Brexit matters

[alex397]

Why are we the "soft-touch", self-building our own funeral pyre?
.

I’d hardly describe the UK as a ‘soft-touch’. In some ways we are more generous than average OECD or EU countries, but in other ways we are certainly not.

 

[GS250]

No, leaving the EU has not caused immigration to rise. Immigration has risen for reasons entirely unrelated to Brexit. It looks like the biggest drivers of that have been an increase in the numbers of foreign students choosing to study in the UK, plus the one-off circumstances of our giving residency rights to people from Hong Kong (170 000 according to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63743259) and taking in refugees from Ukraine (76 000) There have also been a massive 73 000 illegally crossing the Channel in small boats. All of that would almost certainly have happened even if we'd still been in the EU.

On the other hand, EU migration has become net negative (more people leaving the UK than arriving), and that is almost certainly because of Brexit.

Net migration levels are extremely high, which to my mind is a little worrying from the point of view of infrastructure and finding enough places for everyone to live etc., but on any sensible analysis, it would have been even higher if it wasn't for Brexit.

The 'new wealth' in parts of Asia responsible for a high number of foreign students coming to the UK to study. Universities like foreign students, the vast majority are here to put some serious work in and leave with a better than average pass. British University is seen as an immense privilege for most foreign students and not a right like it is a lot of our own.

I think whether we like it or not, Asia is going to be the dominant force to come. It may mean a change to the culture in the UK to reflect their standards and attitudes if we want to compete. Ie the good old days are probably over.

 

[The Ham]

Something that's worth highlighting within the recent stats for immigration is the high number of students, they will be paying a lot more than British students for the same course. Then on top of that they will be bringing in money from other countries and spending it in our economy.

Whilst they may then leave the UK for work, they certainly aren't a drain on our government.

If they stay, there's a good chance that they'll be in a high paid job, potentially paying more than the average amount of tax.

Either way, they are likely to be very helpful in terms of spending in our economy (even the course fees end up in the economy through staff pay).

Having said the above, there's now various newspapers reporting (in some cases just that a Tory had said it) that we should reduce the number of students coming to study here.

 

[E27007]

Having said the above, there's now various newspapers reporting (in some cases just that a Tory had said it) that we should reduce the number of students coming to study here.

It is reported in the newspapers today that restrictions may be applied, only the top universities and institutions will be able to accept international students.
In the past , there were stories of no less than 13 British universities facing bankruptcy and possible closure.

 

[Dent]

Having said the above, there's now various newspapers reporting (in some cases just that a Tory had said it) that we should reduce the number of students coming to study here.

Why should we do that? International student contribute substantially to the economy, both through their tuition fees and through their living expenses, and they also become a pool of graduates from which to recruit future skilled workers.

 

[najaB]

Why should we do that?

Because they're brown and eat funny food of course.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because they're brown and eat funny food of course.

Are you trying to suggest that Rishi Sunak (of all people) is racist against Asians?

 

[dosxuk]

Why should we do that? International student contribute substantially to the economy, both through their tuition fees and through their living expenses, and they also become a pool of graduates from which to recruit future skilled workers.

Because immigration is bad, regardless of the reason why people are coming here, everyone knows that! There are absolutely no upsides whatsoever for people coming to this country and giving us their money and leaving again once they've got a piece of paper in their hands.

 

[najaB]

Are you trying to suggest that Rishi Sunak (of all people) is racist against Asians?

Rishi is neither the right-wing press nor the Conservative party.

 

[nw1]

Labour is, of course, having to navigate a fine line.
This morning Keir Starmer said

I find that insults my intelligence. I don't believe that Keir Starmer believes what he's saying, I don't believe what he's saying, but he's saying it to buy the votes of the "Blue Wall" voters who defected to Boris Johnson in 2019, which politically is something he has to do.
Jonathan Portes (https://twitter.com/jdportes) went on to say

and that's my feeling too.
What it comes down to is that our politicians need to lie to us and say things which they themselves don't believe to be true in order to win elections.

