Opinions on Brexit

[nw1]

I only wish you were right. But I fear that it may take more than one election for Labour to recover from the effects of Corbyn & company. And however justified some of the current strikes may be, the Tory media will do its best to blame Labour for industrial unrest - and all too many voters may believe them.

I really can't see any way the Tories can win the next election. Not only are they massively unpopular and well behind in the polls, we've had Truss, Kwarteng and Johnson recently and they are mired in scandal after scandal.

Labour will almost certainly win by default, even if Starmer doesn't do a great job. Sunak simply doesn't inspire, and I doubt the only alternative, Johnson coming back, will go down well. Granted we have had one or two surprise Tory wins (1992 and 2015) but in both cases the expected outcome was a hung parliament, not a Labour victory. Cameron in 2014 and Major in 1991 were doing considerably better in the polls than the current government, which even right-wingers and Brexiters seem to have had enough of.

The worst possible realistic outcome (from a non-Tory POV) is a hung parliament with Labour the largest party. And perhaps that won't be so terrible.
I do agree that 15 years out of power for the Tories is not guaranteed though.

As for the strikes, well one can scarcely blame Labour. It's the Tories who are in government and deciding on pay and conditions for public sector workers!

 

[Annetts key]

Eh? As I recall the thing that most motivated people to vote Leave was that Freedom of Movement meant there was basically no way to control how many people from Europe were coming to live in the UK. As far as I'm aware Brexit has completely solved that problem!

Absolutely, that’s why there no cheap boats full of people crossing the English Channel…

 

[coppercapped]

Yes, I know who Lauterbach is, I've been reading eugyppius's substack for the last couple of years (https://www.eugyppius.com/).

Well, bully for you...

I have no idea what this web site represents but at first glance it does not seem to be wholly concerned with medical or epidemiological matters.

Yes, totally wrong - but that's not really a topic for this thread. My point here is that the fact these European governments (and states and regions and cities) implemented these measures showed that they had a different ideology from what I thought they had, indeed one I find very problematic.

What 'ideology' did you think they had? Apart from, in the instance in question, of protecting their citizens as best as they knew how and with the facilities at their disposal. Do you think that the 'ideology' differed from country to country or do you think that all these countries, states, towns and cities had adopted the same ideology?

Or is it that you find the concept of having different opinions problematic?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Absolutely, that’s why there no cheap boats full of people crossing the English Channel…

That's a different problem and therefore needs different solutions. It doesn't change that Brexit has solved the problem that we had no way for the UK Government to control how many EU citizens might come to the UK, and immediately be legally entitled to permanently live and work here.

 

[Annetts key]

That's a different problem and therefore needs different solutions. It doesn't change that Brexit has solved the problem that we had no way for the UK Government to control how many EU citizens might come to the UK, and immediately be legally entitled to permanently live and work here.

Sorry but brexit has NOT solved that problem. It has just made it more difficult. Now that it’s no longer straightforward, if people still want to come here and can’t find a legal method, they will do so illegally. And at the same time messed up rather a lot of other things for us and for the people in the E.U. that were not ‘causing problems’.

That’s like throwing the baby out with the bathwater…

Plus ALL the problems caused by our own incompetent government remain (and in fact, are likely getting worse). Such as the NHS and care sector struggling to cope, lack of housing, lack of investment in schools, etc…

IMHO we (the U.K.) have shot ourself in both legs.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sorry but brexit has NOT solved that problem. It has just made it more difficult. Now that it’s no longer straightforward, if people still want to come here and can’t find a legal method, they will do so illegally.

How on Earth do you reason that it has not solved the problem? If someone from an EU country now wishes to come and live/work in the UK, then in general, they have to apply for a visa to do so. The rules for determining who qualifies for those visas are under the control of the UK Government. Therefore the UK Government is able (albeit indirectly, by modifying those rules) to control how many people from EU countries are able to legally come and live in the UK. That was not the case before Brexit.

