Opinions on Brexit

[DynamicSpirit]

So, just expanding on this, should we (as in, as a country) have the same rights for people who were born here vs. people who have emigrated here? If yes, then should there actually be any restrictions on immigration?

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're getting at or how this relates to my 'positives' from leaving the EU? And your first question would need to be more specific for me to answer it. Do you mean, for example, someone who emigrated here last week or someone who emigrated here 20 years ago, has lived here ever since and now has British citizenship?

But whatever, my answer to your second question is a definite, yes. There need to be restrictions on immigration because countries generally need to be able to ensure that immigration levels are such as not to overwhelm local infrastructure, that the people coming in are doing so with good intent, that they are making some effort to learn the local language, culture, and way of life, etc., and you're not unwittingly depopulating and harming another country. I don't personally like putting restrictions on people's lives and choices: I do think that in an ideal World, it would be lovely to just allow everyone to live wherever in the World they like - and to that extent, EU Freedom of Movement does represent a great ideal. But unfortunately, in today's World, that ideal is utterly unworkable. You do need immigration controls.

 

[Annetts key]

All of them. No supranational organisation should legislate for the UK.

Why? The U.K. is the same as most other countries, a completely artificial construct made by powerful people and their armies at a (somewhat random) time in the past. What is so special about our current $#it system of government that you like? Do you think that we should have given up the British Empire?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2023 ==

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're getting at or how this relates to my 'positives' from leaving the EU? And your first question would need to be more specific for me to answer it. Do you mean, for example, someone who emigrated here last week or someone who emigrated here 20 years ago, has lived here ever since and now has British citizenship?

My question was only related to the last paragraph of your post: “ That the immigration system is now fairer to the extent that we are no longer granting huge (and arguably, unfair) rights to EU countries while denying those same immigration rights to from similar non-EU countries”.
By “people who have emigrated here” I mean people who have been accepted as being legal residents by the authorities and therefore have British citizenship.

But whatever, my answer to your second question is a definite, yes. There need to be restrictions on immigration because countries generally need to be able to ensure that immigration levels are such as not to overwhelm local infrastructure, that the people coming in are doing so with good intent, that they are making some effort to learn the local language, culture, and way of life, etc., and you're not unwittingly depopulating and harming another country. I don't personally like putting restrictions on people's lives and choices: I do think that in an ideal World, it would be lovely to just allow everyone to live wherever in the World they like - and to that extent, EU Freedom of Movement does represent a great ideal. But unfortunately, in today's World, that ideal is utterly unworkable. You do need immigration controls.

See, this is where I have a problem. By limiting numbers, that means someone has to make a judgement. It also means that there could be errors or oversights that then affect the outcome. The Windrush scandal illustrates how badly things can go wrong when authorities mess up.

And if there is a system that has a criteria, no system will be perfect. As everyone is different, it’s impossible to make it fair. Someone who goes on to commit crimes could be let in, while someone who at some future date may change history for the better may be denied entry.

Similarly, with brexiters who dislike the E.U. organisation and government systems, but are okay with the absolutely archaic system we have at Westminster. If the E.U. has a good idea, but it was not invented here, it (normally) gets shot down. Meanwhile we appear to be completely unable to reform our own election system or the House of Lords.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2023 ==

Speaking of which…

Or should that be the preserve of a supranational body of dubious democratic legitimacy?

Funny, I would apply that to our current government.

 

[Doppelganger]

All of them. No supranational organisation should legislate for the UK.

So the UK should tell the UN, WTO and IMF to do one?

Do you really want the UK to be completely isolated from the world community?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Windrush scandal illustrates how badly things can go wrong when authorities mess up.

Yes, Windrush was absolutely terrible. The irony in the context of your raising that here it is exactly our EU membership and Freedom of Movement that created such strong immigration pressures that the Government ended up feeling obliged to crack down on whatever immigration it could (in other words, non-EU immigration) - which then created the culture that may well have been responsible for Windrush happening. Would Windrush have happened if it hadn't been for Freedom of Movement? We'll never know for sure, but it's at least plausible that it might not have happened.