The real question though is, are there enough "true believer" Hard Brexit fundamentalists left to make saying such things politically worthwhile? Or will he put more people off than he will attract by trotting out this stuff than by saying the opposite (i.e. we will seek to rejoin the single market)?

I suppose though, at the end of the day, those of us who are remainers (or "single-market-rejoiners" is probably a better phrase, now) will probably vote Labour over the Tories anyway - so this sort of nonsense will probably not put us off.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The real question though is, are there enough "true believer" Hard Brexit fundamentalists left to make saying such things politically worthwhile? Or will he put more people off than he will attract by trotting out this stuff than by saying the opposite (i.e. we will seek to rejoin the single market)?

It would be politically foolish to pick open the scabs of Brexit. The only sensible way forward to accept Brexit as settled and argue for making it work.

Starmer's comments have clearly been targeted at poorer constituencies where decent jobs are scarce. It should be an aim for any government to have employers paying local people well, rather than importing cheap labour from elsewhere.

Abolishing the House of Lords is long overdue from Tony Blair's botched incomplete attempt. However it's not something that's going to motivate voters and will annoy them when it gets bogged down in "trivial" complications as it's bound to.

Agreed, although the Tories have managed to put plenty of political energy into it by appointing Lebedev and Mone to the Lords, with inevitable results.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Dec 2022 ==

I don't believe the "devolution" story. They all do it when they're in opposition, but when they gain power they don't want to relinquish any of it.

I'm not so sure I agree with your cynicism here, as Labour did provide significant powers to Scotland and Wales.

But I agree devolution can end up being a conduit for pork-barrel politics, as we've seen with Ben Houchen. The information in Private Eye about Houchen doesn't yet seem to have gained mainstream traction, but it will be interesting if it does.

 

[Parjon]

It would be politically foolish to pick open the scabs of Brexit. The only sensible way forward to accept Brexit as settled and argue for making it work.

Pitching their devolution plans as addressing the "reasons for Brexit" suggests to me it's still regarded as an aberration by them.

Not only that, but that they are as posh and clueless as ever as to the actually quite simple issues that got people voting to leave. If Labour were truly the party of working people, as opposed to that of the intelligentsia, they'd be in office already.

If they get to put their (already hijacked by vested interests) devolution plans into place, it will only be because the Tories have alienated just about everyone. Including each other!

 

[nw1]

It would be politically foolish to pick open the scabs of Brexit. The only sensible way forward to accept Brexit as settled and argue for making it work.

I don't think it's a good idea to reject re-joining the single market. Maybe Starmer should argue as to why being in the single market makes economic sense, rather than rejecting the possibility outright.

Having said all of that I will still vote for a Labour government. Because they are significantly less bad than the Tories and have a better attitude to other things I am passionate about, such as workers' rights and (no) austerity. But I would like to see those of us who want a closer relationship with continental countries to not be ignored and told our views don't count.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not only that, but that they are as posh and clueless as ever as to the actually quite simple issues that got people voting to leave

I wouldn't agree.

The reasons for people voting Leave are varied, but a lack of local investment and poor quality local jobs are the main reasons. I think it's a fair argument that Westminster can't be the way of fixing local issues, because if it was then the problems would be fixed.

But equally devolution is easily shot down by "we don't need more politicians", as we saw with the North East referendum in the early 2000s.

If Labour were truly the party of working people, as opposed to that of the intelligentsia, they'd be in office already.

Who are "working people" though?

Labour are still very strong in cities and urban areas, where most people now live and work. Labour aren't strong in smaller towns which are suffering from the decline of traditional industry and the lack of proper replacements for these lost jobs. If anything, the problem in places like Blyth and Bishop Auckland is simple: the people there aren't working.

I find it fascinating how a leader who worked his way up from very little to be a senior lawyer is dismissed as "the intelligentsia", yet a leader who was expensively educated at Winchester (and was Head Boy there) isn't.

