s right to smoke in enclosed public spaces. It was a right forcibly taken away, by people who thought “well actually…I don’t smoke - I’ve never exercised my right to light up in a pub - and I can imagine the upsides of the results of removing that right”.

 

[duncanp]

She was Deputy Leader, appointed successor, friend and protege of Alex Salmond, yet knew nothing, at all, whatsoever, at any time, about his behaviour.



Drug deaths.

And her parents bought their council house, thus benefiting from a policy which she has subsequently denied to other Scots.

 

[davetheguard]

The UK had no influence on the EU.

Totally wrong! The UK had enormous influence in the EU. We were one of the big three. Many of the ideas that became EU policies -like the hugely beneficial single market- were British ideas.

 

[REVUpminster]

Totally wrong! The UK had enormous influence in the EU. We were one of the big three. Many of the ideas that became EU policies -like the hugely beneficial single market- were British ideas.

Very selective quoting.

 

[AM9]

Very selective quoting.

It was your very precise statement in a sentence all on its own.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Quite! the BBC is vehemently anti Independence and is at best lukewarm to the SNP and the Scottish media, in general, is the same.

(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.

This is what some people seem to struggle with. They think because they or relatively few used the FOM right, that it was an irrelevance, something disposable, not to be valued.

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

 

[davetheguard]

Very selective quoting.

No, just the truth. Britain did have enormous influence in the EU. Fact. Now we have virtually none. Fact.

But that's something the deluded are not always interested in hearing.

 

[Falcon1200]

Totally wrong! The UK had enormous influence in the EU.

Didn't David Cameron try to win concessions from the EU and was sent away with his tail between his legs?

Many of the ideas that became EU policies -like the hugely beneficial single market- were British ideas.

Which would suggest that the Remain camp (of which I was once one) did a very poor job in explaining the benefits of EU membership before the referendum.

 

[najaB]

Consider it like the smoking ban. This eliminated people’s right to smoke in enclosed public spaces. It was a right forcibly taken away, by people who thought “well actually…I don’t smoke - I’ve never exercised my right to light up in a pub - and I can imagine the upsides of the results of removing that right”.

And in which treaty, law or intergovernmental agreement was the "right to smoke in enclosed public spaces" codified?

 

[Berliner]

She got away with breaking her own covid restriction nonsense didn't she? I didn't hear any reports of the Scottish media ripping into her for it?

Are you referring to her being photogrpahed at a funeral wake breifly having her mask off or briefly removing her mask in the barber shop on the very last day of them being required? She was attacked for both of those in the media. As for "getting away with it" I'm not sure what the punishment actually was for not wearing a mask briefly in a setting where it was mandatory (unless you self exempted in which case you ddidn't need a reason or proof to do so). The matter of the barber shop, at least, was referred to police Scotland who decided not to pursue the case.

She was Deputy Leader, appointed successor, friend and protege of Alex Salmond, yet knew nothing, at all, whatsoever, at any time, about his behaviour.

She faced all the necessary enquiries and they found her reponses to be satisfactory. If you feel otherwise then so be it. It's also worth pointing out Salmond wasn't actually found guilty of anything.

Drug deaths.

Which the SNP have no control over. They want to do more yet they are powerless as the UK controls drugs policy and prevents them from being able to tackle it how they want to. Yes its a failing but if they are prevented from being able to tackle it the way they want to (as existing measures clearly don't work) due to external powers then what do you propose they do?

I'm not here to change anyones mind and nor will my opinion be changed. The SNP aren't without fault but would I rather them in charge than anything WM can offer? A million times yes.

 

[AlterEgo]

And in which treaty, law or intergovernmental agreement was the "right to smoke in enclosed public spaces" codified?

I don’t see why it’s relevant; British law is permissive about freedom, in as much as “that which is not banned is permitted”. I’m just refuting the principle that it’s never justified to remove someone’s rights if you don’t have any intention of using said right yourself. Removal of rights can sometimes come with benefits, as I have shown.

The point is to attack the idea that, actually, Brexit has very few benefits indeed and it simply didn’t turn out how many people envisaged. That’s where the argument is.

 

[davetheguard]

Didn't David Cameron try to win concessions from the EU and was sent away with his tail between his legs?

Which would suggest that the Remain camp (of which I was once one) did a very poor job in explaining the benefits of EU membership before the referendum.

Having influence doesn't mean you always get your way on everything. We already had a very good deal, and the EU was prepared to offer Cameron some further concessions.

I agree entirely with your second point!

 

[najaB]

I don’t see why it’s relevant; British law is permissive about freedom, in as much as “that which is not banned is permitted”. I’m just refuting the principle that it’s never justified to remove someone’s rights if you don’t have any intention of using said right yourself. Removal of rights can sometimes come with benefits, as I have shown.