If people come here illegally, then the UK Government can legally throw them out again when it discovers them (unless they claim and are granted asylum - but it'd be pretty hard for anyone from an EU country to justify such a claim).

It's utterly absurd to claim that the problem of the UK not having any control over how many people from the EU might legally come to live in the UK has not been solved.

I'm really surprised because usually you post quite sensible, and well argued stuff. Even when I disagree with you, your posts seem to me generally logical and reasoned. It seems very unlike you to post and then repeat obviously untrue and easily falsifiable claims like this.

 

[Doppelganger]

That's a different problem and therefore needs different solutions. It doesn't change that Brexit has solved the problem that we had no way for the UK Government to control how many EU citizens might come to the UK, and immediately be legally entitled to permanently live and work here.

It might have reduced migration from EU countries, but if the desire, which I am sure many Brexit voters were after, was overall reduced immigration, then it was just another lie.

The fact is any advanced economy needs immigration for it to grow, especially due to aging populations. The UK government always had the ability to make immigration from outside the EU zero and the latest data, not only supports they have no intention of doing so, but in fact shows net immigration is the highest on record and so greater numbers are coming in. Is this what Brexiteers wanted?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/

 

[Yew]

Erm, within the EU they do and indeed when the UK was a member, they took advantage of the both the free movement of people and goods. The UK economy is now hamstrung by not being able to recruit and small business in particular are finding it more difficult to export, so I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say...

The EU has nothing to do with the free movement of people, that was under the European Economic Area. A seperate organisation which includes nations not inside the EU, but who have free movement of goods and people with the EU nations.

Eh? As I recall the thing that most motivated people to vote Leave was that Freedom of Movement meant there was basically no way to control how many people from Europe were coming to live in the UK. As far as I'm aware Brexit has completely solved that problem!

As for people still being unhappy... Well it's the usual thing in politics that as soon as you solve one problem people will get unhappy about the next problem

Again, the EU is not responsible for free trade and movement, that is the EEA. I'm still disappointed in our political system and impartiality rules that Farrage was not severely reprimanded for often intentionally confusing those lines.

 

[Doppelganger]

The EU has nothing to do with the free movement of people, that was under the European Economic Area. A seperate organisation which includes nations not inside the EU, but who have free movement of goods and people with the EU nations

The EU does have plenty to do with free movement as I already explained up thread. Free movement came into being into what was the EEC, not the EEA. The EEC then became the EC and finally the EU.

The EEA does indeed have free movement, but the EEA only came into being in 1994, so it would be good if you didn't convolute the two like Farrage...

 

[Yew]

The EU does have plenty to do with free movement as I already explained up thread. Free movement came into being into what was the EEC, not the EEA. The EEC then became the EC and finally the EU.

The EEA does indeed have free movement, but the EEA only came into being in 1994, so it would be good if you didn't convolute the two like Farrage...

In case you haven't noticed, we aren't in 1994 anymore.

Presently, free movement is a benefit/condition of being a member of the EEA, which we were; this was a separate relationship that was not part of the EU. The ballot specifically mentioned leaving the EU, and made no mention of any changes to our relationship with the EEA. Ergo, there was no democratic mandate for leaving it, and Farrage should have been called out by the electoral authorities whenever he spoke about things that would be unaffected by leaving the EU.

 

[GS250]

The EU does have plenty to do with free movement as I already explained up thread. Free movement came into being into what was the EEC, not the EEA. The EEC then became the EC and finally the EU.

The EEA does indeed have free movement, but the EEA only came into being in 1994, so it would be good if you didn't convolute the two like Farrage...

Freedom of movement was actually a very good idea in principle. Why not allow people from the UK to work and live in the likes of Germany, France and Spain? And vice versa. Not hugely dissimilar nations when it comes to economy or standard of living.

As soon as this extended to the former Eastern bloc countries though....then we all knew the outcome. Then again, it was the Blair government that insisted on absolutely zero limits on numbers!