Starmer should be what people aspire towards: start with very little, hard work in a successful state school, first one in the family to university, goes on to be a senior lawyer.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Dec 2022 ==

I don't think it's a good idea to reject re-joining the single market. Maybe Starmer should argue as to why being in the single market makes economic sense, rather than rejecting the possibility.

I think any attempt to argue anything else is simply re-opening the scabs of Brexit.

I don't disagree with you- Brexit is the stupidest collective decision a country has ever made- but picking at the scab isn't going to change that.

 

[The Ham]

Given that there's apparently a reasonable level of support for closer alignment in some form, there could be benefit from suggesting that the current hard form of Brexit may not be the best for the country and that they will consult on if there is a slightly softer form which could gain significant support from the country.

With any change being put to a referendum, at least after the following election, where 66.67% of the votes have to agree to the change. Which gives two levels of defence against it if it's felt that it's being pushed by the establishment (either vote Labour out or ensure no more than 66% of people vote for the change).

In doing so those who want things to stay as they are will be assured that they are likely to keep that, however allowing Labour to appear to be willing to change if there is a clear democratic vote in favour of doing so.

I suspect that some change would be likely, probably a slightly closer alignment for easier movements of goods. Whilst fully rejoining may have a good level of support in the polls currently, I doubt that it would get to the threshold needed as it would likely require the free movement of people which many appeared to want to do away with.

Yes there'll be some very vocal groups opposed to even the suggestion of a softer position, however with the current position being the thing which stays unless there's a 66.67% vote in favour of something else. Such an argument would appear to imply that only a small minority want it and so isn't the will of the people. Which could be self defeating if pushed too hard by those wishing things to stay as they are.

Even so, such a policy would be a hard sell.

However if the likes of the Lib Dems, SNP and others who want closer alignment with the EU than the current situation do very well (especially if it results in Labour needing some support from another party to be sure that they couldn't be voted down - even if the Tories are smaller, say at 220 seats but with Labour just sort, say, at 320 seats) then it could be something which is an easier sell for the following general election.

Depending on how things are going in Ukraine having the ability to work together with the EU (however that looks, and it's likely to be that we're still outside it) maybe a good thing for many people.

Obviously there would have to be discussions with the EU as to what is possible (for instance they're unlikely to allow us to rejoin on the same terms as we left on, but they maybe happy for us to gain access to the market on a Canada type agreement - although probably with some differences).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The real question though is, are there enough "true believer" Hard Brexit fundamentalists left to make saying such things politically worthwhile? Or will he put more people off than he will attract by trotting out this stuff than by saying the opposite (i.e. we will seek to rejoin the single market)?

I suppose though, at the end of the day, those of us who are remainers (or "single-market-rejoiners" is probably a better phrase, now) will probably vote Labour over the Tories anyway - so this sort of nonsense will probably not put us off.

Riiiight.... So people who don't wish to rejoin the single market are 'true believer" Hard Brexit fundamentalists, but people who want to go through all the hassle and instability of making yet another change in the UK's trading status by rejoining (with all the implications for having to accept freedom of movement and the accompanying inability to have any control of immigration levels) are simply "single-market-rejoiners" with no 'fundamentalist' or other insulting description? Yes?

 

[GS250]

Riiiight.... So people who don't wish to rejoin the single market are 'true believer" Hard Brexit fundamentalists, but people who want to go through all the hassle and instability of making yet another change in the UK's trading status by rejoining (with all the implications for having to accept freedom of movement and the accompanying inability to have any control of immigration levels) are simply "single-market-rejoiners" with no 'fundamentalist' or other insulting description? Yes?

I'd still argue that it was our membership of the single market that was a big driver behind the brexit vote. Effectively submitting to potentially unlimited immigration from the EU. This worked well for some countries but not others. However and I've said it before, the EU did warn the UK Government regarding not restricting numbers from the East. Yet we chose to ignore these warnings.

When even the likes of Starmer are hinting that we need to start relying on a home grown employment model, you know things have got bad.