The point is that Freedom of Movement was a codified right, there was no codified right to smoke in public spaces. It's an apples to orange-flavoured food substance comparison.

 

[AlterEgo]

The point is that Freedom of Movement was a codified right, there was no codified right to smoke in public spaces. It's an apples to orange-flavoured food substance comparison.

Why is that any different? I don’t see the difference. Both are a removal of rights. Whether a right is written down or not isn’t the issue and I can’t imagine you ever insisting they were different to one another, in any other context where someone’s rights were constricted or removed.

 

[DoubleLemon]

Why is that any different? I don’t see the difference. Both are a removal of rights. Whether a right is written down or not isn’t the issue.

Smoking in public caused health issues through secondary smoke. Freedom to work and live in the eu didn't cause health issues to anyone.

 

[AlterEgo]

Smoking in public caused health issues through secondary smoke. Freedom to work and live in the eu didn't cause health issues to anyone.

Well done! It’s almost like the key difference is whether the removal of the right is justified or not by the upsides or downsides that result, not the sheer principle of it.

 

[Annetts key]

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 problem of there being enough homes, adequate healthcare services etc. all existing well before any significant numbers of people moved here. And these problems still remain.

The above problems and the inadequate corresponding infrastructure are mostly to do with U.K. government policies over the years. Tell me, how many council houses or flats or other state owned houses or flats have been built over the last twenty years? How does that compare to the situation before the right to buy scheme?

In my area, the number of doctors continues to fall. Due to the lack of new doctors entering and staying in the profession. There are problems with residential care homes, causing bed blocking in hospitals. That’s all due to poor government.

Didn't David Cameron try to win concessions from the EU and was sent away with his tail between his legs?

But were the concessions reasonable? Were they compatible with the principles of the E.U.? Did he offer any concessions to the E.U.?

Which would suggest that the Remain camp (of which I was once one) did a very poor job in explaining the benefits of EU membership before the referendum.

Yes, the remain “campaign” was horrendously bad.

The point is to attack the idea that, actually, Brexit has very few benefits indeed and it simply didn’t turn out how many people envisaged. That’s where the argument is.

Yes, brexit in terms of trade and economics definitely has disadvantages.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

The same would be true of people facing influxes from other parts of their own country, and there would be no influx of either type unless employers were offering low-paid work.

To me the real problem is employers paying wages so low that the only people interested are immigrants who are prepared to accept very poor conditions because they are better than what they have in their countries of origin. If they live frugally enough they can also send money back, which goes much further in a country where living costs are lower. To me the way out of this problem is to create a higher-wage economy, in deed as well as word and not in the uncontrolled way Brexit did for a few occupations until inflation cancelled it out. That way workers (immigrant or native) would be paying taxes and could afford to have a better quality of life, rather than their employers being subsidised indirectly via benefits. If done in a sensible way and backed with a crackdown on rogue employers, this would address the perception of immigrants undercutting native workers and also help to address our productivity gap by encouraging companies to replace menial work with automation.

 

[Noddy]

Which the SNP have no control over. They want to do more yet they are powerless as the UK controls drugs policy and prevents them from being able to tackle it how they want to. Yes its a failing but if they are prevented from being able to tackle it the way they want to (as existing measures clearly don't work) due to external powers then what do you propose they do?

Policing is a devolved matter, and it was only last year that they effectively decriminalised possession of Class A drugs.

Class A drug possession effectively decriminalised in Scotland

Drug possession is to be effectively decriminalised in Scotland with those caught with Class A substances set to receive a police warning rather than face prose

www.thetimes.co.uk

Health, social care, education, legal system have all been devolved since day 1 of the Scottish parliament. So to say the Scottish Government has no control over drug policy is simply not true.If they wanted to they could have followed the successful Portuguese example from way back in 2001:

Under the 2001 laws, citizens found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs (no more than a 10-day supply of the given substance) were sent to a panel made up of a psychologist, a social worker, and a legal advisor, who would then devise an appropriate treatment plan. The citizen in question would be given the right to refuse to accept the decision of the panel without criminal punishment. Jail would not be part of the arrangement.

Source:https://deserthopetreatment.com/add...y-trends/other-countries-addiction-treatment/

But the Scottish Government did not do this.

 

[py_megapixel]

But the most annoying thing is that the Conservative government and their “friends” in the newspapers blamed everything on the E.U. especially when the vast majority of problems in this country are down to failures of our own government.

I agree. Although it was a long way from perfect, our position as a country in (say) 2015 wasn't anywhere near as awful as it is now, and the future looked reasonably stable and positive.