And if there is a system that has a criteria, no system will be perfect. As everyone is different, it’s impossible to make it fair. Someone who goes on to commit crimes could be let in, while someone who at some future date may change history for the better may be denied entry.

'The perfect is the enemy of the good'. And sure, any system you put in place is going to have some flaws, but that doesn't change that you need some system because it's unworkable to just allow anyone into a country without any restrictions. We don't live in a perfect World: We live in a World where you have to do the best you can.

As an analogy, you're recruiting for a company that needs 5 new staff. You have 50 applicants. You know that the interview process isn't perfect: You might screw up and choose people who aren't the best qualified for the job. But I bet you wouldn't, on that basis, decide to just scrap the whole interview/selection process and instead give jobs to everyone (all 50 people) who wants them! That seems to be what you're suggesting we should do when it comes to immigration.

 

[jfollows]

More correctly, I think you mean that nothing that you, personally, regard as positive has been presented. Clearly there's some subjectivity there. I can see several things that I regard as positive: The fact that the UK can in principle now determine who/how many people can legally come to live here. That we are no longer bound by the common agricultural policy. That we can now make our own laws/regulations in areas where previously we had to go along with EU rules. That the immigration system is now fairer to the extent that we are no longer granting huge (and arguably, unfair) rights to EU countries while denying those same immigration rights to from similar non-EU countries. To my mind, those are all positives. But I guess to you, they aren't.

Actually, that's quite an interesting post you have made, because to me absolutely none of these are positive things, and that's part of the schism undercutting the whole "Brexit" issue, isn't it? So it's very subjective, as you say, and in this particular case your views "won" over mine, so we are where we are today. I don't see a reason to get upset about this, and it's good and interesting that people hold different views. As I said earlier, far more important to me was my right to travel around and live in the EU, which has been taken from me, and that trumped most other considerations for me.
But it also happens that a lot of other considerations which made leaving the EU important for you most definitely do not factor in to my thinking - such as the ones you specify here. I'm quite happy to believe that they're important to you.

 

[jon0844]

Do you think that we should have given up the British Empire?

If Brexit voters were asked if we should reform the British Empire, what do we think they'd say?!

 

[DustyBin]

Actually, that's quite an interesting post you have made, because to me absolutely none of these are positive things, and that's part of the schism undercutting the whole "Brexit" issue, isn't it? So it's very subjective, as you say, and in this particular case your views "won" over mine, so we are where we are today. I don't see a reason to get upset about this, and it's good and interesting that people hold different views. As I said earlier, far more important to me was my right to travel around and live in the EU, which has been taken from me, and that trumped most other considerations for me.
But it also happens that a lot of other considerations which made leaving the EU important for you most definitely do not factor in to my thinking - such as the ones you specify here. I'm quite happy to believe that they're important to you.

Good post. This is basically what I was trying to explain re “tangible benefits” upthread. Just for the record, I take no pleasure from the fact that people such as yourself have lost out; that isn’t at all what Brexit was/is about.

 

[adrock1976]

I voted Remain and still stand by that decision, even though on the day of the vote I had decided late as I did not want to seem to be supporting the various campaigns from either side.

I believed that although the EU was not perfect e.g. never had its accounts audited, the UK remaining a member can push for change within the structures of the EU especially when it would have next been their turn for the rotating presidency. On the other hand, it seemed strange for Farage to have been an MEP for the exact establishment that he was vehemently opposed to, although it appeared that money talks and was able to have used it to fund then then UKIP election campaigns.

No?

In which case you made an almightily clumsy job of saying otherwise.

The fact is the English subjugated both the Welsh and the Irish, these two occurrences you mention in the context of EU membership, so what else did you mean?

The UK joined the EU (EEC at the time) voluntarily and then left voluntarily, so why try to make a link when now you are back tracking?

The EU isn't this beast you are trying to create, there are still plenty of countries who are still vying to attain EU membership. If the EU was the subjugator then surely there wouldn't be any countries in Europe not part of the EU?

