BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

121142115211621182120

Comments

  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 2,275
    edited February 4

    Far more common? Give us some examples of the hostile approaches taken to show how common they are? Which countries? In what way were they hostile? Don't say Trump as he is not negotiating a trade deal with Canada/Mexico etc.

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 21,481

    OBR figures for the project impact, ongoing negotiations to try to lessen the impact (which suggests that the project as 'signed off' as the result of these 'easy' negotiations was a bit of a mess. ("My homework was easy!" might suggest that the engagement with the topic was suboptimal.)

    For the negotiation - see W&G and MG. They'd obviously partially tied their hands by ruling out SM & CU, but stuff like Erasmus, veterinary agreements, touring visas etc - the bits that Starmer might (or might not) be trying to undo. I mean, why bother with details if you just want to call the negotiations 'easy'?

    Obviously the 'easiest' negotiations would have been to tell the EU to fuck off and make the best of whatever came out of the ashes, but maybe 'easy negotiations' shouldn't be what we measure the success of negotiations by (see my facile remark about chainsaws). As noted on about p10 of this thread, NI only had two possible practical solutions, both of which were 'easy' (border in the Irish Sea, or between Ireland and NI), but see how much effort has since gone into maintaining the 'easy' solution signed by both parties.

  • I tend to agree in part with Steveo that deregualtion can offer huge opportunities for business growth.


    What he's over looking though is the fact that because of Brexit the level of paperwork for exporting to our biggest trading partner has become a massive, massive burden and cost on SME's.


    I want a country that is pro-business and growth. A lot of lessons could be learned from Irelands approach. All whilst still being in the EU.


    I've become a lot less angry about the shitey deal the Tories negotiated. It's a combination of weariness and acceptance.


    Labour aren't filling me with much confidence either. There appears to be no joined-up plan or vision for the future of the country from both parties.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,287

    France saying they will turn off the power to Guernsey if they don't get to overfish their waters.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,287

    Trying to improve something doesn't mean it is a failure.

    I have sympathy for NI, small exporters, touring artists and people who wanted to move to the rest of the EU for whatever reason.

  • Re control of our borders, bar the few tens of thousands who arrive by small boats, all of the hundreds of thousands who've arrived here since Brexit have done so with a visa issued by the UK government. So we control our borders and exercise that control to welcome people from far and wide.

  • That is absolutely true but then again it has always been true. We always had control over the inflow of EU and non EU citizens. I don't think many would argue that when discussing immigration pre and post referendum, the focus was largely on irregular migration, that which takes place outside regulatory norms i.e. small boat crossings and other means of getting across a border without the correct documentation.

    I appreciate others may have felt differently but I never got the impression that the Vote Leave pitch was aimed at reducing the number of skilled EU professionals coming here for work, or those unskilled willing to do jobs in sectors such as care. The prevailing sense from Vote Leave/Brexit was that there are too many "illegal" immigrants coming across our border because the EU allowed them to and we would now take control of our borders and bring an end to this.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,287

    I don't think that is true. The pitch was very much about uncontrolled unskilled labour.

  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,733
    edited February 4

    There were very limited grounds for refusing entry to an EU citizen pre-Brexit if they had a valid passport. Things like the person posing a credible and immediate threat to national security or public health. (Even convicted terrorists who had converted to holidaymakers were allowed in as a matter of right.) They could in theory be deported after 90 days if not financially self-sufficient, but this rarely happened as most EU folk here were working. And deportation was not without its challenges (cough cough human rights legislation).

    So whilst we've always been able to control non-EU immigration, there were very very limited controls over EU immigration.

    Caveat - I make no claims as to what Vote Leave promised or implied re immigration as even their sanest representatives were borderline crackpots, and discerning a coherent, practical view from their inane outpourings was beyond me.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,933

    Not just unskilled, there was always a lot of noise about "Polish plumbers" etc. i.e. people coming over with skills and a strong work ethic that was reducing the wage inflation British trades were seeing due to a lack of supply.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,287

    Yes, that is true. Also truck drivers, nannies etc.

  • That's part of the problem, it wasn't uncontrolled. It may have been unskilled but not uncontrolled.

    What you are talking about is a right to refuse and yes it is true that we now have a right to refuse EU citizens the right to live and work here. And you are correct, having just briefly read back over the VL campaign, there was a clear pitch on reducing unskilled labour.

    However, that is not the same thing as an ability to control irregular (or uncontrolled) migration through stopping border crossings which we don't possess and was also definitely part of the pitch. VL campaign clearly stated that the EU made the refugee crisis worse through failure to prevent irregular border crossings, which we would be able to do through 'control' of our borders.