Brexit, to my mind, was always an exercise in "fixing what ain't broke". The idea was spearheaded by a mixture of ideologists who just wanted us out at whatever cost for very little rational purpose and - quite frankly - were in cloud cuckoo land if they genuinely thought the majority of the "benefits" they talked about would actually materialise, and politicians who used the EU as a convenient scapegoat to avoid having to admit failure. What the Remain campaign offered in return was the pragmatists' view - we have problems, and the EU isn't really causing them, so why don't we leave that as it is and focus on what the actual issues are? - which, in my opinion, makes much more sense.

So Brexit offered the glitzy promises - "over-promise" doesn't even come close to covering it - and Remain had in return pragmatism and stability. But the general public didn't realise just how important the latter was (as the song goes, "you don't know what you've got till its gone."), and they did an appalling job of communicating it.

Yes, there were definitely benefits from remaining in the EU compared to if we'd never joined in the first place, but actually the biggest benefit of remaining would have been not changing something that fundementally wasn't doing any harm and thus didn't need changing in the first place.

 

[Sm5]

Its all pointless now anyway, theres no going back.

No way will we get what we used to have, they will expect we get the same and no better than the other members, so goodbye £, join schengen, probably 3 years restrictions before full status which allows EU members to exploit new members interests etc… that’ll be true for Scotland too.

Bad as it was leaving, going back will be humiliating and even more loss of wealth, loss of sovereignty. It wont change businesses.. they relocated their EU HQs to Europe, us rejoining wont be any reason to move back.

We are the outcast who lives in the hills that no one ever talks about or gets invited to parties. That is our destiny, and the EU will forever point that out to other rowdy members at the back.

Someday its very possible we will wake up find our savings gone and currency withdrawals at the cash machine restricted, “New Pound” as a devalued replacement of old etc. Theres nothing good on the horizon to look forwards too.. no better than those mutineers on the Bounty.

 

[VauxhallandI]

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

You have attached me to a quote I didn’t make

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2022 ==

Are you referring to her being photogrpahed at a funeral wake breifly having her mask off or briefly removing her mask in the barber shop on the very last day of them being required? She was attacked for both of those in the media. As for "getting away with it" I'm not sure what the punishment actually was for not wearing a mask briefly in a setting where it was mandatory (unless you self exempted in which case you ddidn't need a reason or proof to do so). The matter of the barber shop, at least, was referred to police Scotland who decided not to pursue the case.


She faced all the necessary enquiries and they found her reponses to be satisfactory. If you feel otherwise then so be it. It's also worth pointing out Salmond wasn't actually found guilty of anything.


Which the SNP have no control over. They want to do more yet they are powerless as the UK controls drugs policy and prevents them from being able to tackle it how they want to. Yes its a failing but if they are prevented from being able to tackle it the way they want to (as existing measures clearly don't work) due to external powers then what do you propose they do?

I'm not here to change anyones mind and nor will my opinion be changed. The SNP aren't without fault but would I rather them in charge than anything WM can offer? A million times yes.

I am refer to both, people were fined for similar and they are her rules. By suggesting it was the last day of the rules how far back from the last day can we extrapolate that back, what if one were to do it one week before, one month before.

She’s a rat like the rest of them

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You have attached me to a quote I didn’t make

Oh sorry yeah. I just looked back - Seems something went wrong when I was quoting posts, so I misattributed @Berliner's quote to you

 

[VauxhallandI]

Oh sorry yeah. I just looked back - Seems something went wrong when I was quoting posts, so I misattributed @Berliner's quote to you

One less thing I’m wrong about on here

 

[JGurney]

I don’t see the difference. Both are a removal of rights.

There never was any general right to smoke in pubs, or anywhere else open to the public. The owner or tenant of the pub, not the customers, controlled that prior to the smoking ban. Most pub landlords did allow smoking in all or most of their premises, but that was their decision to allow it. If a landlord chose to have a non-smoking room, or a non-smoking pub if they wanted, members of the public had no right to demand to be able to smoke there.
Prior to the smoking ban, this point was made several times at a favourite pub of mine, the Tap in Whitby. The smallest of the three rooms was a non-smoking room. This seemed to infuriate some smokers, and every now and then one would deliberately come in and start smoking, then when challenged snarl "I've got a right to smoke". The landlord would then soon establish that in fact they had no right to be in his pub at all.

 

[class ep-09]

The UK had no influence on the EU. If Germany or France did not like any proposal then it doesn't get through. Did we have any influence on Germany getting cheap gas from Russia undercutting fellow members.

Utter rubbish that had nothing to do with reality .
Uk would not agree to any EU legislation if it was not beneficial to the UK .

Energy policies of each EU country are not the subject of EU competency ( that is changing though and will be replaced by common energy policy ).

Each EU country is ( was ) able to develop its own energy policy, and each EU country can / could buy energy / gas / oil from wherever they like for whatever the price they agree to pay .

