I'd imagine this would potentially change long-term though if a number of the refugees eventually gained citizenship. Either way, I think it's fair for countries to be concerned if surrounding neighbours are bringing in large, large numbers with the possible eventuality of those people becoming citizens. It's not as big a problem for us because we're kind of geographically separated from Europe...but is perhaps a bigger problem for those bordering multiple countries.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'd imagine this would potentially change long-term though if a number of the refugees eventually gained citizenship. Either way, I think it's fair for countries to be concerned if surrounding neighbours are bringing in large, large numbers with the possible eventuality of those people becoming citizens. It's not as big a problem for us because we're kind of geographically separated from Europe...but is perhaps a bigger problem for those bordering multiple countries.
It's all going to be fine because we are now selling coffee to Brazil
(We are not, but Leadsom imagines we are and that's probably enough for most Brexiters)
(We are not, but Leadsom imagines we are and that's probably enough for most Brexiters)
I think we need to distinguish between the various sets of immigrants
EU Immigrants
I believe in unrestricted freedom of movement on that regard. I strongly believe that a country shouldn't have unrestricted access to another country's market and money without accepting freedom of movement in terms of people. However I am totally against abuse of such right. If lets say a person has committed a crime than that person should be deported and barred from using his right for freedom of movement for X years. Same with those who move in a country to enjoy their welfare benefits. Its one thing for a person whose been 5-6 years working in the country and then he ends up redundant. Its another moving to a said country just to enjoy benefits
Asylum seekers/refugees
We're living in difficult imes where loads of wars are happening concurrently created unprecedented waves of immigrants. One shouldn't expect the countries at the periphery of Europe to nanny this wave of immigrants on behalf of the rest especially since
a- its unfair
b- its not going to happen
c- its unfeasible. These countries wont cope with an endless flow of immigrants. They simply lack the infrastructure, the money and the will to do so (why should they nanny immigrants on the behalf of others?). Since the Southern Europeans tend not to be savages they would still save immigrants from drowning. However they will also turn a blind eye to those who move to other countries and I assure you they won't take responsibility for them once these immigrants step into the UK. So either you start shooting at them yourself or else you will have to do your share on this regard.
Therefore the only way to sort this issue is through careful management. The world must be persuaded to take responsibility, wars must be reduced to the minimum, conflicts need to be sorted ASAP and safe countries must be persuaded if not forced to accept a quota of immigrants. I have criticised the EU in numerous occasions about its lack of teeth on this regard, specifically with countries like Hungary who want the euros, they want freedom of movement for their own people, they want an EU army that will protect them against the Russians but they don't want to show any solidarity towards other EU countries who are struggling on this issue. An EU with teeth would be in a position to mediate and if needed penalise those countries who refuse to pull their weight. Same thing must happen with third countries. If they refuse to take their share then maybe the Dublin regulation will be revised, the borders will move back to Dover (in terms of the UK) and each for his own.
Even then it's not really a problem because these aren't allowed to be a burden on your economy, the freedom of movement right is limited by the ability of the immigrant to have enough money to leave decently which is why they are expellable when they are elligible to benefits. Immigrants need to find a job that's mandatory and if they have a job, they create wealth for the UK.
Worth mentioning the role racism plays in the immigration debate. When people say ''there's just too many of them here'' they aren't just referring to people coming in from others countries but are also referring to people who aren't exactly like them - white with a english accent.
The UK could stop all immigration to this country and to a lot of people it wouldn't matter, because of soon as they see someone with black skin or someone wearing a non christian religious piece of clothing, they will view this person as the ''immigrate''.
The UK could stop all immigration to this country and to a lot of people it wouldn't matter, because of soon as they see someone with black skin or someone wearing a non christian religious piece of clothing, they will view this person as the ''immigrate''.
@devilish Largely agree with all of what you're saying. I think the issue is though that the conflict in the Middle East is unlikely to stop anytime soon and issues like climate change and the droughts from that will only cause more and more refugees to come West. I think we're only seeing the initial beginning of this problem.