 

[Doppelganger]

In case you haven't noticed, we aren't in 1994 anymore.

Presently, free movement is a benefit/condition of being a member of the EEA, which we were; this was a separate relationship that was not part of the EU. The ballot specifically mentioned leaving the EU, and made no mention of any changes to our relationship with the EEA. Ergo, there was no democratic mandate for leaving it, and Farrage should have been called out by the electoral authorities whenever he spoke about things that would be unaffected by leaving the EU.

But the EEA was formed from the EU member states and the countries that then made up EFTA, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein and it extended the EU's freedoms across the EEA. The UK by being a member of the EU was therefore in the EEA. Now the UK isn't in the EU it's not in the EEA.

I'm not supporting this position, but stating how free movement came into being as it's important to see it all in context.

 

[Yew]

But the EEA was formed from the EU member states and the countries that then made up EFTA, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein and it extended the EU's freedoms across the EEA. The UK by being a member of the EU was therefore in the EEA. Now the UK isn't in the EU it's not in the EEA.

I'm not supporting this position, but stating how free movement came into being as it's important to see it all in context.

None of which changes the fact that we were a member of the EU and EEA at the time of the vote, and despite the vote being strictly limited to the EU, and making no mention of the EEA, we have now left the EEA without a democratic vote around it.

 

[E27007]

Citizenship is costly, time consuming and at the time was unimportant as they had the right to live here with no restrictions. There was literally no advantages to gaining British citizenship for a national of another EU country prior to brexit.

A number of countries do not permit dual citizenship, Holland was one of them,Holland changed to allow dual citizenship a few years ago, therefore a disincentive for a foreigner to apply for UK citizenship

 

[Doppelganger]

None of which changes the fact that we were a member of the EU and EEA at the time of the vote, and despite the vote being strictly limited to the EU, and making no mention of the EEA, we have now left the EEA without a democratic vote around it.

But the UK was a member of the EEA by virtue of being an EU member state.

The EEA agreement was clear that it was between the EU, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. The UK is not mentioned separately.

EEA Legal Texts

www.efta.int

 

[Bantamzen]

None of which changes the fact that we were a member of the EU and EEA at the time of the vote, and despite the vote being strictly limited to the EU, and making no mention of the EEA, we have now left the EEA without a democratic vote around it.

Indeed, and maybe if we had seen a sensible argument from both sides this would have been brought into question. It would have been simple enough to have had asked about both on the ballot papers, and in fact might well have driven the debate towards a more intelligent one instead of the kiddies playground spat that it become. In fact there were people arguing to leave the EU but remain in the EEA! So in shutting down that debate, both sides contributed in no small way to an erosion of democracy, ironic really!

 

[RT4038]

A number of countries do not permit dual citizenship, Holland was one of them,Holland changed to allow dual citizenship a few years ago, therefore a disincentive for a foreigner to apply for UK citizenship

But that is not the fault or the concern of the UK. A citizen of a country that does not allow dual citizenship has to accept that if they move to a another country they are going to be at risk of inpermanence or are going to have to commit to the new country (by taking out citizenship) and possibly lose their original citizenship. Alternatively, campaign in their own country through the democratic process to change the law.
I recognise that these are not options to be taken lightly. The UK goes as far as it should - allowing its citizens Dual Nationality.

 

[E27007]

For all those who still want Brexit, you have a choice, either things get so difficult we end up having to return to the EEA via the single market/customs union, and ultimately back into the EU - or you look at all the faults of Brexit (barriers/trade/movement/Visas etc) and fix them so you keep some kind of Brexit (ie not in the EU, not paying in to the EU). Hobson's choice I know, but at this rate the support for Brexit will dwindle to less than a third of the population - just look how Tory support with 80-odd seat advantage has collapsed - and we haven't even started with ETIAS/profiling of holidaymakers.

So dear Brexit-voting friends, it really is in your interest if you want to stay out of the EU to look at the issues, don't bury your heads, don't believe all our new trade deals are as good as the old ones, and let us import/export/travel seamlessly......as was promised. Your call.

