Brexit matters

[deltic]

The EU would accept the UK back. Just as they accept other countries. And I don't think the UK would have much of a problem meeting the criteria to rejoin. The far, far bigger problem is that currently and for an unknown number of years, neither Labour or the Conservatives will go anywhere near the subject of rejoining. And the chances of a Liberal Democrat general election win are rather low.

To re-enter the EU we would have to accept the Euro and Schengen - not clear whether any government would sign up to those conditions.

 

[RT4038]

While people are just getting on with their lives there are real impacts - a large proportion of our graduates were EU nationals, recruiting now is more difficult so we are expanding our operations in the EU instead - tax revenue lost to the UK which people don't see but they do see slowly declining public services.

Slowly declining public services have been a feature since some time before the referendum was held. Not sure that the connection with Brexit is much more than tenuous, and the pandemic may well have had a far greater effect. However, not doubting that some people are seeing real impacts. Either way, most people are getting on with their lives, adjusting where necessary and not going over and over the arguments.

I cant see us ever rejoining, why would the EU accept us.

Not sure about that, but the terms on offer may well not be palatable.... When they are, no doubt the rejoining camp will get us a referendum and win.

Our leaving was a moment of sadness for the EU, not triumph so I dont doubt they would welcome us back if we ever choose that.

The EU would accept the UK back. Just as they accept other countries. And I don't think the UK would have much of a problem meeting the criteria to rejoin.

It may well have been a moment of sadness for the EU, when they lost some of their control over the UK. On balance, I don't think they really cared that much, otherwise they would have tried to make some effort to retain the UK. Clearly any accommodation simply wasn't a price they were prepared to pay. However, I think they took a gamble on departure not actually happening and misread the mood of the British people.

I think rejoining the EU is unlikely for some time yet, when (hopefully) it will be a different institution than when we left.

 

[najaB]

To re-enter the EU we would have to accept the Euro and Schengen - not clear whether any government would sign up to those conditions.

Not entirely true. We would need to have implementation plans, but there's no requirement to actually follow though on them.

Take Sweden who have been "getting around to" using the Euro for thirty years.

 

[nw1]

You said that "most people did not vote for Brexit". That is incorrect.

No, it's correct. 63% of people did not vote for Brexit. Therefore there was no convincing majority for it. "Most people did not vote for Brexit" is not the same as "Most people voted for Remain".

Because something equally as radical as that is exactly what was suggested in most versions of a "soft" Brexit. Most involved remaining to a greater or lesser degree in the EU's orbit, usually by staying in the Customs Union and/or Single Market. Of course the EU would have been most unlikely to agree to a "soft Bremain" - i.e. remaining in the EU whilst withdrawing from those institutions - for one simple reason: they are an intrinsic part of EU membership. So with that being so, why should the UK have considered leaving whilst remaining in them?

Because several other countries are in precisely that situation.

Bit of wishful thinking here, I think.

As I said, demographics alone will, in my opinion, lead to a convincing majority for Remain in the future. Even now, polls seem to suggest a small majority, though not enough yet to meet the 60% threshold. Remember that a majority of Gen X, and a clear majority of millennials, were in favour of remaining, the switch from Brexit to Remain occurring around 1970 as a birth year. As time goes on, the Brexit-inclined generations will comprise less and less of the electorate while the Remain-inclined generations will comprise more and more of it. While Gen Z were not old enough to vote in the referendum, they do not seem to demonstrate typical Brexiter politics on average so I suspect would tend rejoin, as long as the rejoin campaign was good. Younger generations would see opportunity in easier emigration to the Continent, I suspect, plus they are, from what I can make out, more angered by the government's anti-immigration line than older generations.

I am guessing that you will be quite happy for this 'convincing majority' to be used for any 'rejoin' referendum? Or, perhaps not?

I think it would be fair enough and I think that by, say, the mid-2030s there would be that convincing majority, due to a combination of demographics and a realisation that Brexit has produced no tangible benefits. But to be honest my own wishes are less about being in the EU and more about regaining our lost freedoms and repairing our relationship with the Continent. I suspect that some of those freedoms (the SM/CU at least) will be re-introduced some time before any rejoin referendum, as a Government untied to Hard Brexit on pride grounds realises that it's in the country's best interests so to do. It appears the next government will not do it (presumably because they see it as too risky electorally at this time), but I strongly suspect the one after that will attempt to do so if it's not Tory.