They create wealth when they have a job, yes, and many of them do incredibly hard work and are a valuable asset. In political terms though, the problem is that many people feel like they're being squeezed out of jobs by the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Again, it's not necessarily something I agree with...but it's quite clearly a feeling a portion of the UK has and as someone who lives in an area with little immigration, I feel like it'd be a bit hypocritical for me to lecture those with concerns as to why they're wrong when it's something I've not experienced.
I agree there's an undercurrent of racism often present in anti-immigration sentiment (and sometimes a lot more than an undercurrent), but I don't think it's particularly racist to expect someone moving from one country to another to speak English, or at least expect them to learn the language, if they're going to be working. I'd say that's largely the same for expats from the UK too: if you're moving to a country with another language, you should ideally make some effort to learn that language.
In addition, while it's perhaps not the most comfortable view for someone to have, I can understand those who feel like they're being marginalised within their own communities and that the culture around them is changing. Whether you agree with it or not it's something a considerable portion of the UK feel...and simply telling them they're wrong and need to suck it up isn't going to cut it anymore. I think that sort of attitude from major political parties is largely why we've ended up with Brexit. Many Labour voting areas voted to Leave and I think the feeling of disillusionment and not being listened to played a massive, massive part in that.
They create wealth when they have a job, yes, and many of them do incredibly hard work and are a valuable asset. In political terms though, the problem is that many people feel like they're being squeezed out of jobs by the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Again, it's not necessarily something I agree with...but it's quite clearly a feeling a portion of the UK has and as someone who lives in an area with little immigration, I feel like it'd be a bit hypocritical for me to lecture those with concerns as to why they're wrong when it's something I've not experienced.
I agree there's an undercurrent of racism often present in anti-immigration sentiment (and sometimes a lot more than an undercurrent), but I don't think it's particularly racist to expect someone moving from one country to another to speak English, or at least expect them to learn the language, if they're going to be working. I'd say that's largely the same for expats from the UK too: if you're moving to a country with another language, you should ideally make some effort to learn that language.
In addition, while it's perhaps not the most comfortable view for someone to have, I can understand those who feel like they're being marginalised within their own communities and that the culture around them is changing. Whether you agree with it or not it's something a considerable portion of the UK feel...and simply telling them they're wrong and need to suck it up isn't going to cut it anymore. I think that sort of attitude from major political parties is largely why we've ended up with Brexit. Many Labour voting areas voted to Leave and I think the feeling of disillusionment and not being listened to played a massive, massive part in that.
The UK has net immigration figures in excess of 330000 people each year how many people do you propose the UK should take as a matter of interest?
I understand that and can agree but I have one question, currently is there jobs available at the job office? Because very often you see people complain about immigrants taking all the jobs while companies are looking for candidates, unfortunately only the immigrants are willing to do these jobs.
Last week I was watching Ross kemp's show and it was the argument of one of the american entrepreneurs.
True, although that can then often lead to the argument that immigrants undercut wages in that if they're desperate for any form of work and shelter they'll be willing to work for less than the average person would. Of course though, that's not their own fault but instead the fault of dishonest employers.
Just because there is potentially a job available doesn't mean there is a place for the would be employee to live on the income the job provides. Which is probably why the job isn't taken.
Your fertility rate isn't sufficient. So you need immigration to even keep the numbers at their current level, just like we do. 330.00 really isn't much.
Are you referring to refugees/asylum seekers?
I think so too. Hence why it needs to be carefully managed on a global or at least European level. Mismanaging 'illegal' immigration was the main reason why the Roman Empire collapsed. I think they had more balls and better management that the current Tory Party with May and Boris.
Are you sure about that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...the-next-decade-official-projections-say.html
Maybe. Maybe not. For example, Singapore has a trend where locals will not work certain low wage jobs even though there is opportunity. And they are against Immigrants who will do those.