A quick note - the UK invaded and took over both Wales and Ireland as part of imperialism and empire. Furthermore, in South Africa where we invaded, took over, colonised, and established white rule in the name of imperialism and empire, Cecil Rhodes discovered diamonds and also wanted to build a railway to Cairo in Egypt, but the workers (who were black) never saw a penny for their efforts at all.

 

[Peterthegreat]

I voted Remain and still stand by that decision, even though on the day of the vote I had decided late as I did not want to seem to be supporting the various campaigns from either side.

I believed that although the EU was not perfect e.g. never had its accounts audited, the UK remaining a member can push for change within the structures of the EU especially when it would have next been their turn for the rotating presidency. On the other hand, it seemed strange for Farage to have been an MEP for the exact establishment that he was vehemently opposed to, although it appeared that money talks and was able to have used it to fund then then UKIP election campaigns.



A quick note - the UK invaded and took over both Wales and Ireland as part of imperialism and empire. Furthermore, in South Africa where we invaded, took over, colonised, and established white rule in the name of imperialism and empire, Cecil Rhodes discovered diamonds and also wanted to build a railway to Cairo in Egypt, but the workers (who were black) never saw a penny for their efforts at all.

But it's not true that the EU does NOT have the accounts audited.

Is the EU’s budget ‘signed off’ by auditors? – Full Fact

It’s often argued both that the EU’s budget hasn’t been signed off by the auditors for years, and that it’s consistently given a clean bill of health.

fullfact.org

 

[Enthusiast]

Go on, one specifically that you think is harmful.

Whether they are harmful or not is not my point. It's not what's done that I object to, it's who can do it.

Why? The U.K. is the same as most other countries, a completely artificial construct made by powerful people and their armies at a (somewhat random) time in the past. What is so special about our current $#it system of government that you like? Do you think that we should have given up the British Empire?

What's special about it (though it's not really special at all - most normal democratic countries have something similar) is that the UK electorate has the chance from time to time to chuck the administration out if they don't like it. It has no such opportunity with the EU as the principal decision makers are not elected. In fact most people have never heard of them until they are "appointed". Our system of democracy is far from perfect - as are most versions. But if the EU seeks legitimacy it should come clean and simply announce that henceforth the Union will become a single Federal entity and not continue to slice into national democracy "salami style."

So the UK should tell the UN, WTO and IMF to do one?

Any recommendations made by those organisations do no trump UK legislation made by the UK Parliament. If the UK wants to tell any of them to "go and do one" it can.

 

[Doppelganger]

Any recommendations made by those organisations do no trump UK legislation made by the UK Parliament.

Yes indeed. So for EU laws, the UK would to have legislate for it to become UK law. The UK has in fact voted against a small amount of EU laws and thus demonstrating it legislates for itself and maintains its own sovereignty.

 

[RT4038]

A quick note - the UK invaded and took over both Wales and Ireland as part of imperialism and empire. Furthermore, in South Africa where we invaded, took over, colonised, and established white rule in the name of imperialism and empire, Cecil Rhodes discovered diamonds and also wanted to build a railway to Cairo in Egypt, but the workers (who were black) never saw a penny for their efforts at all.

I am not sure that (a) this has anything to do with Brexit or (b) it is factually correct. The black workers who assisted in building the lines (many of the navvies were Europeans) were not slaves and therefore got paid for their efforts. Whether that was a fair rate or not can be argued about. The railway lines concerned were all given (later) to the Black majority governments in pretty much efficient running order so presumably can now reward those efforts multi fold over the last 25-60 years.

 

[Eyersey468]

The main criticisms I had with the referendum were firstly that Cameron et al were so sure the country would vote remain they didn't appear to give any thought whatsoever as to what would happen if we voted leave, and secondly in my view it was very hard to know who to believe, anything remain said was called scaremongering by leave and vice versa.

 

[jon0844]

I think we know now who, for the most part, told the truth - and those that just told people what they wanted to hear.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think we know now who, for the most part, told the truth - and those that just told people what they wanted to hear.

Well quite, although I do worry about the people who ‘wanted to hear’ some of the stuff that the Brexiteers said.

 

[eldomtom2]

I think we know now who, for the most part, told the truth - and those that just told people what they wanted to hear.