Remain or leave, we were under the spotlight our name to be called out at morning assembly and sent to the Headmaster to be shown the cane. Had the referendum gone the other way, I firmly believe the result would be the signal to Brussels to demand more " EU compliance " in the UK, such as, the reduction or end of the UK rebate, a bigger EU budget, pressure to join Shengen, pressure to adopt the Euro currency, and the EU to accelerate the accesion of several other backward and costly east european states, which without the UK in the fold, the EU cannot afford.
A daughter of a French friend. the daughter worked in an EU office over in Brussels, she told me of the long-term feeling of the UK as the "bad neighbour" the EU, as in, we won't join in, we drop spanners in the work, we don't pay our proper dues ( that rebate ). In fact the attitude was thank heavens they are leaving! The latter a reference to role of the UK as a check and balance power when the other big players are jostling to be the leader of the pack.

 

[DustyBin]

Remain or leave, we were under the spotlight, had the referendum gone the other way, I firmly believe the result would be the signal to Brussels to demand more " EU compliance " in the UK, such as, the reduction or end of the UK rebate, a bigger EU budget, pressure to join Shengen, pressure to adopt the Euro currency, and the EU to accelerate the accesion of several other backward and costly east european states, which without the UK in the fold, the EU cannot afford.
A daughter of a French friend. the daughter worked in an EU office over in Brussels, she told me of the long-term feeling of the UK as the "bad neighbour" the EU, as in, we won't join in, we drop spanners in the work, we don't pay our proper dues ( that rebate ). In fact the attitude was thank heavens they are leaving! The latter a reference to role of the UK as a check and balance power when the other big players are jostling to be the leader of the pack.

You’ve touched on my main reason for voting leave here. Very briefly, I didn’t believe that our “special” status was sustainable long term, and nor did I believe that it was in our best interests to integrate further. So, as this was a once in a lifetime referendum, I came out on the leave side almost by default. I took a long term view based on what I thought the future may hold; it was a judgement call and had nothing to do with anything scrawled on a bus!

 

[Annetts key]

How on Earth do you reason that it has not solved the problem? If someone from an EU country now wishes to come and live/work in the UK, then in general, they have to apply for a visa to do so. The rules for determining who qualifies for those visas are under the control of the UK Government. Therefore the UK Government is able (albeit indirectly, by modifying those rules) to control how many people from EU countries are able to legally come and live in the UK. That was not the case before Brexit.

If people come here illegally, then the UK Government can legally throw them out again when it discovers them (unless they claim and are granted asylum - but it'd be pretty hard for anyone from an EU country to justify such a claim).

It's utterly absurd to claim that the problem of the UK not having any control over how many people from the EU might legally come to live in the UK has not been solved.

I'm really surprised because usually you post quite sensible, and well argued stuff. Even when I disagree with you, your posts seem to me generally logical and reasoned. It seems very unlike you to post and then repeat obviously untrue and easily falsifiable claims like this.

From a purely legal/paperwork perspective, leaving the E.U. has officially given control to our government on the numbers of people of member countries of the E.U. from permanently entering the U.K.

In practice, just having a law or other agreement does not stop people ignoring said law or agreement. As we as a country are not willing to spend more money and resources on improving our border security, it’s possible for ‘illegal’ immigration to occur.

Yes, if the authorities discover an ‘illegal’ immigrant, then they can deport them. Tell me, if someone comes here as a visitor, but then fails to leave the U.K. how much effort do our authorities put into finding them?

Not all employers will check the status of an employee (especially if they are already not fully compliant with our rules and laws, such as payment by cash in hand hence avoiding the tax laws).

Are the numbers of people doing this small? Yes. But it’s likely not zero. Being as this is an illegal activity, there is not going to be any official figures! Although estimated figure may be officially produced.

Also, the referendum did not ask why people wanted brexit. And what brexit actually was, was not specified in specific detail. So everyone has different ideas of exactly what it means/meant.