And it's not a zero sum game. Job numbers are as dynamic as the immigration numbers and are interlinked. If UK cuts on immigration it may lose a bunch of jobs which will go to Europe, so I doubt any "reducing immigration means more jobs for Britons" is a very simplistic and almost certainly incorrect assumption (applies not just to UK but to any country).
A shoddily written, poorly researched article based on the headlines from the admittedly estimated ONS statistics with a smattering of underlying racism just to keep their readership happy.
How is 68% of the increase due to future immigration if we're supposedly taking back control and slowing it? The stats themselves point out the increased fertility rates of people who have already emigrated here being the real driver but the article continues to bang on about future immigration. Too afraid to talk about kicking out immigrants already settled here?
The article talks about legal immigration from the EU and beyond and the fact that we are so shite at controlling our own borders with the rules we already have that we are really just guessing how many are actually here yet scatters around scare photos of the victims of EU asylum rules at the jungle in Calais. Why? If they break through they are illegal immigrants and not the subject of these statistics so their presence can only be to stoke the xenophobia and bolster middle England's siege mentality.
The only fact in there worth noting is that despite the projected population growth our population is still ageing and by their mid term projections the baby boomers will be entering retirement whilst their parents will still largely be around. You ask if we're sure we need immigration to stay at the current level and whilst we probably don't to maintain homeo-stasis population wise we undoubtedly do need it if we are going to service the pensions of our ageing population and keep the country creaking along as it presently is. If they want horrific images to convey the reality of immigration then they should sack one of the jungle images and throw in a bag of soylent green instead.
Yes our roads are overcrowded and crumbling, our rail service sucks but still manages to be ludicrously overpriced, we have a critical shortfall of housing and the NHS remains in terminal condition. None of those issues are immigrant related though and whilst more bodies might make things worse in the short term the only thing that will make them better at all is to challenge the government about their consistent under investment in all UK infrastructure in over the last 40 years despite them having trousered the tax to pay for it several times over.
@Snowjoe looks good.
Any thoughts on how low the Sterling will go? And if it will ever again recover to pre-referendum rates?
PS. More specifically, is this an extremely bad time to be thinking about buying a property in the EU? Or should you go in before article 50 is triggered in March 2017?
PS. More specifically, is this an extremely bad time to be thinking about buying a property in the EU? Or should you go in before article 50 is triggered in March 2017?
Last edited:
id guess a slump when article 50 is actually triggered (possibly 1.10 ish) as for where it will be ultimately depends on the trems negotiated - Id say 1.00 to 1.20 as a guess - dont think we will see it up around pre referendum heights for a long time
Don't know how far it will drop, but we're incredibly lucky the fall in sterling has come at a time of near zero inflation.
Given the the lower pound more than makes up for any tariffs that might be raised under WTO rules then a hard Brexit looks very much on.
Just the City and it's passporting to worry about really, except this government might not be too worried about that at either.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ade-city-in-brexit-shock-for-financial-sector
Last edited:
yeah except for importers - and we are you know like big net importers...
Yes, there are obvious downsides, and there will be losers as well as winners, but overall a much lower pound should favour British exporters despite any tariffs, which is what our economy very much needed anyway, to get way from being the net importer you describe.
Look at the future from a European manufacturer's view, they will have to charge more for WTO tariffs levied on them and charge more again to make up for their soaring exchange rate. That should surely cause some people at home to buy cheaper British-made alternatives, where we make them.
I voted Remain sun, but that vote's long gone, and I think the debate's about hard or soft Brexit now.
I see our best tactic as a hard Brexit first and then negotiate better terms later. At the moment central and eastern Europe will simply not negotiate good terms without freedom of movement; however after Brexit the two things don't have to be linked; Europe would have a choice of agreeing mutually beneficial tariffs or not doing so, but as there wouldn't be any advantage to be gained from not doing then I would be optimistic.
I dont know about negotiating later - I have a feeling that any such talks would take a long long time and of course lead to even more prolonged uncertainty which as somebody who runs a business i would say is pretty much at the top of my agenda for things I do not want.
