In a relevant note polls show that those most concerned about immigration levels live in areas least affected by immigration. Draw from that what you will.
ONS population growth between 2015 and 2040 projected as
Uk 16% France 10% Germany 4% Italy - a small decline
That's my leave vote in a nutshell. Quite which party to vote for to provide an economy land housing and pensions to support that god only knows. I am genuinely worried for my kids future and for our beautiful green spaces and countryside.
Oh the delicious irony of someone worried about how population growth will impact their kids. One rule for you and a different one for everyone else?
What are you saying we should do to maintain a stable population? What is different between the situation in the uk and Germany as shown by those forecasts?
I don't know what to say about your question. Sorry. It makes me cringe when they have some new breakthrough on IVF or freezing eggs - because yeah right, we really need more humans.
I tend to think of population in terms of the whole world and how it's all going to be totally horrendous. So far today there has been 184k births and only 76k deaths. World population has grown by 67.7mn so far this year. None of this is sustainable. We will all starve. Or there will be wars started to occupy food-growing territory. (I'm thinking China invading Russia.) Or the overuse of antibiotics will kick in and we'll all die of previously treatable illnesses anyway. Whatever, we're all going to hell in a handcart IMO. It's the reason we decided not to have kids. It's impossible to imagine that they would have a good life. worldometers.info/world-population/
He works in IT, but also, being Polish, does his own renovation of the house, in what spare time he has. Typical Polish work ethic. I imagine that he contributes far more in taxes and NI contributions than my sister (who understands and appreciates that perfectly well). Do we want to lose immigrants like that?
Why is it a given that we would lose immigrants like that? Countries all around the world accept immigration based on various types of visas, I have 5 years of work visa's in my passport, I'm not sure it would be any different for the UK.
The main difference being we also offer the option of permanent residence, something I will never be able to obtain here.
Simply because they don't want to come here any more. There is far less incentive for them. We have already seen the impact of the lower value of GBPs vs €.
Net migration from the EU has plummeted. Partially because large numbers of them no longer see any merit in being here and have left. In particular, I believe the NHS is really struggling. Despite large numbers of vacancies, the recruitment of EU nurses has fallen 90%. And a record 17k EU nationals left the NHS last year.
He works in IT, but also, being Polish, does his own renovation of the house, in what spare time he has. Typical Polish work ethic. I imagine that he contributes far more in taxes and NI contributions than my sister (who understands and appreciates that perfectly well). Do we want to lose immigrants like that?
Why is it a given that we would lose immigrants like that? Countries all around the world accept immigration based on various types of visas, I have 5 years of work visa's in my passport, I'm not sure it would be any different for the UK.
The main difference being we also offer the option of permanent residence, something I will never be able to obtain here.
Net migration from the EU has plummeted. Partially because large numbers of them no longer see any merit in being here and have left.
The latest August figures show a reduction, probably because of the salaries have reduced pro rats because of the value of the pound. Hardly plummeting though.
Net long-term international migration was estimated to be +246,000 in year ending (YE) March 2017, down 81,000 from +327,000 in YE March 2016; immigration was 588,000, down 50,000, and emigration was 342,000, up 31,000 (all statistically significant changes).
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
Of those who immigrated to work (275,000) in YE March 2017, the majority had a definite job (188,000) but fewer came to the UK looking for work (down 39,000 to 87,000 – a statistically significant decrease over the year); for emigration to work (182,000), people moving abroad for a definite job saw an increase of 21,000 to 122,000 (statistically significant).
A total of 51,000 non-British citizens emigrated to return home to live in YE March 2017 (up from 34,000); these were mostly EU citizens (44,000, up 20,000 from YE March 16) half of whom were from EU8 countries (all statistically significant changes).
A total of 16,211 people were granted asylum, resettlement or an alternative form of protection in YE June 2017; this is a 7% increase from 15,108 in the previous year.
In a relevant note polls show that those most concerned about immigration levels live in areas least affected by immigration. Draw from that what you will.
ONS population growth between 2015 and 2040 projected as
Uk 16% France 10% Germany 4% Italy - a small decline
That's my leave vote in a nutshell. Quite which party to vote for to provide an economy land housing and pensions to support that god only knows. I am genuinely worried for my kids future and for our beautiful green spaces and countryside.
Oh the delicious irony of someone worried about how population growth will impact their kids. One rule for you and a different one for everyone else?
What are you saying we should do to maintain a stable population? What is different between the situation in the uk and Germany as shown by those forecasts?
I don't know what to say about your question. Sorry. It makes me cringe when they have some new breakthrough on IVF or freezing eggs - because yeah right, we really need more humans.
I tend to think of population in terms of the whole world and how it's all going to be totally horrendous. So far today there has been 184k births and only 76k deaths. World population has grown by 67.7mn so far this year. None of this is sustainable. We will all starve. Or there will be wars started to occupy food-growing territory. (I'm thinking China invading Russia.) Or the overuse of antibiotics will kick in and we'll all die of previously treatable illnesses anyway. Whatever, we're all going to hell in a handcart IMO. It's the reason we decided not to have kids. It's impossible to imagine that they would have a good life. worldometers.info/world-population/
Ultimately, I think you will be right. Humans are both the most destructive and the most widely distributed animals on the planet and we have one of the largest biomasses. Though we have a way to go to outstrip the runaway leaders on the biomass per land species chart: the cows which are almost exclusively farmed by us. At some point something's going to have to give. Unless we become less destructive and/or less prolific there will come a point where we run out of resources. I suspect climate change will be the driver behind much conflict in the future as sea levels rise and the dispossessed will find it necessary to find new places to live.
In the short term though it's pensions that are our biggest problem. In many developing (and not even developing) nations, having lots of children to care for you is a necessity to surviving beyond working age: your family is your pension pot. In industrialised nations, the mechanism is different and so people don't need to have a family full of youngsters, but the need to have a younger population to carry on working is still there. Unless we can find a way of making technology work for everyone so that we no longer need all these younger workers, then we are stuck in this conundrum where we need ever more people for us to survive into old age, but the weight of those additional numbers is the biggest threat to our long term survival.