Not sure about that, but the terms on offer may well not be palatable.... When they are, no doubt the rejoining camp will get us a referendum and win.

And in the meantime we'll have lost X years. If we did rejoin it would certainly render Brexit entirely and unambiguously pointless.

 

[SteveM70]

Take Sweden who have been "getting around to" using the Euro for thirty years.

Because the EU’s rules have a massive loophole in them

 

[edwin_m]

The biggest weakness of the leave campaign from an organisational perspective was that it was a coalition from across the political spectrum, whereas leave was almost exclusively a right of centre movement

From a content perspective, the leave campaign was a lot easier in my opinion, because it could thrive as a purely negative campaign about the weaknesses (some true, some not true) of the EU, whilst they could offer vague promises of sunlit uplands in the future

BIB should be "remain" I think?

It's an interesting point. And probably magnified by the Scottish independence referendum two years earlier when Unionist parties from left and right campaigned alongside each other, and despite the SNP losing the referendum they came out of it as the dominant force in Scotland afterwards.

There were however some left-wing Brexiters, and Corbyn's sympathies probably lay in that direction going back to the 1980s when the party was against the EEC. If Labour had got whole-heartedly behind the Remain campaign, and not allowed Johnson to call the 2019 election, then we might have had a second referendum.

I suspect that some of those freedoms (the SM/CU at least) will be re-introduced some time before any rejoin referendum, as a Government untied to Hard Brexit on pride grounds realises that it's in the country's best interests so to do. It appears the next government will not do it (presumably because they see it as too risky electorally at this time), but I strongly suspect the one after that will attempt to do so if it's not Tory.

Whoever forms that government, I suggest the Tory party will have to have come round to being in favour of whatever is being proposed. Neither the EU nor the British electorate will welcome a situation of going to the length of debating the issue and then implementing it if there's a significant risk that a subsequent Tory government will just seek to reverse it.

 

[SteveM70]

BIB should be "remain" I think?

Sorry, yes, my mistake.

 

[nw1]

Whoever forms that government, I suggest the Tory party will have to have come round to being in favour of whatever is being proposed. Neither the EU nor the British electorate will welcome a situation of going to the length of debating the issue and then implementing it if there's a significant risk that a subsequent Tory government will just seek to reverse it.

Very true. On second thoughts I think things will only move in the right direction once the Conservative Party abandons its current hardline position and adopts at least a neutral position on the matter. When that will be, I don't know but I think many of us are hoping that they'll have to move towards the centre again if they want to win in 2029.

A bit OT but my guess/hope on the Tory timeline in the next 5 years is that they'll elect another rabid right-winger if (when?) they lose the election, do disastrously in opinion polls as a result, and then elect another more centrist leader mid-term who will contest the 2029 election.

 

[Annetts key]

To re-enter the EU we would have to accept the Euro and Schengen - not clear whether any government would sign up to those conditions.

That's for negotiation.

Myself, I'm perfectly happy to ditch the pound sterling.

 

[nw1]

That's for negotiation.

Myself, I'm perfectly happy to ditch the pound sterling.

Probably too many people are emotionally attached to the £ for that to be popular, but yes, I suspect it will be up for negotiation. Plenty of EU countries don't use the Euro, after all.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it would be fair enough and I think that by, say, the mid-2030s there would be that convincing majority, due to a combination of demographics and a realisation that Brexit has produced no tangible benefits.

No tangible benefits? Maybe you've forgotten that Brexit allowed us to remove Freedom of Movement? I realise that you wanted to keep FOM, so you won't see its removal as a benefit, but for those of us who were concerned about the immense harm that FOM was causing to communities across the country, and the lack of housing and infrastructure combined with FOM pushing more and more people into housing-poverty etc., the removal of FOM was a huge benefit - more than enough to outweigh the various ways in which Brexit has harmed the economy.

 

[najaB]

Because the EU’s rules have a massive loophole in them

One which they could easily close, if they wanted to.