French and German elections this year so I dont see any real headway being made on talks till the back end of 2017 and that will just about leave time for a take it or leave it deal - possibly an EEA type deal but with a huge whacking great premium attached to allow some superficial border controls - I cant see anything better being offered.
I'm not expecting anything better, hence why I say go straight for hard brexit, and by negotiate later I mean well after we've left, long enough for all europe to accept that freedom of movement was gone, and the only thing to discuss was mutually beneficial tariffs for the future, and yes, I'm sure that would take years.
The damage from uncertainty is one of the reasons I voted Remain, and I'm very sympathetic to you as someone running a business, but there's no escaping uncertainty now, it's here, the vote's done and the government ain't going to change for a few years.
Whoever created the myth, that a weak currency is a good thing, should be punched in the face and get a price for his remarkable successful disinformation campaign.
Clothes, toys, food, cars, electronics, booze, cigarettes, gas, furniture, beauty product, drugs, travelling – almost everything – is in part made somewhere else and can get more expansive. How much stuff do you actually export? How much of us are actually (directly or indirectly) net-exporter? That is a tiny minority.
Looking at the economy by looking at nationally aggregated numbers tell you almost nothing. Framing the debate the debate as “country XZY is net exporter/importer => they are winner/losers” is Trump-level stupidity.
The whole perspective of framing this as Britain vs EU is nationalistic bullshit and you shouldn’t buy into it. It is embarrassing that parts of the population on both sides of the channel (and in this forum) seem to look at it from this perspective. The cheeky digs from Junker and the talk about “punishing GB” are as cringeworthy as the nonsense from Farage, Boris & Co. Trade and international cooperation is not a zero-sum game. Maybe it would be time to act as adults and come up with a plan that is reasonable for both sides, which is possible.
We should all remember that Europe is bigger than the EU and GB will continue to be part of Europe, just like Switzerland or Norway are part of it. I don’t think any different about them, just because they decided not to join a political club. It is incredible that it is still so easy to instigate conflict along national borders.
I think May is doing a decent job at the moment and deserves some praise for her handling of the situation. She is not ramping up the divisive rhetoric and is handling the whole thing fairly professional.
Clothes, toys, food, cars, electronics, booze, cigarettes, gas, furniture, beauty product, drugs, travelling – almost everything – is in part made somewhere else and can get more expansive. How much stuff do you actually export? How much of us are actually (directly or indirectly) net-exporter? That is a tiny minority.
Looking at the economy by looking at nationally aggregated numbers tell you almost nothing. Framing the debate the debate as “country XZY is net exporter/importer => they are winner/losers” is Trump-level stupidity.
The whole perspective of framing this as Britain vs EU is nationalistic bullshit and you shouldn’t buy into it. It is embarrassing that parts of the population on both sides of the channel (and in this forum) seem to look at it from this perspective. The cheeky digs from Junker and the talk about “punishing GB” are as cringeworthy as the nonsense from Farage, Boris & Co. Trade and international cooperation is not a zero-sum game. Maybe it would be time to act as adults and come up with a plan that is reasonable for both sides, which is possible.
We should all remember that Europe is bigger than the EU and GB will continue to be part of Europe, just like Switzerland or Norway are part of it. I don’t think any different about them, just because they decided not to join a political club. It is incredible that it is still so easy to instigate conflict along national borders.
I think May is doing a decent job at the moment and deserves some praise for her handling of the situation. She is not ramping up the divisive rhetoric and is handling the whole thing fairly professional.
I think the thing that's getting massively overlooked is that its freedom of movement and capital - do we really want to turn our back on European companies being able to invest here?
The US, Japan, India, China etc don't seem to have a problem investing in Britain, what am I missing?
Well lets see how much they want to invest if it does not get car makers etc direct access to the EU...
China will still invest in large infra I suspect... if the USA gets free trade deal signed with Europe then expect to see the glut of their investment go there for a few years (similarly my company will probably invest in the USA if / when TTIP goes into force)
In any event, re-fighting the referendum isn't going to take us forward, the vote was Leave, and whilst freedom of movement wasn't specifically voted for anyone that thinks voters weren't against that really doesn't understand what happened.