  • In my experience most of the people who voted leave did so because they wanted to reduce immigration as they felt that "Britishness" was under threat from the numbers of immigrants from different cultures. Brexit failed to deliver this, despite the rhetoric from the politicians, and in fact has resulted in the demographic of immigrants shifting from Europeans who were mostly white and from a culture based on Christian beliefs to Asians and Africans from countries with very different cultures. Stopping illegal immigration will only have a small effect upon this feeling of invasion, so although any action will gain support amongst those people they will not be satisfied unless overall immigration is curbed significantly.

  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,733
    edited February 4

    @MidlandsGrimpeur2 re "VL campaign clearly stated that the EU made the refugee crisis worse through failure to prevent irregular border crossings, which we would be able to do through 'control' of our borders" VL were simply wrong. They could just as accurately claimed that leaving the EU would mean Nigel Farage was a shoe-in to lead England to victory in the 2018 World Cup.

    The UK is obliged to deal with asylum seekers / refugees in accordance with various United Nations charters etc, which are nothing to do with the EU. Which is why the "Let's leave the ECHR" brigade will be very disappointed if the UK does leave that convention and they expect the small boats to stop coming, as the obligation to treat "small boat arrivals" in accordance with international conventions will remain.

  • Totally agree @wallace_and_gromit but what we are discussing is whether Brexit failed to deliver, through negotiations on what was promised, not whether what was promised was ever really achievable. We all know a lot of things that were pitched were never going to happen but as we were told by Vote Leave and then successive govts that they would happen, I can only deem Brexit as having failed to deliver many key stated aims and objectives.

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 21,481

    Even Farage admits it's failed, but he'd only say, like communism, because it wasn't done hard enough, not that it was impossible to deliver as promised. Let's just overlook that he was touting the Norwegian model during the campaign...

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,287

    You need to change your counterfactual from the sunlit lands promised by Farage to something a bit more realistic and measure success and failure on that basis.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,287

    Also, I find the idea that the UK could have controlled EU immigration, but chose not to, to be on a par with £350m a week.

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,885

    Fortunately/Unfortunately things are all on the record these days.

    A list of what Vote Leave promised at the time. No need to engage memories.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

    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.
  • Well I have much less optimism re politicians than you do! I assume they'll say what they think they need to say to get elected being as cynical as they can get away with, and then do what they want in government, subject to constraints from their own side, legal practicalities and the bond markets etc. If they make life better then I'm not hugely bothered about whether they delivered what they "promised".

  • All a bit academic really as the voters have spoken and booted the Tories, who championed Brexit in the 2019 GE, out.

    If the collective will of voters in 2029 is that the Tories are to blame for the nation's ill because of Brexit (either because of it at all, or because it's not been done properly) then they'll take a beating at the ballot box.

  • To summarise:

    • Brexit has failed against the optimistic claims of the Leave campaign
    • Brexit has succeeded against the pessimistic predictions made by the Remain campaign

    Something for everyone, really!

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,885

    I doubt Brexit will be a key factor in 2029.

    The effects of the fallout maybe, but not Brexit. I doubt the word will be used.

    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.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 62,224
    edited February 4

    I answered you, sorry you didn't like the answer.

    In any event, there is plenty more that can be done now we have the freedom to do so.

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • The underlying issue will remain though if the UK's economic performance remains sluggish: Is rejoining the SM and CU necessary to secure the UK's economic future?

    Hardly shattering insight on my behalf! Geography isn't going to change.

  • Worth reminding you though that of the three acts of deregulation that you recommended, two related to tax policy and were therefore unrelated to being in or out of the EU.

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 62,224

    Nope, became if we were still in the EU we would need to go along with the Global Minimum Tax initiative. And a lot of UK tax law is what had to be incorporated from EU directives etc so a lot of that can be scrapped. So all relevant.

    However doesn't change the underlying point that there is plenty of potential - just needs those with the relevant knowledge to get stuck in.

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 62,224

    I'd like to know as well. I'm wondering if Brian is just narked that he has to queue in the 'Other Passports' lane whenever he goes through French immigration.

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 30,117

    Isn't that 15% Corporation tax? Didn't the last lot put up Corporation tax after Brexit?

    Also Ireland still have a rate below 15% don't they?

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,733
    edited February 5


    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're making things up when you say that EU membership would have required adherence to said tax initiative by the UK. It applies to corporation tax and corporation tax remains a national-level competence for EU member states, so the UK could have vetoed the proposed legislation (this was agreed in late 2022) or insisted on an opt out. You might have a point that had the UK remained in the EU that such a veto was unlikely, but that's a different issue.

    And anyway, the UK's corporation tax level is well above the agreed minimum rate (15%) so it would have no impact anyway. But per one of my earlier posts, I would implement a phased reduction in corporation tax regardless, offset by a phased increase in income tax.

    And you're being a bit unfair re scrapping of EU-inspired tax legislation that was retained. The government has made use of its freedoms to impose VAT on school fees. Like Brexit itself, the jury is out on whether this is a good idea, but also like Brexit, it appeals to the ideologues.