 

[Parjon]

Riiiight.... So people who don't wish to rejoin the single market are 'true believer" Hard Brexit fundamentalists, but people who want to go through all the hassle and instability of making yet another change in the UK's trading status by rejoining (with all the implications for having to accept freedom of movement and the accompanying inability to have any control of immigration levels) are simply "single-market-rejoiners" with no 'fundamentalist' or other insulting description? Yes?

Indeed. And as far as I'm aware, the ballot box choice was Leave or Remain. "Hard" or "soft", "Leave-ish but not really" didn't come into it. Everyone who voted Leave voted for a "hard" exit by its very definition.

It's hard to believe after all this time autocratic Remainiacs are still trying it on, pushing their niche views as fact and claiming "reasonable support" when in fact it merely means themselves. They're typically in the soft jobs, media, law, government, that enables them to do this. Nothing more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Dec 2022 ==

I wouldn't agree.

The reasons for people voting Leave are varied, but a lack of local investment and poor quality local jobs are the main reasons.

Source? No one I know has ever said that. I suspect I know more people who voted Leave than you do!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Source? No one I know has ever said that. I suspect I know more people who voted Leave than you do!

I suspect you don't.

The fundamental motivation comes down to economics: no investment in these towns, and poorly paid work. The EU was a convenient scapegoat, both for left-wing Brexitists like the RMT and for right-wing Brexitists.

And anti-migrant sentiment is largely economic too: "coming over here, stealing our jobs" is only ever really a problem for people who don't have good jobs.

It's hard to believe after all this time autocratic Remainiacs are still trying it on, pushing their niche views as fact and claiming "reasonable support" when in fact it merely means themselves.

Of course Remain does and did have "reasonable support". There was 2% in it, a fact often conveniently overlooked by those of a more Brexity persuasion. The 48% who thought Brexit was a bad idea haven't suddenly disappeared.

This is why I think poking at the Brexit scab is such a bad idea politically though.

 

[GS250]

I suspect you don't.

The fundamental motivation comes down to economics: no investment in these towns, and poorly paid work. The EU was a convenient scapegoat, both for left-wing Brexitists like the RMT and for right-wing Brexitists.

And anti-migrant sentiment is largely economic too: "coming over here, stealing our jobs" is only ever really a problem for people who don't have good jobs.

There's only so many 'good jobs' to go around though. And lets be fair the majority don't have 'good jobs'. A point raised above about those in well paid 'soft' jobs having a lot of influence but largely being out of touch with the ordinary worker is true in my opinion.

Of course Remain does and did have "reasonable support". There was 2% in it, a fact often conveniently overlooked by those of a more Brexity persuasion. The 48% who thought Brexit was a bad idea haven't suddenly disappeared.

This is why I think poking at the Brexit scab is such a bad idea politically though.

Every political decision should face post execution scrutiny.

 

[nw1]

Riiiight.... So people who don't wish to rejoin the single market are 'true believer" Hard Brexit fundamentalists, but people who want to go through all the hassle and instability of making yet another change in the UK's trading status by rejoining (with all the implications for having to accept freedom of movement and the accompanying inability to have any control of immigration levels) are simply "single-market-rejoiners" with no 'fundamentalist' or other insulting description? Yes?

Yes I'm afraid, because all this nonsensical isolationism just makes life difficult, in all manner of ways, for little discernible benefit - or any benefits are, as far as I can see, completely outweighed by the disadvantages.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes I'm afraid, because all this nonsensical isolationism just makes life difficult, in all manner of ways.

If you think it's about isolationism then you've totally misunderstood the arguments that people were putting in favour of Brexit / leaving the single market.

 

[nw1]

Indeed. And as far as I'm aware, the ballot box choice was Leave or Remain. "Hard" or "soft", "Leave-ish but not really" didn't come into it. Everyone who voted Leave voted for a "hard" exit by its very definition.