I don't think that anyone is really EU nationalist TBH. That's probably one of the biggest failures of the EU. The wide majority of people are French, German or Italian first and only then European.
Which leads us to why the UK will find it hard sealing a deal with the EU. Each and every EU country has its own agenda and will care for their own interest. Germany would probably settle with giving the UK access to the single market as long as the UK will keep forking money to the pot. They are the ones whose spending alot of dosh in the EU project and they are probably the ones who benefit from selling into the UK. Ireland would probably want open borders with Northern Ireland something the UK can give. Spain will probably insist on Giblatar, The Eastern European countries do not care about all this nonsense. They probably barely sell anything into the UK markets and all they care about is freedom of movement. Others will be salivating at the UK financial services. My own country is pretty pro UK but would probably forget that in 1 instant if it can get it own hands on part of that lucrative market. The EU parliament has its own agenda and would just love to get one past Farage (ie happen to know an MEP and I assure you that's true) Each of these countries are armed with a Veto and will use it if needed. Even the EEA option isn't that feasable. Norway is among those who has a VETO on that regard and had stated to be ready to use it to avoid the UK joining the group.
Hence why its almost impossible for the UK to get a soft Brexit.
I read your post as saying it would not be possible for Europe to invest, that is what I questioned. Now I'm not sure what you mean by direct access I'm afraid.
That is a different issue. I agree that “pick and choose” is difficult. Combining the 4 freedoms makes sense – politically, economically and culturally. Every country should have the right to opt out, but you can’t expect to end free movement while maintaining the same level of freedom for capital, goods and services. If the UK wants to go down that road, they’d need to give something else in return and I am not sure anymore if GB can offer anything that could convince the other countries to agree to such a deal. If being part of the single market isn’t an option for GB, a “hard” Brexit becomes more and more likely. Still it is early days and nobody really knows what the current government wants (including themselves?).
Still none of this should affect our understanding of the issue. There is way too much talk about one side/country “winning”, which is nonsense. Some individuals might gain something, while for others it will have a negative effect. There will be winners and loser on both sides, so talking about this just on a macro-level ignores what is really going to happen.
direct access = access to the single market = if a product is approved in the UK (or any other country), you can also sell it everywhere in the EU without other regulators interfering. If you are out of the single market, you need to follow TWO sets of laws/regulations/rules instead of just one ("non-tariff-barrieres"). Especially services are affected by this.
Obviously that doesn’t have to prevent people from investing in the UK:
A responsible government would have never toyed with this ridiculous referendum in the first place. If it took command after Brexit, then it should have appointed some serious pros who know what they are doing. Instead the UK has appointed Davis, Boris and Fox. Its such a shame there wasn't any space for Nigel Farage, David Moyes, Ryan Giggs and Mr Bean.
In my opinion the Tories should stop thinking about their immediate self interest and focus instead on the good of the country. All options should be explored and worked upon, including the option of remaining in the EU on better terms, Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit etc. In my opinion the first thing Theresa May should negotiate upon is a way of stopping Brexit even after article 50 had been activated.
Once all options are clear, she should make a second referendum and allow the voters to decide which option they want. At this point everyone would be fully aware what the UK was able to achieve at this point and should be knowledgeable enough to decide the best option to go ahead. That's what a true statesman would do.
Who'd have guessed?
I don't think a soft Brexit's possible either, from a UK standpoint we should be preparing on that basis, which is what we're doing I suspect.
Who'd have guessed?
I don't think a soft Brexit's possible either, from a UK standpoint we should be preparing on that basis, which is what we're doing I suspect.
I had never worked with the EU. My country is small. Its easy for one of us to know half the country.
I also shared a pint with 2 ministers, an EU commissioner and the prime minister. That does have its advantages as it makes information pretty accessible.
Thanks, I misled myself that time. Yes that's obviously desirable, and another reason to have voted for Remain. But again, that's over.