I don't think there were many people saying that Brexit would have a mildly negative effect on the economy...

 

[Jamiescott1]

Voted remain and stand by the position. If I was 25 years younger I would be fuming as my options for working abroad are now massively reduced and the possible erosion of workers rights, health and safety that I expect will come now we've left the EU.

 

[E27007]

Voted remain and stand by the position. If I was 25 years younger I would be fuming as my options for working abroad are now massively reduced and the possible erosion of workers rights, health and safety that I expect will come now we've left the EU.

Assuming you were 25 years younger, then which countries and line or lines of work do you consider lost to you?

 

[Annetts key]

Assuming you were 25 years younger, then which countries and line or lines of work do you consider lost to you?

For myself, I have never considered moving abroad for work. But I do consider, that if I decided to move and live in a warmer European country when I retire, that would now be far more difficult than it was when we were in the E.U.

And for me, it is now considerably more difficult and often more expensive buying items such as components, parts and specialist items from the E.U. countries due to the changes. I use to regularly buy items from private sellers, small businesses as well as larger companies. Items that are not available here in this country, or are significantly more expensive if bought here.

And by more difficult, in some cases, now not practical, as a lot of people and small businesses just don’t want the hassle in trying to comply with all the additional bureaucracy that is now required.

Meanwhile, the thing that ‘we’ gave more power to, our useless government, are still managing to wreak our country. This graphic makes for depressing viewing:

Image shows a bar graph comparing the U.K. with the other G7 countries, for real GDP% change, Q4 2022 compared to Q4 2019. With the U.K. being the only one still negative. Image source is from here.

No one will ever know for absolute certain the proportion of damage between the COVID19 pandemic, the effect of the aggressive war by Russia against Ukraine and the effects of brexit. But I’m absolutely certain that brexit is a significant contributor to our economic difficulties.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

View attachment 128789
Image shows a bar graph comparing the U.K. with the other G7 countries, for real GDP% change, Q4 2022 compared to Q4 2019. With the U.K. being the only one still negative. Image source is from here.

No one will ever know for absolute certain the proportion of damage between the COVID19 pandemic, the effect of the aggressive war by Russia against Ukraine and the effects of brexit. But I’m absolutely certain that brexit is a significant contributor to our economic difficulties.

That's an interesting graph that's been doing the rounds quite a bit. I think it immediately raises two questions:

1. Why is the UK so much lower than other countries? (Note though that Japan, which has also seen very poor growth, was for some reason left off this graph).
2. Why is the Eurozone, and in particular France and Germany, so much lower than the USA/Canada?

Given that we all like to find causes that accord with our existing beliefs, it's going to be very tempting for Remainers to blame (1) entirely on Brexit, and also tempting for free-marketeers like me to cite (2) as evidence that the high-regulatory environment of the EU is suppressing growth compared to more 'capitalist' countries. Personally I suspect there's a lot of truth in both of those factors. But we probably need do to be more careful: These figures relate to only one quarter - that's short enough that short-term fluctuations could be significant. I'd want to see the figures for a longer time period to rule out the possibility of some countries just having a very poor Q4 2022, or having had a very good Q4 2019 that we're comparing to. In particular, is it possible that Liz Truss's disastrous budget caused the Q4 2022 figures for the UK to be unusually bad?

I'm pretty sure that the one-off impact of the UK adjusting to Brexit was a big contributor to the UK's poor performance, in that period, but I'd be wary of assuming it was the only factor.

 

[Yew]

2. Why is the Eurozone, and in particular France and Germany, so much lower than the USA/Canada?

The first thing that springs to mind is the inflation in oil prices seen recently in Europe. Whereas the American continent is much less reliant on this.

 

[Horizon22]

The first thing that springs to mind is the inflation in oil prices seen recently in Europe. Whereas the American continent is much less reliant on this.

And proximity to Ukraine, which also has had an impact on food prices and imports. That being said to be 1-2% behind Eurozone countries which also suffered with Covid - albeit not to exactly the same degree - suggests Brexit must be playing at least some impact ranging to a considerable impact, dependent on your stance.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And proximity to Ukraine, which also has had an impact on food prices and imports. That being said to be 1-2% behind Eurozone countries which also suffered with Covid - albeit not to exactly the same degree - suggests Brexit must be playing at least some impact ranging to a considerable impact, dependent on your stance.