What's your evidence for that? And a "hard" exit is certainly not what the lying, deceitful Leave campaign promised. One theory I've heard is that a lot of people voted Leave, not because they wanted to leave, but they just wanted to vote for the opposite of what Cameron wanted, simply because they didn't like Cameron.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Dec 2022 ==

If you think it's about isolationism then you've totally misunderstood the arguments that people were putting in favour of Brexit / leaving the single market.

So how is making trade with the continent more difficult not isolationist then?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Dec 2022 ==

With any change being put to a referendum, at least after the following election, where 66.67% of the votes have to agree to the change. Which gives two levels of defence against it if it's felt that it's being pushed by the establishment (either vote Labour out or ensure no more than 66% of people vote for the change).

Given that Brexit passed by a simple majority, I would argue that any subsequent referendum to partly repair the damage should be simple majority also. Otherwise, it just looks like both referenda were setup to be biased towards the pro-Brexit position.

(To make it clear, I am generally opposed to simple-majority referenda, but I don't think it's fair that it should be harder to become closer to the EU again than it was to leave).

But to be honest I don't think it should even need a referendum. If becoming closer to the EU benefits us more than it disadvantages us, then politicians should make the decision unilaterally.

 

[Senex]

I don't disagree with you- Brexit is the stupidest collective decision a country has ever made- but picking at the scab isn't going to change that.

Of course it was. But if we can't pick at the scabs what do we do when the people who voted for it realise they're getting exactly what they voted for, don't like what they're getting, and want their politicians to solve the problems they chose to inflict on us all?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So how is making trade with the continent more difficult not isolationist then?

If it offers the possibility of better trade with other countries outside the EU then it's definitely not isolationist. There is a whole World out there beyond Europe, you know!

But more to the point, you're somewhat misrepresenting the situation by making out that people wanted to make trade with the continent more difficult. In reality, practically no-one specifically wanted trade to be harder. Just about everyone who supported Brexit wanted other things; Having the Westminster Government be able to control migration levels, having powers returned from the EU to the Westminster Government (which many perceived as much more democratic), getting away from what many perceived as damaging over-regulation that the EU was leading, having more freedom to set trade outside Europe, etc. etc. Unfortunately, given the views of the EU, there was no way to get those things without trade with the EU becoming more difficult - so people had to choose and prioritise and accept one bad thing (more difficult trade) in return for lots of good things (at least, good in the opinions of many people).

 

[The Ham]

Of course it was. But if we can't pick at the scabs what do we do when the people who voted for it realise they're getting exactly what they voted for, don't like what they're getting, and want their politicians to solve the problems they chose to inflict on us all?

Indeed, 1 in 5 who voted for Brexit now think it's the wrong decision:

YouGov UK: Data Analytics & Market Research Services

Explore YouGov's market research and data analytics services for valuable insights. Make informed business decisions with our consumer analysis & intelligence.

yougov.co.uk

How do Brexiteers feel six years after voting Leave? This month, former environment secretary George Eustice told a Commons debate that the post-Brexit trade deal with Australia was “not actually a very good deal” for Britain and Simon Wolfson, the Brexit-backing chief executive of retailer Next, urged the government to make it easier to allow foreign workers into the country saying this is “not the Brexit I wanted”. But how do Brexiteers feel six years down the line? Following the 2017 general election the percentage of Brexiteers who believed voting to leave the EU was the right decision fell from 90% to around 80%, briefly rising to the high 80s after the withdrawal agreement was ratified in January 2020. However, since June 2021, that percentage has fallen from 88% down to a record low of 70%, while those who believe it to be the wrong thing to do has risen from 4% to an all-time high of 19%.

If those 19% of people who voted for Brexit had voted against in 2016 and the 5% who voted remain who have also changed their mind the vote would have been 55:45 (that assumes that the 11% who voted for Brexit who currently don't know and the 4% who voted remain continued to vote the same way as they did).

Of course that's overly simplistic as hindsight changes views far more easily.

Although it does, when you consider the shift in demographics since then, explain why the support for Brexit is lower than 40% in some polls recently.