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
We're gong back over old ground again but it's entirely reasonable to express concerns over immigration and the perceived effects this has on our public services, housing, jobs, etc. That was a concern Remain failed miserably to address properly. Partly because it would involve the government admitting that the things people were concerned about were due primarily to their policies and inaction and not caused by excessive immigration.
However the degree to which Leave campaigned on an anti-immigration platform (they called it "controlled" of course) bore no relation to the reality of the situation as was and will be in the future.
We will still need immigration to fill those jobs that are unattractive to UK nationals. I've just come from an elderly person's warden assisted flat. They require care visits three times a day to dress, clean and feed them and see to some medical needs. They are doubly incontinent.
The idea that the Eastern European carers that are currently perfoming these tasks, on minimum wage or thereabouts, are preventing a UK carer from doing that job is frankly pathetic. If you or I wanted that type of job, or picking veg or working on a food factory production line or in retail, the jobs are there.
Those jobs will still (arguably increasingly so) be there after Brexit and as a result we will still have immigration. Albeit a little less so, not because the UK has taken back control but because, financially, it is a less attractive place to emigrate to.
Where's that immigration need going to be met? I suspect from the poorest Commonwealth countries, leaving us with a situation where we've done no more than swap immigration from one developing economy like Poland with another like Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Bangladesh, Malaysia, the West Indies, etc. How this is going to play out with a certain demographic and mindset within Leavers is going to be an interesting issue in the longer term (and I include members of my own family in that group).
And let's not forget the role that certain sections of the press played, and continue to play, in this false narrative that all of societies ills can be laid at the door, wholly or in part, on immigration.
[Above is an analysis of front pages in the run up to the referendum. Almost 100% of them were negative in tone. Sorry, but no one is going convince me that regular readers of the Mail and Express have a truly unbiased view on the subject of immigration purely by dint of choosing to read a newspaper that has such a clear anti-immigration agenda. Source:sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/09/the-press-and-immigration-reporting.html ]
In conclusion I suspect that a lot of Leavers, hoping to see less immigration as a result of last year's vote, are going to be sorely disappointed in the future.
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
In a relevant note polls show that those most concerned about immigration levels live in areas least affected by immigration. Draw from that what you will.
Again, the same pattern internationally. The Czech-Japanese (!!) nationalist populist polled best in Jeseniky, a real back of beyond region far north east next to the Polish border.
It's well documented that his people went round the little villages, accosting older voters. Some would say "but we don't have any immigrants here" . To which they would reply "Ah, but have you been to Prague lately? Every second person there wears a burkha"
They were picking up 20% in some of these back of beyond places...
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
I like your posts, but...
There would be no suggestion of 'collateral damage' (whatever that may be) if the UK hadn't started this whole process. Surely the UK is always to be the driver and the EU the responder?
I can't think how the EU could come up with something like:
'Hey, UK. I understand you want to leave, so we have come up with a handy help pack of nice suggestions to make it as easy as you wish, you don't have to suggest any ideas if you don't want to.'
If it is to be a glasshouse stoning competition, my understanding is that when it is all over the EU will have 13% of it's panes to repair, but the UK 43%. Maybe that is what leavers want, I don't know, I voted remain so it's their call.
We're gong back over old ground again but it's entirely reasonable to express concerns over immigration and the perceived effects this has on our public services, housing, jobs, etc. That was a concern Remain failed miserably to address properly. Partly because it would involve the government admitting that the things people were concerned about were due primarily to their policies and inaction and not caused by excessive immigration.
However the degree to which Leave campaigned on an anti-immigration platform (they called it "controlled" of course) bore no relation to the reality of the situation as was and will be in the future.
We will still need immigration to fill those jobs that are unattractive to UK nationals. I've just come from an elderly person's warden assisted flat. They require care visits three times a day to dress, clean and feed them and see to some medical needs. They are doubly incontinent.
The idea that the Eastern European carers that are currently perfoming these tasks, on minimum wage or thereabouts, are preventing a UK carer from doing that job is frankly pathetic. If you or I wanted that type of job, or picking veg or working on a food factory production line or in retail, the jobs are there.
Those jobs will still (arguably increasingly so) be there after Brexit and as a result we will still have immigration. Albeit a little less so, not because the UK has taken back control but because, financially, it is a less attractive place to emigrate to.
Where's that immigration need going to be met? I suspect from the poorest Commonwealth countries, leaving us with a situation where we've done no more than swap immigration from one developing economy like Poland with another like Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Bangladesh, Malaysia, the West Indies, etc. How this is going to play out with a certain demographic and mindset within Leavers is going to be an interesting issue in the longer term (and I include members of my own family in that group).
And let's not forget the role that certain sections of the press played, and continue to play, in this false narrative that all of societies ills can be laid at the door, wholly or in part, on immigration.
[Above is an analysis of front pages in the run up to the referendum. Almost 100% of them were negative in tone. Sorry, but no one is going convince me that regular readers of the Mail and Express have a truly unbiased view on the subject of immigration purely by dint of choosing to read a newspaper that has such a clear anti-immigration agenda. Source:sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/09/the-press-and-immigration-reporting.html ]
In conclusion I suspect that a lot of Leavers, hoping to see less immigration as a result of last year's vote, are going to be sorely disappointed in the future.
Net migration from the EU8 is now virtually zero. This would be made up of the eight countries which joined the EU in 2004 - most of the immigration was from Poland and we should note that Germany, France and others applied a moratorium for five years. So why has a net migration of a million people over ten years gone down to zero? i) sterling crash - any money saved is returned home to support family or go towards buying property ii) massive increase in hate crime around the referendum - especially in leave areas - shocking and will look for a link iii) 4% growth in GDP per quarter, yes quarter in Poland. Eastern Europe has been booming for years and is now really taking off
Net migration is down by 25% over all - that's a drop of 90,000 people a year but it really is down to zero for Poland and the rest of the EU8
Some of the other comments about over population are fascinating and perhaps worthy of another thread? Pensions, health and population are the real challenges for 2025 and 2035 so it's a shame that the debate about the future of our country has been somewhat hijacked!