Farage and other high profile brexiters no doubt all have their own ideas. As do the Conservatives that were in favour. On these forums, many different views/reasons have been given.

If people wanted the amount of immigration to be drastically reduced, as others have said, brexit has not significantly affected immigration from other non-E.U. countries.

Meanwhile we (the U.K.) are now having to suffer the consequences. Which is, I believe what this topic is about.

 

[GS250]

You’ve touched on my main reason for voting leave here. Very briefly, I didn’t believe that our “special” status was sustainable long term, and nor did I believe that it was in our best interests to integrate further. So, as this was a once in a lifetime referendum, I came out on the leave side almost by default. I took a long term view based on what I thought the future may hold; it was a judgement call and had nothing to do with anything scrawled on a bus!

I think its safe to say many who voted for brexit had made up their minds long before the campaigning had started. Those who were undecided were certainly not convinced to vote remain by the likes Eddie Izzard and co!!

 

[yorkie]

I voted 'I voted Remain and stand by that decision'; I do feel strongly on the issue but don't want to argue with anyone and I don't get angry over it.

I respect the views of people who genuinely think Brexit is a positive thing because they have given thought to it and have considered the economic effects (positive and negative), but I do get the impression some people voted for Brexit for zenophobic and/or racist reasons and I resent that.

 

[Spamcan81]

Brexit is turning out to be the disaster I always thought it would be. Whilst I would advocate rejoining as soon as possible, that won't happen anytime soon.
Hopefully we'll soon get a change of government and then we can start co-operating with the EU rather than fighting them.

 

[RT4038]

From a purely legal/paperwork perspective, leaving the E.U. has officially given control to our government on the numbers of people of member countries of the E.U. from permanently entering the U.K.

And this has reduced the numbers as a result, and reduces the possibility of uncontrolled increases in the future.

In practice, just having a law or other agreement does not stop people ignoring said law or agreement. As we as a country are not willing to spend more money and resources on improving our border security, it’s possible for ‘illegal’ immigration to occur.

Yes, if the authorities discover an ‘illegal’ immigrant, then they can deport them. Tell me, if someone comes here as a visitor, but then fails to leave the U.K. how much effort do our authorities put into finding them?

Not all employers will check the status of an employee (especially if they are already not fully compliant with our rules and laws, such as payment by cash in hand hence avoiding the tax laws).

Are the numbers of people doing this small? Yes. But it’s likely not zero. Being as this is an illegal activity, there is not going to be any official figures! Although estimated figure may be officially produced.

So the law of diminishing returns comes into play - it would be extremely expensive (and intrusive) to get full compliance. Most of our law enforcement works this way. So I am not sure what the point is being made - is it that if full compliance cannot be achieved then the law should not exist?

Meanwhile we (the U.K.) are now having to suffer the consequences. Which is, I believe what this topic is about.

I think the topic is on 'Opinion of Brexit' rather than purely about 'suffering the consequences'. There will be plenty of people who are not 'suffering' or who think that the short term suffering is worth it.

 

[Annetts key]

So the law of diminishing returns comes into play - it would be extremely expensive (and intrusive) to get full compliance. Most of our law enforcement works this way. So I am not sure what the point is being made - is it that if full compliance cannot be achieved then the law should not exist?

I’m not arguing that we should put more resources or spend more money on this. My point is simply that it’s clearly daft to say that there is absolutely no uncontrolled immigration.

There will be plenty of people who are not 'suffering' or who think that the short term suffering is worth it.

Then let these people tell us how well it’s going for them. Let them tell us how they are better off.

 

[RT4038]

I’m not arguing that we should put more resources or spend more money on this. My point is simply that it’s clearly daft to say that there is absolutely no uncontrolled immigration.

Yes, you are right. Never has been and never will be, until we all get chipped and have controlling scanners, and compliance officers everywhere.

Then let these people tell us how well it’s going for them. Let them tell us how they are better off.

