BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Russia and Ukraine are quite culturally similar.
0 -
I could join in the differences and similarities argument, but I don't see how its relevant other than to anyone who is planning to move to an EU member state.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ah, sorry. Misunderstood.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
The headline speaks of the barrier on GB to NI sales but its actually a barrier on GB to EU exports
My question. How is this pro-growth?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
If that were the only price to pay, then I can understand the outcome of that poll. But this being the EU we're dealing with, how likely do you think it is that it will be the only price?
I can still remember very clear the soon be ex French PM telling us there would be 'no cherry picking'.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Maybe voters don't care what the price would be, as they've seen the price of Brexit. It's a rather more resounding margin than 52/48, in any case.
0 -
Well if you put the question as 'would you be prepared to accept [insert massive long list of EU demands including the single currency] in return for single market access?', do you think the outcome might be different?
The question is totally unrealistic and stupid questions tend to generate poor answers.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's obviously a lot of other issues to consider, but from memory, this is the first survey I've seen showing a majority amongst leave voters in favour of rejoining the SM and accepting FoM.
Maybe an unexpected benefit of Brexit is proving empirically that leaving the EU and ditching FoM absolutely definitely wasn't the "silver bullet" to reducing immigration. Brexit has just reduced the desire of EU folk to come here (understandably, since on face value, more than half the population doesn't want them here) but the need for immigration in the labour force remains unchanged, so the need has to be satisfied from elsewhere, and folk from elsewhere are much more likely to a) stay forever and b) want to bring family members with them.
The likely "end game" remains rejoining the SM (or entering a legal arrangement that is equivalent to this but not actually called this, so as to not "scare the horses") and not joining the Euro (*), paying almost the same subs as when a full member, but not being a member, so with no voting rights.
(*) remember that whilst Euro membership is widely viewed in the UK as some form of punishment, in the Corridors of Power in Brussels, Euro membership is considered as a great privilege, and not one to be granted to anyone who isn't a True Believer.
0 -
Do you think that if the EU referendum had listed everything that we'd lose that the outcome might have been different?
0 -
Don’t be silly. Project Fear was just scare mongering. Wasn’t it?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Quite possibly, but unfortunately (1) it wasn't clear what the end outcome was when the decision was taken and (2) we don't have a time machine.
It still doesn't change the fact that this was a crap question. I notice it was published in the Guardian - quelle surprise, as they might say in the land of milk and honey 😊
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As mentioned above, it's a totally unrealistic question as it would never be a case of allowing FOM and getting membership of the single market.
But the endgame for who? A few on here seem to want it but no major political party does.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
OK, let's accept that they were both poor questions. We don't need a time machine to undo the damage done by the one asked in the referendum, just the will and the patience. Obviously it's a disappointment to me that Labour don't appear to have the will. Yet.
0 -
Endgame is how I think the UK/EU relationship will end up, regardless of what the main UK political parties are currently saying. The only thing that really seems to excite the ardent Brexiteers is immigration, and ditching FoM has arguably been counterproductive in this area, so there's an argument to be won that accepting FoM in order to rejoin the SM is a good deal. Hopefully those making the argument will be able to resist saying "You could have had this in early 2019 if you hadn't been so ****ing stupid" to the ardent leavers.
0 -
I suspect it wouldn't go down too badly with some of the most ardent Brexiters if the message was that there would be fewer immigrants with brown or black skin if FoM returned, but even in today's polarised political climate, I'm not expecting anyone to try that gambit.
0 -
Indeed.
Another potential benefit is that it might dull enthusiasm for leaving the ECHR. The same folk who were pushing Brexit as the cure to all ills tend be the ones pushing leaving the ECHR as the new cure to all ills, now that Brexit has achieved very little by way of tangible positives. From what I've read, leaving the ECHR was the real objective for some Brexiteers. Hopefully there will be a significant number of pro-Brexit voters who will not believe claims re ECHR given the unfulfilled claims re Brexit itself. Obviously, some people are irredeemably stupid and will believe any old nonsense as long as it's what they want to hear.
0 -
The way the likes of France and Germany are going we might need to see what is left of the EU to consider rejoining - if the time ever comes. In the meantime there is the (approx) 85%+ of the world economy outside of the EU...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
True re seeing what's left.
Also true re 85% but I think there is a huge culture shift required in order to make use of this large potential market that is in different time zones and often speaks a different language / has different cultures. Ambitious young UK folk tend to relocate themselves to more dynamic countries rather than setting up companies in the UK with an eye to trading there. So maximising the benefit from the nearby "easy" 15% might be the least bad thing for the UK.
0 -
Quite so, though we've been over this countless times in this thread.
0 -
I'm not sure how many ambitious young folk relocate to a highly regulated, highly taxed and low growth area like the EU. In any event its really not that hard to trade with the rest of the world these days, especially in the services sector.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think the ambitious types tend to go to the US or increasingly the Middle East. Don't think Brexit has changed this. But Brexit has simply made it harder for those who want to stay in the UK to do business with their nearest overseas potential customer base.
Agree about professional services, though this sector also demonstrates a problem with Brexit. And this problem is best demonstrated by a quiz question: Since the UK/EU "transition period" ended in Jan 2021 (i.e. nearly 4 years ago) which major regulatory changes have been introduced in the UK that weren't possible whilst in the EU, to make it easier to sell services to non-EU countries?
0 -
Well you think too many are coming here so they must do.
0 -
Nor has Brexit made it any harder to trade with the 85%+ of the global economy that was never in the EU to start with.
Certainly some of the post Brexit trade deals may have made things easier: the main issue is that trade deals are typically good centric and I've always thought that needs to change.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And while attempting a smartarse quip you've inadvertently hit on a relevant point: we want people to come here who will be net contributors rather than net beneficiaries. And to achieve that we need control over who comes in.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How's that been going?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Not wanting to pick a fight with you, but it's telling you've not answered the quiz question I posed. So I'll answer it for you: Virtually, if not, nothing. It's wholly unrealistic to expect any dynamism from the workers etc. if the government does **** all in 3+ years to take advantage of our new "freedoms".
0 -
Errrrr. We have total control over all immigration bar a few tens of thousands of small boat arrivals. The government has chosen to dole out visas like they're going out of fashion for the last few years, hence the net immigration numbers in the 100s of 1000s.
0 -
Are you interested in answers? The banker bonus ban has gone, for example. It's easier to hire highly skilled people from all over the world (yes, that could have happened pre-Brexit, but was politically harder) - these people usually work in service sectors.
So much has happened since Brexit, it is hard to strip out the impact of Covid and technology, but the service sector is booming.
0 -
So we have the banker bonus restrictions removed and a change in immigration policy that we could have implemented anyway. Thin gruel for nearly 4 years! Not disputing the recent trends in the services world but that's largely happened in spite of rather than because of Brexit.
And re easier hiring of skilled people, you may have missed that significant numbers of Tory voters defected to Reform at the last GE precisely because there was still "too much immigration". Given Labour only polled 32%, one might argue that immigration potentially cost the Tories the GE, which is about as serious as things get politically in the UK. So I don't think the new immigration policy has arisen due to it being politically easier. It's more a case of it being necessary to head off recruitment crises in certain key sectors.
0