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
Every one of those countries has an inferior deal with the eu than the UK currently enjoys. Norway pay for the privilege of access without any say in regulation or direction.
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
Every one of those countries has an inferior deal with the eu than the UK currently enjoys. Norway pay for the privilege of access without any say in regulation or direction.
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
Granted but if we truly want a free trade deal that only includes capital, goods and services but the UK gains full autonomy over the entry, residential and working rights of EU nationals, what model would be the best deal? Obviously as Norway and Switzerland have basically ceded this autonomy they're not the preferred model but any of the others?
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
Every one of those countries has an inferior deal with the eu than the UK currently enjoys. Norway pay for the privilege of access without any say in regulation or direction.
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
Granted but if we truly want a free trade deal that only includes capital, goods and services but the UK gains full autonomy over the entry, residential and working rights of EU nationals, what model would be the best deal? Obviously as Norway and Switzerland have basically ceded this autonomy they're not the preferred model but any of the others?
From that list of nations the only two that could conceivably maintain free movement of people are Norway and Switzerland.
I agree though. What other nations have a deal that we can at least equal ?
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
Every one of those countries has an inferior deal with the eu than the UK currently enjoys. Norway pay for the privilege of access without any say in regulation or direction.
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
Granted but if we truly want a free trade deal that only includes capital, goods and services but the UK gains full autonomy over the entry, residential and working rights of EU nationals, what model would be the best deal? Obviously as Norway and Switzerland have basically ceded this autonomy they're not the preferred model but any of the others?
From that list of nations the only two that could conceivably maintain free movement of people are Norway and Switzerland.
I agree though. What other nations have a deal that we can at least equal ?
The EU has already said that the best 'quick' deal we could do, without a comprehensive agreement on the rights and privileges of British and EU citizens across the EU, any payment due from the UK, a transition period and the future of UK-EU relations going forward, would be the same deal Canada currently has. This deal does not include people or worker movement. Most EU countries already enjoy visa free travel with Canada and vice versa, however non Canadians generally require work permits or visas if they wish to undertake employment, although the agreement makes provision to allow more seamless transition of staff between Canada and the EU for companies that have a presence in both regions.
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
Every one of those countries has an inferior deal with the eu than the UK currently enjoys. Norway pay for the privilege of access without any say in regulation or direction.
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
Granted but if we truly want a free trade deal that only includes capital, goods and services but the UK gains full autonomy over the entry, residential and working rights of EU nationals, what model would be the best deal? Obviously as Norway and Switzerland have basically ceded this autonomy they're not the preferred model but any of the others?
From that list of nations the only two that could conceivably maintain free movement of people are Norway and Switzerland.
I agree though. What other nations have a deal that we can at least equal ?
The EU has already said that the best 'quick' deal we could do, without a comprehensive agreement on the rights and privileges of British and EU citizens across the EU, any payment due from the UK, a transition period and the future of UK-EU relations going forward, would be the same deal Canada currently has. This deal does not include people or worker movement. Most EU countries already enjoy visa free travel with Canada and vice versa, however non Canadians generally require work permits or visas if they wish to undertake employment, although the agreement makes provision to allow more seamless transition of staff between Canada and the EU for companies that have a presence in both regions.
So all this talk of "No Deal" is complete rubbish then surely? Worst case scenario a Canada style deal is available and would appear to be far superior to "No Deal". The only reason we could then up with a deal would be if Tory ministers refuse to accept a Canada style deal and blindly pursue a deal that we can't get.
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
Every one of those countries has an inferior deal with the eu than the UK currently enjoys. Norway pay for the privilege of access without any say in regulation or direction.
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
Granted but if we truly want a free trade deal that only includes capital, goods and services but the UK gains full autonomy over the entry, residential and working rights of EU nationals, what model would be the best deal? Obviously as Norway and Switzerland have basically ceded this autonomy they're not the preferred model but any of the others?
From that list of nations the only two that could conceivably maintain free movement of people are Norway and Switzerland.
I agree though. What other nations have a deal that we can at least equal ?
The EU has already said that the best 'quick' deal we could do, without a comprehensive agreement on the rights and privileges of British and EU citizens across the EU, any payment due from the UK, a transition period and the future of UK-EU relations going forward, would be the same deal Canada currently has. This deal does not include people or worker movement. Most EU countries already enjoy visa free travel with Canada and vice versa, however non Canadians generally require work permits or visas if they wish to undertake employment, although the agreement makes provision to allow more seamless transition of staff between Canada and the EU for companies that have a presence in both regions.
So all this talk of "No Deal" is complete rubbish then surely? Worst case scenario a Canada style deal is available and would appear to be far superior to "No Deal". The only reason we could then up with a deal would be if Tory ministers refuse to accept a Canada style deal and blindly pursue a deal that we can't get.
Actually I think the Canadian deal would still be, at least, contingent on the UK conceding on the divorce bill and guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the UK. As in if we agree to nothing else including freedom of movement of people, then that's the best deal we could hope to fall straight into out of leaving the EU. Otherwise we would need to join the EEA, EFTA or some other agreement already in place.
If we refuse to pay what the EU wants or if we do not give satisfactory guarantees for EU citizens in the UK then we would have no deal and join the back of the queue for any future deal with the EU. And since in this scenario the UK will have been adjudged to have not acted in good faith this will taint future diplomacy with the EU.
Well the BBC reckons the European Investment Bank owes us billions and could take 30 years to pay it back in full. So the deal we should be trying to do is to cut us out of the middle and get the EIB to pay the EU directly
I'm so glad that the penny is dropping with people on here and more and more of the general public. There really are only three options for October 2018: No deal, a Norway style interim deal or abort the process. The question is whether the UK wishes to stay in the CU, SM and EEA and polls suggest that the hard Brexiteers are in a definite minority.