 

[nw1]

No tangible benefits? Maybe you've forgotten that Brexit allowed us to remove Freedom of Movement? I realise that you wanted to keep FOM, so you won't see its removal as a benefit, but for those of us who were concerned about the immense harm that FOM was causing to communities across the country, and the lack of housing and infrastructure combined with FOM pushing more and more people into housing-poverty etc., the removal of FOM was a huge benefit - more than enough to outweigh the various ways in which Brexit has harmed the economy.

FiM pushing more and more people into housing poverty?

A simple lack of enough housing is the more likely cause. And the nature of our housing market pushing up prices and rents to silly levels. And most immigrants are not EU of course. The affect of FoM on the problem is going to be negligible compared to other causes.

And FoM causing "immense harm to communities"? That is just ridiculous hyperbole. Is FoM causing "immense harm" to communities in continental countries, and if it is, why are they not pushing to wind down Schengen (or at least restrict it to the original wealthy Western European set of nations) and erect hard borders again?

 

[najaB]

No tangible benefits? Maybe you've forgotten that Brexit allowed us to remove Freedom of Movement? I realise that you wanted to keep FOM, so you won't see its removal as a benefit, but for those of us who were concerned about the immense harm that FOM was causing to communities across the country, and the lack of housing and infrastructure combined with FOM pushing more and more people into housing-poverty etc., the removal of FOM was a huge benefit - more than enough to outweigh the various ways in which Brexit has harmed the economy.

Indeed. Brexit fixed the housing crisis and there are plenty of affordable houses on the market.

Oh, what's that?

Okay, so at least housing prices have started trending downwards.

What? Really? Higher than ever you say?

Well, at least the NHS is well funded and waiting lists are down...

Err...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To re-enter the EU we would have to accept the Euro and Schengen - not clear whether any government would sign up to those conditions.

More to the point, we'd have to accept the return of Freedom of Movement (whether with or without Schengen).

And it's probably an issue of whether the electorate would sign up to all that than whether the Government would do so: Since we left the EU on the basis of a referendum, I would say there's now no way we could rejoin unless it was through another referendum - so the issue is, would the electorate accept the Euro, Schengen, and Freedom of Movement? Personally I can't see it, particularly since, in any future referendum campaign, the 'No' campaign would doubtless be making a very big thing of pointing out what rejoin would entail.

 

[Annetts key]

Probably too many people are emotionally attached to the £ for that to be popular, but yes, I suspect it will be up for negotiation.

Older generation certainly. Younger generation that use SMARTphones for payment, contactless cards and such like, I suspect they would not be partially emotionally attached, because mostly, it's just a number...

No tangible benefits? Maybe you've forgotten that Brexit allowed us to remove Freedom of Movement? I realise that you wanted to keep FOM, so you won't see its removal as a benefit, but for those of us who were concerned about the immense harm that FOM was causing to communities across the country, and the lack of housing and infrastructure combined with FOM pushing more and more people into housing-poverty etc., the removal of FOM was a huge benefit - more than enough to outweigh the various ways in which Brexit has harmed the economy.

So why has immigration increased since brexit? Removing FOM has not been a huge benefit.

 

[najaB]

Since we left the EU on the basis of a referendum, I would say there's now no way we could rejoin unless it was through another referendum - so the issue is, would the electorate accept the Euro, Schengen, and Freedom of Movement?

Agreed it would require a referendum.

I can't see Freedom of Movement being a deal breaker, and I'm fairly sure that the EU wouldn't insist on Schengen, given that our island nature means that there's a physical border, and ID checks would likely be necessary for security purposes on trains, planes or ferries.

It's not the same as the contiguous continent where border checks used to be the only reason for motorway queues.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

FOM pushing more and more people into housing poverty?

A simple lack of enough housing is the more likely cause.

Can you really not see that if hundreds of thousands of people a year are coming to the UK because of Freedom of Movement, that means we need hundreds of thousands of additional homes every year for them. And since we don't have hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty just waiting for someone to come and occupy them, that necessarily implies that we'll end up with a housing shortage (unless you can suddenly and very quickly build all those additional homes in addition to building whatever is required for the existing population).

And most immigrants are not EU of course. The affect of FoM on the problem is going to be negligible compared to other causes.