Yeah, proximity to Ukraine seems a very plausible reason for lower growth in Europe compared to America.

I don't think there's much controversy that Brexit will have had some impact on UK growth during that period, the question is how much. Those figures put us about 2% behind France and Germany - which are arguably the two countries most comparable with the UK (similar size, culture, and standard of living etc.), so a first guess might be that the huge change in our trading environment resulting from Brexit has probably lost us 2% of growth over those 4 years, so on average, each of us is 2% worse off. Obviously, any hit to growth is undesirable, but 2% doesn't seem that great to me - bearing in mind that's one-off hit. (One-off because the extra difficulties trading with Europe have already taken place: There aren't going to be significant further changes, so there's not really any reason to expect Brexit to cause any more hits to growth - it'll just be that our growth going forward is starting from a base that's ~ 2% lower).

 

[Horizon22]

Yeah, proximity to Ukraine seems a very plausible reason for lower growth in Europe compared to America.

I don't think there's much controversy that Brexit will have had some impact on UK growth during that period, the question is how much. Those figures put us about 2% behind France and Germany - which are arguably the two countries most comparable with the UK (similar size, culture, and standard of living etc.), so a first guess might be that the huge change in our trading environment resulting from Brexit has probably lost us 2% of growth over those 4 years, so on average, each of us is 2% worse off. Obviously, any hit to growth is undesirable, but 2% doesn't seem that great to me - bearing in mind that's one-off hit. (One-off because the extra difficulties trading with Europe have already taken place: There aren't going to be significant further changes, so there's not really any reason to expect Brexit to cause any more hits to growth - it'll just be that our growth going forward is starting from a base that's ~ 2% lower).

Time will I suppose tell if it is a one-off hit. I'm personally of the opinion it isn't and that this has impacted trade for small-medium size business for the medium term due to the extra barriers put in place with our largest, nearest and most natural market.

I do take the point though that trying to disentangle Brexit, Covid and Ukraine from the most recent 2-3 year stats is very tricky, although the Conservatives have also made certain economic choices; Truss' disastorous premiership and the desire for a rather hard Brexit can't have helped.

At the end of the day it was a "Leave" / "Remain" vote despite the fact there's various elements of grey with Leave and arguably even with Remain (theoretically the UK could have been "more" Remain in time with Schengen and Euro).

 

[class ep-09]

Even Gove knows that brexit is VERY BAD for UK….

Revealed: secret cross-party summit held to confront failings of Brexit

Leading Brexiters and remainers, including Michael Gove and David Lammy, met for two-day ‘private discussion’ with diplomats and business leaders

www.theguardian.com

 

[jon0844]

Looking at the firms that attended, I bet there was quite a bit of lobbying going on - reminding politicians that donations may be reliant on changes to help them function better post Brexit (that is if they are to stay in the UK and not relocate everything within the EU).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Even Gove knows that brexit is VERY BAD for UK….

That is not exactly what the article says...

Gove, who co-led the Vote Leave campaign in 2016 with Boris Johnson and Stuart, is understood to have made regular contributions including opening an informal conversation on Thursday night, with a source saying he was very “honest” about the shortcomings of Brexit, while still believing it would prove the right decision in the long run.

 

[class ep-09]

That is not exactly what the article says...

Non it does not , but why Gove attended that meeting then ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Non it does not , but why Gove attended that meeting then ?

Because he wants to explore ways for the UK to take better advantage of what he sees as the opportunities Brexit offers, and which many feel the UK Government so far hasn't taken advantage of?

 

[class ep-09]

Because he wants to explore ways for the UK to take better advantage of what he sees as the opportunities Brexit offers, and which many feel the UK Government so far hasn't taken advantage of?

Why has he not explored these opportunities yet ?
He has been in the most brexit-y government for years.

And why he wants to explore these opportunities with remainers ?

Also , what opportunities MANY feels have not been taken advantage of , that the Gove / Government is not aware of ?