As per the link to Peston, the UK is an open economy and businesses can relocate quicker than you can say "manyana" in Barcelona if they so choose. The irony is that the free movement of capital and associated labour might be enough to shift Parliament towards a sensible outcome? Time will tell.
NB Peston is only recounting what is already widely known - every participant in financial services up in the City will have contingency plans and they are looking for clarification in early 2018. As posted before GDP growth and government finances could come under a lot of pressure and that might be enough to shift opinion.
Rees-Mogg et al can continue their attacks on the BBC and Carney at the BoE but it's not them in charge of Brexit. We live in interesting times!
To put into context what a No Deal scenario might look like on a microcosmic scale, take a British multinational insurance firm with offices across the EU. The day the UK officially leaves the EU, it may find itself unable to market or operate within the EU. Furthermore, UK workers based in their EU offices may have to be suspended or else they would be in breach of each nation's employment legislation. Even though the UK is signed up to MiFID 2 due to come into force in 2018, after we leave the EU this will be on a purely voluntary basis and the EU is under no obligation to take the fact that the UK will be MiFID 2 compliant on the day it leaves as a sign that it will be compliant going forward. Such regulated products will not be compliant within the EU. A German business or a Dutch family that hold insurance with this company now will now be in danger of their policies now no longer being legal and as such will need to look elsewhere for insurance.
One may point out that American companies operate in the EU and don't seem to have issue with this. But this is because they already have jumped through the hoops to set up European subsidiaries and convinced the regulators that they are compliant. UK companies will need to jump through those same hoops. In fact over 100,000 UK firms have already begun the process of getting registered in Ireland in anticipation of a No Deal. This is by no means a complete solution and will not be suitable for all firms as this drive is largely driven by firms that currently operate within the British Isles only, not those that wish to operate on the continent too. These will result from increased costs and loss of resources to UK businesses that could otherwise be avoided with a full and comprehensive deal with the EU, with all the caveats that comes with.
Ah I hadn't noticed @Dippenhall dropping in "liberal elite".
Come on then Dippy mate, help us understand who is in this "elite". Maybe separate the elite from the liberal? It's the elite I am interested in.
And not just because I want to know just how far I have to go before joining you as a member of the elite :-)
Not sure really, just knows it winds up Remainers.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
Out of interest which country's deal would be the preferred model of your post-EU Britain? Norway, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, or some other nation?
Every one of those countries has an inferior deal with the eu than the UK currently enjoys. Norway pay for the privilege of access without any say in regulation or direction.
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
Granted but if we truly want a free trade deal that only includes capital, goods and services but the UK gains full autonomy over the entry, residential and working rights of EU nationals, what model would be the best deal? Obviously as Norway and Switzerland have basically ceded this autonomy they're not the preferred model but any of the others?
From that list of nations the only two that could conceivably maintain free movement of people are Norway and Switzerland.
I agree though. What other nations have a deal that we can at least equal ?
The EU has already said that the best 'quick' deal we could do, without a comprehensive agreement on the rights and privileges of British and EU citizens across the EU, any payment due from the UK, a transition period and the future of UK-EU relations going forward, would be the same deal Canada currently has. This deal does not include people or worker movement. Most EU countries already enjoy visa free travel with Canada and vice versa, however non Canadians generally require work permits or visas if they wish to undertake employment, although the agreement makes provision to allow more seamless transition of staff between Canada and the EU for companies that have a presence in both regions.
So all this talk of "No Deal" is complete rubbish then surely? Worst case scenario a Canada style deal is available and would appear to be far superior to "No Deal". The only reason we could then up with a deal would be if Tory ministers refuse to accept a Canada style deal and blindly pursue a deal that we can't get.
Actually I think the Canadian deal would still be, at least, contingent on the UK conceding on the divorce bill and guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the UK. As in if we agree to nothing else including freedom of movement of people, then that's the best deal we could hope to fall straight into out of leaving the EU. Otherwise we would need to join the EEA, EFTA or some other agreement already in place.
If we refuse to pay what the EU wants or if we do not give satisfactory guarantees for EU citizens in the UK then we would have no deal and join the back of the queue for any future deal with the EU. And since in this scenario the UK will have been adjudged to have not acted in good faith this will taint future diplomacy with the EU.
To be truthful, any deal or trading relationship with the EU is contingent upon agreeing departure terms.
I think that there is a danger that most, if not all, of us have a tendency to look a bit far ahead regarding the Article 50 negotiations and any hoped-for future relationship.
In my opinion, it is clear that the EU is focussing on the terms of the UK's departure and, for the EU27, until such a time as they can see the outline of what form Brexit will take (the sufficient progress), talks on a trade deal remain premature. I think that they are confident that they could agree their preferred trade deal quickly (though 2 years might be ambitious), because their preferred type of deal is EEA and/or Customs Union, failing that, they can replicate CETA for a Free Trade deal.
The UK, on the other hand, does not want to agree leaving terms until a trading deal has been agreed, but they seem to expect that this trading deal will be better than any FTA agreed to date, and better than EU membership. This expectation baffles the EU27, as they see it as simply impossible and illogical.
If the negotiations continue to be at cross purposes, the chances of any deal happening, even a transition, are remote. There are, effectively, twelve months left for the talks to deliver an agreement,developed sufficiently for ratification.
I'm so glad that the penny is dropping with people on here and more and more of the general public. There really are only three options for October 2018: No deal, a Norway style interim deal or abort the process. The question is whether the UK wishes to stay in the CU, SM and EEA and polls suggest that the hard Brexiteers are in a definite minority.
As per the link to Peston, the UK is an open economy and businesses can relocate quicker than you can say "manyana" in Barcelona if they so choose. The irony is that the free movement of capital and associated labour might be enough to shift Parliament towards a sensible outcome? Time will tell.