Far from being negligible, FOM was undoubtedly one of the biggest - and quite possibly the biggest - reason for the housing crisis prior to Brexit (but I'll grant that previous lack of planning/housebuilding by the Government was a huge factor too).

 

[Annetts key]

Since we left the EU on the basis of a referendum, I would say there's now no way we could rejoin unless it was through another referendum

The referendum was not binding. Hence legally there is no requirement to hold another if the government want to rejoin the EU. If the government can pass the relevant bill(s) through parliament, what the brexiters think is irrelevant.

 

[edwin_m]

Very true. On second thoughts I think things will only move in the right direction once the Conservative Party abandons its current hardline position and adopts at least a neutral position on the matter. When that will be, I don't know but I think many of us are hoping that they'll have to move towards the centre again if they want to win in 2029.

A bit OT but my guess/hope on the Tory timeline in the next 5 years is that they'll elect another rabid right-winger if (when?) they lose the election, do disastrously in opinion polls as a result, and then elect another more centrist leader mid-term who will contest the 2029 election.

The other option is that the Tory party fades into a far-right grouping with minimal support, and the LibDems or some new party become the main representative of the centre-right. This is probably more likely if we get proportional representation.

No tangible benefits? Maybe you've forgotten that Brexit allowed us to remove Freedom of Movement? I realise that you wanted to keep FOM, so you won't see its removal as a benefit, but for those of us who were concerned about the immense harm that FOM was causing to communities across the country, and the lack of housing and infrastructure combined with FOM pushing more and more people into housing-poverty etc., the removal of FOM was a huge benefit - more than enough to outweigh the various ways in which Brexit has harmed the economy.

I'd suggest that the people who share that view are the core of the residual group that favour Brexit - difficult to see any other reason they might - and the viewpoint will fade out for the same reason as the demographic that holds it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The referendum was not binding. Hence legally there is no requirement to hold another if the government want to rejoin the EU. If the government can pass the relevant bill(s) through parliament, what the brexiters think is irrelevant.

I very much doubt that most of the electorate would think it irrelevant if the Government decided (without a referendum) to pass a bill to reverse what had previously within living memory been decided by a referendum.

 

[nw1]

Can you really not see that if hundreds of thousands of people a year are coming to the UK because of Freedom of Movement, that means we need hundreds of thousands of additional homes every year for them. And since we don't have hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty just waiting for someone to come and occupy them, that necessarily implies that we'll end up with a housing shortage (unless you can suddenly and very quickly build all those additional homes in addition to building whatever is required for the existing population).

And what of all the migrants coming here irrespective of FoM? Why were EU migrants more of a problem than any other migrants?

Far from being negligible, FOM was undoubtedly one of the biggest - and quite possibly the biggest - reason for the housing crisis prior to Brexit (but I'll grant that previous lack of planning/housebuilding by the Government was a huge factor too).

I very much doubt that. I suspect excessively high rents was a bigger problem, driven primarily by market forces and an unregulated rental market. Or more people adopting the single life nowadays compared to the past (nothing wrong with that btw, for many, many years I lived alone) meaning more demand.

And why can the continent "get away" with FoM when we can't? Why isn't Germany so keen to block Eastern Europeans from settling there, for instance? Why aren't the richer western European nations pushing for a reduction in the area covered by Schengen and hard borders surrounding Western Europe to prevent migration into it from the less-wealthy east?

 

[Annetts key]

Can you really not see that if hundreds of thousands of people a year are coming to the UK because of Freedom of Movement, that means we need hundreds of thousands of additional homes every year for them. And since we don't have hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty just waiting for someone to come and occupy them, that necessarily implies that we'll end up with a housing shortage (unless you can suddenly and very quickly build all those additional homes in addition to building whatever is required for the existing population).



Far from being negligible, FOM was undoubtedly one of the biggest - and quite possibly the biggest - reason for the housing crisis prior to Brexit (but I'll grant that previous lack of planning/housebuilding by the Government was a huge factor too).

No, the biggest reason for the housing crisis is Thatcher's right to buy scheme. In particular, the difficulties that councils now have in building new homes or retaining enough to supply demand. Plus the lack of quality control on private builders, who, unsurprisingly are only interested in profit, not in quality or quantity.