I think you need to read some of the posts as to why people voted Brexit. I haven't seen one yet saying that it was to become instantly 'better off'. I think a lot of people would say that it is going fine for them, and that it has little impacted on their lives, with an expectation that what little impact there has been will be resolved in time as the country adjusts.
There will, obviously be those who have been affected (and not just by having to get a passport stamp) and are not happy. But it has happened and we move on - it is not coming back any time soon. However, I do hope, after a suitable time and the protagonists on both sides are gone, that our relationship with the EU can be as frictionless as possible whilst retaining our sovereignty.

 

[Yew]

Remain or leave, we were under the spotlight our name to be called out at morning assembly and sent to the Headmaster to be shown the cane. Had the referendum gone the other way, I firmly believe the result would be the signal to Brussels to demand more " EU compliance " in the UK, such as, the reduction or end of the UK rebate, a bigger EU budget, pressure to join Shengen, pressure to adopt the Euro currency, and the EU to accelerate the accesion of several other backward and costly east european states, which without the UK in the fold, the EU cannot afford.
A daughter of a French friend. the daughter worked in an EU office over in Brussels, she told me of the long-term feeling of the UK as the "bad neighbour" the EU, as in, we won't join in, we drop spanners in the work, we don't pay our proper dues ( that rebate ). In fact the attitude was thank heavens they are leaving! The latter a reference to role of the UK as a check and balance power when the other big players are jostling to be the leader of the pack.

Given that changes to EU law require a unanimous vote, that would only have happened if we voted for it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, you are right. Never has been and never will be, until we all get chipped and have controlling scanners, and compliance officers everywhere.


I think you need to read some of the posts as to why people voted Brexit. I haven't seen one yet saying that it was to become instantly 'better off'. I think a lot of people would say that it is going fine for them, and that it has little impacted on their lives, with an expectation that what little impact there has been will be resolved in time as the country adjusts.
There will, obviously be those who have been affected (and not just by having to get a passport stamp) and are not happy. But it has happened and we move on - it is not coming back any time soon. However, I do hope, after a suitable time and the protagonists on both sides are gone, that our relationship with the EU can be as frictionless as possible whilst retaining our sovereignty.

"Our sovereignty"? All I see happening, thanks at least in part to leaving the EU, is higher costs, more stress, less say than ever in our government's decisions. Throw in the external economic crisis that we now have less say in as a country than ever and I'm failing to understand where sovereignty even comes into it, let alone be "ours".

 

[Enthusiast]

I think its safe to say many who voted for brexit had made up their minds long before the campaigning had started. Those who were undecided were certainly not convinced to vote remain by the likes Eddie Izzard and co!!

Indeed. I made up my mind in 1992 that if I was ever given the opportunity (which I never believed I would) I would vote to leave. Nothing anybody said between then and 2016 persuaded me otherwise (nor was it likely to). Similarly, nothing that has happened since then has surprised me, nor has it made me reconsider my position (nor is it likely to).

Brexit has been handled appallingly by the UK, from the delay and dithering before invoking A50, through some of the disgraceful efforts to reverse the referendum result or implement Brexit in name only, until now where the changes necessary to thrive outside the EU are still not being implemented. But that's because many politicians and their senior Civil Servants see Brexit as a damage limitation exercise instead of an opportunity to steer the UK away from the idea that nothing outside Europe matters too much. But that was to be expected too.

 

[Doppelganger]

Indeed. I made up my mind in 1992 that if I was ever given the opportunity (which I never believed I would) I would vote to leave. Nothing anybody said between then and 2016 persuaded me otherwise (nor was it likely to). Similarly, nothing that has happened since then has surprised me, nor has it made me reconsider my position (nor is it likely to).

What made you decide way back in 1992? Was it related to the Maastricht treaty?

What would it take for you to reconsider? The UK economy is doing a lot worse than other major economies, energy prices are way higher, inflation is higher, exporting has been seriously damaged and inward investment is down and unlikely to recover.