NB Peston is only recounting what is already widely known - every participant in financial services up in the City will have contingency plans and they are looking for clarification in early 2018. As posted before GDP growth and government finances could come under a lot of pressure and that might be enough to shift opinion.
Rees-Mogg et al can continue their attacks on the BBC and Carney at the BoE but it's not them in charge of Brexit. We live in interesting times!
We can either control EU immigration or we can have the Good Friday Agreement. The fact that the government has so far refused to countenance any alteration of the existing treaty with Ireland would suggest any talk they have of controlling EU migration in relation to both employment and residency is lip service to the far right and hard Brexiters who form the tiniest minority of all voters but are the loudest and supported by the largest print media organisations in the country. There is no appetite or funding for the comprehensive border force and internal investigation that would be required to ensure all those living and working in the UK have a right to be here.
Can you point me to the post where I said that about you? I think you are really working extra hard to take offence at any posts that include derogatory comments about Brexit voters. You are going to have a hard time over the coming 10 years.
As a Remain voter I only deal in facts. Opinion poll after opinion poll since the Referendum has shown that the least educated section of the electorate voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. That is a simple fact. Some people on here are saying we should stop pointing this fact out to the poor Brexit voters because they are getting upset about it. That is their, the people stating we should stop pointing it out, prerogative. I am with Michael Bloomberg on this. The utter stupidity and dumbness of the Brexit vote must never be brushed under the carpet to save the blushes of the Brexit voters. It needs to be pointed out again and again and again. Over the coming decades it needs to be properly taught in schools so that future generations don't repeat our mistake. In 20 years the word Brexit will be synonymous with stupid and idiot.
You stated that Brexit voters are even more stupid and ill educated than anyone realised.
My post was very obviously tongue in cheek. I probably should have added a ‘wink’ to help you.
Chill out, it was meant to be humorous.
Hi mate. I think that because, like me, @Red_in_SE8 carefully studies robust data to inform his views, he knows perfectly well that the Brexit vote does not come exclusively from the least educated groups. However it is very interesting that the Brexit vote is over-weight in the same social demographic groups as those who voted for populist/xenophobic parties in other parts of Europe, and for Trump. The Czech election was the latest example. In most of those cases, leaving the EU was not on the election agenda (patently in the US case). Indeed a smiley from you would have helped. And an indication that you have had the time to read that thread, because I would be interested in your take.
The very reason why I tried to attract you and Dippenhall to it is because broadly your Brexit stance is, as I understand it, underpinned by a belief that our international trade position can actually improve after Brexit, and this outweighs any possible negative. Neither of you have placed issues around immigration at the centre of your arguments, which I greatly respect.
I do now feel that as the trade issues have been examined more carefully, (and I started from a less informed base than you two on this issue) your confidence looks increasingly misplaced. That is why I'd like to know how you would counter the author's arguments.
Ooops I thought it was just a jpg, hadn’t realised there was a link behind it.
Will try and check it out over the weekend.
@PragueAddick looks like I will be working most of the weekend so a detailed response will take a while.
In the interim, worth re-posting something I mentioned some time back to you:
"You previously referred me to a very decent book, ‘Brexit, what the hell happens now?’ by Ian Dunt. I could not agree more with him than when he states that it should be relatively straightforward to organise a transitional period in which a decent and comprehensive trade deal could be agreed in the national interest. As he goes on to say, it is British values that will help get the country through this period of time: calm debate, instinctive scepticism, practical judgement and moderation. Unfortunately, as he further points out, our political class appear to have lost sight of these values and the sooner we reaffirm them, the better off we will be."
Can you point me to the post where I said that about you? I think you are really working extra hard to take offence at any posts that include derogatory comments about Brexit voters. You are going to have a hard time over the coming 10 years.
As a Remain voter I only deal in facts. Opinion poll after opinion poll since the Referendum has shown that the least educated section of the electorate voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. That is a simple fact. Some people on here are saying we should stop pointing this fact out to the poor Brexit voters because they are getting upset about it. That is their, the people stating we should stop pointing it out, prerogative. I am with Michael Bloomberg on this. The utter stupidity and dumbness of the Brexit vote must never be brushed under the carpet to save the blushes of the Brexit voters. It needs to be pointed out again and again and again. Over the coming decades it needs to be properly taught in schools so that future generations don't repeat our mistake. In 20 years the word Brexit will be synonymous with stupid and idiot.
You stated that Brexit voters are even more stupid and ill educated than anyone realised.
My post was very obviously tongue in cheek. I probably should have added a ‘wink’ to help you.
Chill out, it was meant to be humorous.
Hi mate. I think that because, like me, @Red_in_SE8 carefully studies robust data to inform his views, he knows perfectly well that the Brexit vote does not come exclusively from the least educated groups. However it is very interesting that the Brexit vote is over-weight in the same social demographic groups as those who voted for populist/xenophobic parties in other parts of Europe, and for Trump. The Czech election was the latest example. In most of those cases, leaving the EU was not on the election agenda (patently in the US case). Indeed a smiley from you would have helped. And an indication that you have had the time to read that thread, because I would be interested in your take.
The very reason why I tried to attract you and Dippenhall to it is because broadly your Brexit stance is, as I understand it, underpinned by a belief that our international trade position can actually improve after Brexit, and this outweighs any possible negative. Neither of you have placed issues around immigration at the centre of your arguments, which I greatly respect.
I do now feel that as the trade issues have been examined more carefully, (and I started from a less informed base than you two on this issue) your confidence looks increasingly misplaced. That is why I'd like to know how you would counter the author's arguments.
Ooops I thought it was just a jpg, hadn’t realised there was a link behind it.
Will try and check it out over the weekend.
@PragueAddick looks like I will be working most of the weekend so a detailed response will take a while.