 

[JamesT]

Probably too many people are emotionally attached to the £ for that to be popular, but yes, I suspect it will be up for negotiation. Plenty of EU countries don't use the Euro, after all.

It’s not really a matter of emotional attachment, it’s whether it makes economic sense to fix our exchange rate and lose the ability to independently set interest rates. You may recall the last time it was tried didn’t go well for the UK, culminating in Black Wednesday. Other parts of the Eurozone (notably those bordering the Med) often struggle with economic policy that seems to be diametrically opposed to what they need.

 

[Annetts key]

I very much doubt that most of the electorate would think it irrelevant if the Government decided (without a referendum) to pass a bill to reverse what had previously within living memory been decided by a referendum.

If a party included rejoining the EU in its manifesto, and got a reasonably big majority at the general election, no referendum would be needed from a legal point of view. That does not mean that a government should or should not hold a referendum. That is the decision of said government.

 

[nw1]

I very much doubt that most of the electorate would think it irrelevant if the Government decided (without a referendum) to pass a bill to reverse what had previously within living memory been decided by a referendum.

But if they voted for such a party given "rejoin EU" was in its manifesto, they can't really whinge when said government unilaterally attempts to rejoin the EU.

And I think that should be the rejoin strategy, really. No referendum needed; when the time is right to consider rejoining, it should simply be included in the manifesto. That's what Ted Heath did in 1970, presumably. If enough people really see that rejoining is a deal-breaker, then they can vote for another party.

Same would apply the other way. Cameron could, if he wanted to, have put a pledge to unilaterally leave the EU in the manifesto in 2015.

 

[brad465]

Rejoining won't happen without an overwhelming level of support, not just among voters but all the major parties need to support it. The EU won't let in a member under one UK Government, only for the next one to cancel it.

Can you really not see that if hundreds of thousands of people a year are coming to the UK because of Freedom of Movement, that means we need hundreds of thousands of additional homes every year for them. And since we don't have hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty just waiting for someone to come and occupy them, that necessarily implies that we'll end up with a housing shortage (unless you can suddenly and very quickly build all those additional homes in addition to building whatever is required for the existing population).



Far from being negligible, FOM was undoubtedly one of the biggest - and quite possibly the biggest - reason for the housing crisis prior to Brexit (but I'll grant that previous lack of planning/housebuilding by the Government was a huge factor too).

I'd say the biggest cause of high immigration is that we have a pyramid scheme economic model reliant on increasing population to drive growth of all sorts of economic matters; as domestic birth rates are too low to support the model, immigration has taken over. The US and other non-EU developed countries are doing the same thing.

 

[Annetts key]

It’s not really a matter of emotional attachment, it’s whether it makes economic sense to fix our exchange rate and lose the ability to independently set interest rates. You may recall the last time it was tried didn’t go well for the UK, culminating in Black Wednesday. Other parts of the Eurozone (notably those bordering the Med) often struggle with economic policy that seems to be diametrically opposed to what they need.

Trying to lock two different currencies together was always going to be difficult. In fact, I don't agree with trying this. As the likelihood of failure is too great. The international traders power is far greater than the government or Bank of England's power in the money markets.

However, if the U.K. was to join the Euro, there would no longer be a pound sterling to trade against.

IMHO, we don't actually loose much with regards to "independently setting interest rates". Our interest rate is more often than not, not far from the current EU interest rate. Combining our economy with the EU economy is likely to make the Euro more stable. And hence this would be good for the U.K.

There are also other reasons that would be an advantage for us. Especially for businesses that trade with the EU.

 

[317 forever]

If the Conservatives had not held a referendum, does anyone here really think that UKIP would have won a general election?

My view is that Cameron thought that winning a referendum would put the issue to bed, bash UKIP, and hence improve the chances of Conservatives in areas where UKIP were challenging them. Although UKIP were unlikely to win in these places, they were reducing the majority in elections for some MPs.

I think his other motivation for the referendum was to reduce voter defections from Tory to UKIP, thus reduce seat defections from Tory to Labour, and enhance his chances of re-election as PM.

Given that he stood down immediately after the referendum, he only secured his premiership for another year, effectively costing us our place in the EU in the process.

 

[SteveM70]

One which they could easily close, if they wanted to.

Whether they could close it retrospectively for Sweden is a potentially more difficult question