 

[edwin_m]

If you think it's about isolationism then you've totally misunderstood the arguments that people were putting in favour of Brexit / leaving the single market.

Many of the arguments that people were putting in favour of Brexit were totally false, or could have happened (staying in the single market or customs union) but didn't once the Brexit fundamentalists got hold of the process.

If it offers the possibility of better trade with other countries outside the EU then it's definitely not isolationist. There is a whole World out there beyond Europe, you know!

That trade is worth a tiny fraction of what we have lost with the EU. Most of the agreements are simply rollover of the EU agreements and the most notable that isn't is with Australia - considered by George Eustace among others to be very unfavourable to the UK.

Realistically it's not going to happen for the UK to re-join the EU and probably not the single market in the next Parliament. It would be unreasonable for Labour to promise either, as those promises would almost certainly not be deliverable, but it seems Labour will do what it can to mend relations with the EU and address some of the more straightforward difficulties in the relationship. And we have to face that with the FPTP system a majority of the general public doesn't necessarily mean a majority of the voters Labour needs to win to gain power - without which they can achieve nothing.

 

[nw1]

If it offers the possibility of better trade with other countries outside the EU then it's definitely not isolationist. There is a whole World out there beyond Europe, you know!

Except of course Continental Europe is by far the closest area of the world to us. By losing easy trade with our closest neighbours on the vague and as-yet-unrealsied promise of easier trade with much more distant areas of the world, it seems to me a distinct loss overall.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But more to the point, you're somewhat misrepresenting the situation by making out that people wanted to make trade with the continent more difficult. In reality, practically no-one specifically wanted trade to be harder.

Anyone who voted to leave the trading union wanted to make trade more difficult. Everyone who was against leaving the trading union said it would make trade more difficult. But this was "Project Fear".

Unfortunately, given the views of the EU, there was no way to get those things without trade with the EU becoming more difficult

I think it is unrealistic- to put it politely- to expect an organisation to give you all the benefits of membership without accepting any of the obligations.

If you cancel your gym membership they don't let you in for free. If you cancel Sky then Rupert doesn't let you watch the F1 for nowt.

The EU haven't behaved unreasonably in any of this. They've just got on with life, without the UK. It's almost as though trade with Europe is more important to the UK than trade with the UK is to Europe. But this too was "Project Fear".

But if we can't pick at the scabs what do we do when the people who voted for it realise they're getting exactly what they voted for

The problem is that we're not at that stage yet. Brexitists are still in the denial stage: it's Evil Remoaners, it's the Nasty Germans, it's the bloody French. It's not that Brexit was an idiotic idea, it's that everyone else is deliberately sabotaging it. I think it would be a mistake for Starmer to pick at the scab, as it would just play into the hands of the Brexitists.

I wish the Brexitists would hurry up and get to the buyer's remorse stage, then we can start to fix their mess. Until then, I think it does need to remain the elephant in the room.

 

[Parjon]

I suspect you don't.

The fundamental motivation comes down to economics: no investment in these towns, and poorly paid work.

I say again, what is your source? You don't have one, because it's your guess/preferred interpretation dressed up as fact.

The Leave campaign was frequently accused of lying (on things which are actually subjective), but the continuing, result-denying Remain campaign has been guilty throughout and consistently of abusing its power to propogate preferred views as facts.

Even to the point of "the people never voted for hard Brexit". It's not a lie, because they didn't. But it is a lie because there isn't and never was such a thing as a "soft" Brexit until it was invented by the Remainers. There was only Remain, or Leave on the ballot as choices.

And despite everything, all the fear campaigns of destruction and destitution, the weight of the government campaigning against its own referendum (a complete conflict of interest) plus the tommy-opposite position of Scottish nationalists, people still voted to Leave. Not "kinda stay", or "leave, but keep the door open", or "leave, a bit, but only if it's a soft way out". It was just Leave.

Much is made of it only being a 4% difference (albeit misrepresented above as 2%). But actually up against all that it was a serious rejection of Remaining.