In the interim, worth re-posting something I mentioned some time back to you:
"You previously referred me to a very decent book, ‘Brexit, what the hell happens now?’ by Ian Dunt. I could not agree more with him than when he states that it should be relatively straightforward to organise a transitional period in which a decent and comprehensive trade deal could be agreed in the national interest. As he goes on to say, it is British values that will help get the country through this period of time: calm debate, instinctive scepticism, practical judgement and moderation. Unfortunately, as he further points out, our political class appear to have lost sight of these values and the sooner we reaffirm them, the better off we will be."
Not that I agree with all the content but the linked paper does support a number of my arguments, in particular on free trade.
Can you point me to the post where I said that about you? I think you are really working extra hard to take offence at any posts that include derogatory comments about Brexit voters. You are going to have a hard time over the coming 10 years.
As a Remain voter I only deal in facts. Opinion poll after opinion poll since the Referendum has shown that the least educated section of the electorate voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. That is a simple fact. Some people on here are saying we should stop pointing this fact out to the poor Brexit voters because they are getting upset about it. That is their, the people stating we should stop pointing it out, prerogative. I am with Michael Bloomberg on this. The utter stupidity and dumbness of the Brexit vote must never be brushed under the carpet to save the blushes of the Brexit voters. It needs to be pointed out again and again and again. Over the coming decades it needs to be properly taught in schools so that future generations don't repeat our mistake. In 20 years the word Brexit will be synonymous with stupid and idiot.
You stated that Brexit voters are even more stupid and ill educated than anyone realised.
My post was very obviously tongue in cheek. I probably should have added a ‘wink’ to help you.
Chill out, it was meant to be humorous.
Hi mate. I think that because, like me, @Red_in_SE8 carefully studies robust data to inform his views, he knows perfectly well that the Brexit vote does not come exclusively from the least educated groups. However it is very interesting that the Brexit vote is over-weight in the same social demographic groups as those who voted for populist/xenophobic parties in other parts of Europe, and for Trump. The Czech election was the latest example. In most of those cases, leaving the EU was not on the election agenda (patently in the US case). Indeed a smiley from you would have helped. And an indication that you have had the time to read that thread, because I would be interested in your take.
The very reason why I tried to attract you and Dippenhall to it is because broadly your Brexit stance is, as I understand it, underpinned by a belief that our international trade position can actually improve after Brexit, and this outweighs any possible negative. Neither of you have placed issues around immigration at the centre of your arguments, which I greatly respect.
I do now feel that as the trade issues have been examined more carefully, (and I started from a less informed base than you two on this issue) your confidence looks increasingly misplaced. That is why I'd like to know how you would counter the author's arguments.
Just had a quick look at the tweet you sent as I won't have a chance again over next few days.
The author has obviously spent quite some time putting this together. There is no way I can assess, agree or refute his figures without a similar amount of research. For the moment, my two posts above will be my response but I will take a proper look when I get time.
Can you point me to the post where I said that about you? I think you are really working extra hard to take offence at any posts that include derogatory comments about Brexit voters. You are going to have a hard time over the coming 10 years.
As a Remain voter I only deal in facts. Opinion poll after opinion poll since the Referendum has shown that the least educated section of the electorate voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. That is a simple fact. Some people on here are saying we should stop pointing this fact out to the poor Brexit voters because they are getting upset about it. That is their, the people stating we should stop pointing it out, prerogative. I am with Michael Bloomberg on this. The utter stupidity and dumbness of the Brexit vote must never be brushed under the carpet to save the blushes of the Brexit voters. It needs to be pointed out again and again and again. Over the coming decades it needs to be properly taught in schools so that future generations don't repeat our mistake. In 20 years the word Brexit will be synonymous with stupid and idiot.
You stated that Brexit voters are even more stupid and ill educated than anyone realised.
My post was very obviously tongue in cheek. I probably should have added a ‘wink’ to help you.
Chill out, it was meant to be humorous.
Hi mate. I think that because, like me, @Red_in_SE8 carefully studies robust data to inform his views, he knows perfectly well that the Brexit vote does not come exclusively from the least educated groups. However it is very interesting that the Brexit vote is over-weight in the same social demographic groups as those who voted for populist/xenophobic parties in other parts of Europe, and for Trump. The Czech election was the latest example. In most of those cases, leaving the EU was not on the election agenda (patently in the US case). Indeed a smiley from you would have helped. And an indication that you have had the time to read that thread, because I would be interested in your take.
The very reason why I tried to attract you and Dippenhall to it is because broadly your Brexit stance is, as I understand it, underpinned by a belief that our international trade position can actually improve after Brexit, and this outweighs any possible negative. Neither of you have placed issues around immigration at the centre of your arguments, which I greatly respect.
I do now feel that as the trade issues have been examined more carefully, (and I started from a less informed base than you two on this issue) your confidence looks increasingly misplaced. That is why I'd like to know how you would counter the author's arguments.
Ooops I thought it was just a jpg, hadn’t realised there was a link behind it.
Will try and check it out over the weekend.
@PragueAddick looks like I will be working most of the weekend so a detailed response will take a while.
In the interim, worth re-posting something I mentioned some time back to you:
"You previously referred me to a very decent book, ‘Brexit, what the hell happens now?’ by Ian Dunt. I could not agree more with him than when he states that it should be relatively straightforward to organise a transitional period in which a decent and comprehensive trade deal could be agreed in the national interest. As he goes on to say, it is British values that will help get the country through this period of time: calm debate, instinctive scepticism, practical judgement and moderation. Unfortunately, as he further points out, our political class appear to have lost sight of these values and the sooner we reaffirm them, the better off we will be."
I'm not convinced that any of these can be claimed to be particularly British values. Though, to be honest I'm not convinced there's any such thing as 'British values" I think it's just weasel term used to give the fake sense that there's some coherent form of Britishness.
That said, they all seem like perfectly laudable qualities and I'm sure he's right that we'd be better of if our politicians demonstrated rather more of them. The last one I believe is a call for Big Rob to join in and dig us out of this mess.
Can you point me to the post where I said that about you? I think you are really working extra hard to take offence at any posts that include derogatory comments about Brexit voters. You are going to have a hard time over the coming 10 years.