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The same would be true of people facing influxes from other parts of their own country, and there would be no influx of either type unless employers were offering low-paid work.

That's true, but... so what? Effectively, you have two things (migration within the UK, and migration from outside the UK) both contributing to the same problem. You can't do much about migration within the UK, but that's no reason not to seek to alleviate the problem by fixing the contributing factor that you can fix.

As for employers offering low paid work: All other things being equal, employers will always offer work to the people who are willing to do the work and who demand the lowest (legal) wages. It's unreasonable to expect them to do anything else. (Analogy: You want to buy a computer. One shop will sell it to you for £500. Another shop will sell you an identical computer with identical service etc. conditions but charge £800. Virtually no-one will deliberately choose to go to the £800 shop. Why should it be any different for employers?).

To me the real problem is employers paying wages so low that the only people interested are immigrants who are prepared to accept very poor conditions because they are better than what they have in their countries of origin. If they live frugally enough they can also send money back, which goes much further in a country where living costs are lower. To me the way out of this problem is to create a higher-wage economy, in deed as well as word and not in the uncontrolled way Brexit did for a few occupations until inflation cancelled it out. That way workers (immigrant or native) would be paying taxes and could afford to have a better quality of life, rather than their employers being subsidised indirectly via benefits. If done in a sensible way and backed with a crackdown on rogue employers, this would address the perception of immigrants undercutting native workers and also help to address our productivity gap by encouraging companies to replace menial work with automation.

I don't think that would work with FOM. The problem is that, someone from a poorer country where wages are lower is always going to be willing to undercut UK workers (and to be clear, I don't hold anything against those people: They are simply trying to improve their lives as best they can). If you can create more higher paid jobs in the UK, then that makes the UK even more attractive - not less attractive - for people from poorer countries, and so will tend to increase the numbers of people who come to the UK, willing to work for less than a UK person might wish to work for.

 

[Annetts key]

There is no easy fix for the problems that edwin_m and DynamicSpirit are discussing. One day, we may find some solutions to these problems. However, restricting FOM also does not solve the problems.

As I’ve said before, if you remove the legal route, people will look for illegal methods. And in the meantime (which could potentially be many years) the U.K. businesses that can’t find enough employees will suffer. That hardly helps our economy. Especially if the result is that we lose trade to other countries.

Automation is not the whole answer either. Yes, it’s starting to make inroads in some areas of farming. But as we have found over the past thirty plus years, computers and the ‘robotics’ they control are still a long way from replacing a human in many, many areas. The idea of a general purpose affordable android (‘robot’) is still just a dream.

 

[edwin_m]

That's true, but... so what? Effectively, you have two things (migration within the UK, and migration from outside the UK) both contributing to the same problem. You can't do much about migration within the UK, but that's no reason not to seek to alleviate the problem by fixing the contributing factor that you can fix.

As for employers offering low paid work: All other things being equal, employers will always offer work to the people who are willing to do the work and who demand the lowest (legal) wages. It's unreasonable to expect them to do anything else. (Analogy: You want to buy a computer. One shop will sell it to you for £500. Another shop will sell you an identical computer with identical service etc. conditions but charge £800. Virtually no-one will deliberately choose to go to the £800 shop. Why should it be any different for employers?).



I don't think that would work with FOM. The problem is that, someone from a poorer country where wages are lower is always going to be willing to undercut UK workers (and to be clear, I don't hold anything against those people: They are simply trying to improve their lives as best they can). If you can create more higher paid jobs in the UK, then that makes the UK even more attractive - not less attractive - for people from poorer countries, and so will tend to increase the numbers of people who come to the UK, willing to work for less than a UK person might wish to work for.

There is no easy fix for the problems that edwin_m and DynamicSpirit are discussing. One day, we may find some solutions to these problems. However, restricting FOM also does not solve the problems.

As I’ve said before, if you remove the legal route, people will look for illegal methods. And in the meantime (which could potentially be many years) the U.K. businesses that can’t find enough employees will suffer. That hardly helps our economy. Especially if the result is that we lose trade to other countries.

Automation is not the whole answer either. Yes, it’s starting to make inroads in some areas of farming. But as we have found over the past thirty plus years, computers and the ‘robotics’ they control are still a long way from replacing a human in many, many areas. The idea of a general purpose affordable android (‘robot’) is still just a dream.

A progressive increase in the minimum wage above inflation goes a long way to addressing these issues, as well as some of the inequalities that governments blamed on the EU and immigration rather than on their own (in)actions. Osborne started doing this towards the end of his chancellorship, but too little too late. There might have to be some sort of exception for activities such as fruit-picking, just like the government still allows workers from overseas to come in for this.