As a Remain voter I only deal in facts. Opinion poll after opinion poll since the Referendum has shown that the least educated section of the electorate voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. That is a simple fact. Some people on here are saying we should stop pointing this fact out to the poor Brexit voters because they are getting upset about it. That is their, the people stating we should stop pointing it out, prerogative. I am with Michael Bloomberg on this. The utter stupidity and dumbness of the Brexit vote must never be brushed under the carpet to save the blushes of the Brexit voters. It needs to be pointed out again and again and again. Over the coming decades it needs to be properly taught in schools so that future generations don't repeat our mistake. In 20 years the word Brexit will be synonymous with stupid and idiot.
You stated that Brexit voters are even more stupid and ill educated than anyone realised.
My post was very obviously tongue in cheek. I probably should have added a ‘wink’ to help you.
Chill out, it was meant to be humorous.
Hi mate. I think that because, like me, @Red_in_SE8 carefully studies robust data to inform his views, he knows perfectly well that the Brexit vote does not come exclusively from the least educated groups. However it is very interesting that the Brexit vote is over-weight in the same social demographic groups as those who voted for populist/xenophobic parties in other parts of Europe, and for Trump. The Czech election was the latest example. In most of those cases, leaving the EU was not on the election agenda (patently in the US case). Indeed a smiley from you would have helped. And an indication that you have had the time to read that thread, because I would be interested in your take.
The very reason why I tried to attract you and Dippenhall to it is because broadly your Brexit stance is, as I understand it, underpinned by a belief that our international trade position can actually improve after Brexit, and this outweighs any possible negative. Neither of you have placed issues around immigration at the centre of your arguments, which I greatly respect.
I do now feel that as the trade issues have been examined more carefully, (and I started from a less informed base than you two on this issue) your confidence looks increasingly misplaced. That is why I'd like to know how you would counter the author's arguments.
Just had a quick look at the tweet you sent as I won't have a chance again over next few days.
The author has obviously spent quite some time putting this together. There is no way I can assess, agree or refute his figures without a similar amount of research. For the moment, my two posts above will be my response but I will take a proper look when I get time.
Why would you need to though? If a similar set of tweets was promoting leaving the EU, would you devote a similar amount of time researching them or would you accept them at face value if they confirmed your bias?
Comments
In a relevant note polls show that those most concerned about immigration levels live in areas least affected by immigration. Draw from that what you will.
I tend to think of population in terms of the whole world and how it's all going to be totally horrendous. So far today there has been 184k births and only 76k deaths. World population has grown by 67.7mn so far this year. None of this is sustainable. We will all starve. Or there will be wars started to occupy food-growing territory. (I'm thinking China invading Russia.) Or the overuse of antibiotics will kick in and we'll all die of previously treatable illnesses anyway.
Whatever, we're all going to hell in a handcart IMO. It's the reason we decided not to have kids. It's impossible to imagine
that they would have a good life. worldometers.info/world-population/
Net migration from the EU has plummeted. Partially because large numbers of them no longer see any merit in being here and have left. In particular, I believe the NHS is really struggling. Despite large numbers of vacancies, the recruitment of EU nurses has fallen 90%. And a record 17k EU nationals left the NHS last year.
Net long-term international migration was estimated to be +246,000 in year ending (YE) March 2017, down 81,000 from +327,000 in YE March 2016; immigration was 588,000, down 50,000, and emigration was 342,000, up 31,000 (all statistically significant changes).
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
Of those who immigrated to work (275,000) in YE March 2017, the majority had a definite job (188,000) but fewer came to the UK looking for work (down 39,000 to 87,000 – a statistically significant decrease over the year); for emigration to work (182,000), people moving abroad for a definite job saw an increase of 21,000 to 122,000 (statistically significant).
A total of 51,000 non-British citizens emigrated to return home to live in YE March 2017 (up from 34,000); these were mostly EU citizens (44,000, up 20,000 from YE March 16) half of whom were from EU8 countries (all statistically significant changes).
A total of 16,211 people were granted asylum, resettlement or an alternative form of protection in YE June 2017; this is a 7% increase from 15,108 in the previous year.
In the short term though it's pensions that are our biggest problem. In many developing (and not even developing) nations, having lots of children to care for you is a necessity to surviving beyond working age: your family is your pension pot. In industrialised nations, the mechanism is different and so people don't need to have a family full of youngsters, but the need to have a younger population to carry on working is still there. Unless we can find a way of making technology work for everyone so that we no longer need all these younger workers, then we are stuck in this conundrum where we need ever more people for us to survive into old age, but the weight of those additional numbers is the biggest threat to our long term survival.
Depressing really.
By the way, a good deal is simple. A trade agreement like the EU has with other nations, and like most other nations have with each other, that doesn't insist on free movement of labour. It's the EU that doesn't want a good deal on jobs, trade and the economy, not Brexit voters. The EU only has one agenda, and it's got little to do with what's best for EU/UK or what's best for EU citizens.
Now you can repeat the excuses the EU has for knowingly inflicting collateral damage in order to cause maximum injury to the UK.
However the degree to which Leave campaigned on an anti-immigration platform (they called it "controlled" of course) bore no relation to the reality of the situation as was and will be in the future.
We will still need immigration to fill those jobs that are unattractive to UK nationals. I've just come from an elderly person's warden assisted flat. They require care visits three times a day to dress, clean and feed them and see to some medical needs. They are doubly incontinent.
The idea that the Eastern European carers that are currently perfoming these tasks, on minimum wage or thereabouts, are preventing a UK carer from doing that job is frankly pathetic. If you or I wanted that type of job, or picking veg or working on a food factory production line or in retail, the jobs are there.
Those jobs will still (arguably increasingly so) be there after Brexit and as a result we will still have immigration. Albeit a little less so, not because the UK has taken back control but because, financially, it is a less attractive place to emigrate to.
Where's that immigration need going to be met? I suspect from the poorest Commonwealth countries, leaving us with a situation where we've done no more than swap immigration from one developing economy like Poland with another like Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Bangladesh, Malaysia, the West Indies, etc. How this is going to play out with a certain demographic and mindset within Leavers is going to be an interesting issue in the longer term (and I include members of my own family in that group).
And let's not forget the role that certain sections of the press played, and continue to play, in this false narrative that all of societies ills can be laid at the door, wholly or in part, on immigration.
[Above is an analysis of front pages in the run up to the referendum. Almost 100% of them were negative in tone. Sorry, but no one is going convince me that regular readers of the Mail and Express have a truly unbiased view on the subject of immigration purely by dint of choosing to read a newspaper that has such a clear anti-immigration agenda. Source:sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/09/the-press-and-immigration-reporting.html ]
In conclusion I suspect that a lot of Leavers, hoping to see less immigration as a result of last year's vote, are going to be sorely disappointed in the future.
It's well documented that his people went round the little villages, accosting older voters. Some would say "but we don't have any immigrants here" . To which they would reply "Ah, but have you been to Prague lately? Every second person there wears a burkha"
They were picking up 20% in some of these back of beyond places...
There would be no suggestion of 'collateral damage' (whatever that may be) if the UK hadn't started this whole process. Surely the UK is always to be the driver and the EU the responder?
I can't think how the EU could come up with something like:
'Hey, UK. I understand you want to leave, so we have come up with a handy help pack of nice suggestions to make it as easy as you wish, you don't have to suggest any ideas if you don't want to.'
If it is to be a glasshouse stoning competition, my understanding is that when it is all over the EU will have 13% of it's panes to repair, but the UK 43%. Maybe that is what leavers want, I don't know, I voted remain so it's their call.
i) sterling crash - any money saved is returned home to support family or go towards buying property
ii) massive increase in hate crime around the referendum - especially in leave areas - shocking and will look for a link
iii) 4% growth in GDP per quarter, yes quarter in Poland. Eastern Europe has been booming for years and is now really taking off
Net migration is down by 25% over all - that's a drop of 90,000 people a year but it really is down to zero for Poland and the rest of the EU8
Some of the other comments about over population are fascinating and perhaps worthy of another thread? Pensions, health and population are the real challenges for 2025 and 2035 so it's a shame that the debate about the future of our country has been somewhat hijacked!
To even think that the UK will do better in negotiations is laughable. In fact the whole world is laughing at our stupidity.
I agree though. What other nations have a deal that we can at least equal ?
If we refuse to pay what the EU wants or if we do not give satisfactory guarantees for EU citizens in the UK then we would have no deal and join the back of the queue for any future deal with the EU. And since in this scenario the UK will have been adjudged to have not acted in good faith this will taint future diplomacy with the EU.
As per the link to Peston, the UK is an open economy and businesses can relocate quicker than you can say "manyana" in Barcelona if they so choose. The irony is that the free movement of capital and associated labour might be enough to shift Parliament towards a sensible outcome? Time will tell.
NB Peston is only recounting what is already widely known - every participant in financial services up in the City will have contingency plans and they are looking for clarification in early 2018. As posted before GDP growth and government finances could come under a lot of pressure and that might be enough to shift opinion.
Rees-Mogg et al can continue their attacks on the BBC and Carney at the BoE but it's not them in charge of Brexit. We live in interesting times!
One may point out that American companies operate in the EU and don't seem to have issue with this. But this is because they already have jumped through the hoops to set up European subsidiaries and convinced the regulators that they are compliant. UK companies will need to jump through those same hoops. In fact over 100,000 UK firms have already begun the process of getting registered in Ireland in anticipation of a No Deal. This is by no means a complete solution and will not be suitable for all firms as this drive is largely driven by firms that currently operate within the British Isles only, not those that wish to operate on the continent too. These will result from increased costs and loss of resources to UK businesses that could otherwise be avoided with a full and comprehensive deal with the EU, with all the caveats that comes with.
I think that there is a danger that most, if not all, of us have a tendency to look a bit far ahead regarding the Article 50 negotiations and any hoped-for future relationship.
In my opinion, it is clear that the EU is focussing on the terms of the UK's departure and, for the EU27, until such a time as they can see the outline of what form Brexit will take (the sufficient progress), talks on a trade deal remain premature. I think that they are confident that they could agree their preferred trade deal quickly (though 2 years might be ambitious), because their preferred type of deal is EEA and/or Customs Union, failing that, they can replicate CETA for a Free Trade deal.
The UK, on the other hand, does not want to agree leaving terms until a trading deal has been agreed, but they seem to expect that this trading deal will be better than any FTA agreed to date, and better than EU membership. This expectation baffles the EU27, as they see it as simply impossible and illogical.
If the negotiations continue to be at cross purposes, the chances of any deal happening, even a transition, are remote. There are, effectively, twelve months left for the talks to deliver an agreement,developed sufficiently for ratification.
In the interim, worth re-posting something I mentioned some time back to you:
"You previously referred me to a very decent book, ‘Brexit, what the hell happens now?’ by Ian Dunt. I could not agree more with him than when he states that it should be relatively straightforward to organise a transitional period in which a decent and comprehensive trade deal could be agreed in the national interest. As he goes on to say, it is British values that will help get the country through this period of time: calm debate, instinctive scepticism, practical judgement and moderation. Unfortunately, as he further points out, our political class appear to have lost sight of these values and the sooner we reaffirm them, the better off we will be."
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/A-Trade-Policy-for-a-Brexited-Britain-D2.pdf
The author has obviously spent quite some time putting this together. There is no way I can assess, agree or refute his figures without a similar amount of research. For the moment, my two posts above will be my response but I will take a proper look when I get time.
That said, they all seem like perfectly laudable qualities and I'm sure he's right that we'd be better of if our politicians demonstrated rather more of them. The last one I believe is a call for Big Rob to join in and dig us out of this mess.