What a shambles. Believing in Brexit at this point is literally a matter of faith, i.e. like a religion. There is no evidence to suggest it will end well at all.
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.
Yep, not surprisingly, although of them are very close.
Everyone knows it's a generation gap. The demographics of the vote go hand in hand with the views expressed here.
Hey @Nick 0208 Ldn
Do you remember when you argued that Brexit would be an opportunity to go further on issues of animal welfare?
Well that's got off to a good start hasn't it: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/government-votes-animals-cant-feel-pain-emotions/17/11/
Do you remember when you argued that Brexit would be an opportunity to go further on issues of animal welfare?
Well that's got off to a good start hasn't it: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/government-votes-animals-cant-feel-pain-emotions/17/11/
Trusting the conservative party on animal welfare is like taking your nan to Harold Shipman.
I do, and did, have sympathy with some of the 'lexit' arguments, but anyone that thought that the Conservatives were going to produce anything other than the hardest, most severe Brexit imaginable was deluding themselves.
When/if the government present a deal to Parliament what's to stop Parliament holding it up. Not just by voting it down but delaying/spoiling it by adding amendments, holding it up in the Lords, etc.
What would be the legal position if the EU and the UK either reached a deal or didn't, but Parliament refused to ratify it, at least on the terms as agreed. Would the UK bounce out of the EU regardless or does the ending of the relationship have to be ratified mutually (by Parliament and by the individual 27 member states) before it's concluded?
Does triggering Article 50 mean that it's enacted automatically at the end of the process or is that too subject to mutual and unanimous ratification?
What would be the legal position if the EU and the UK either reached a deal or didn't, but Parliament refused to ratify it, at least on the terms as agreed. Would the UK bounce out of the EU regardless or does the ending of the relationship have to be ratified mutually (by Parliament and by the individual 27 member states) before it's concluded?
Does triggering Article 50 mean that it's enacted automatically at the end of the process or is that too subject to mutual and unanimous ratification?
It will happen. The age of economic sense, for good and bad, is coming to a close. There is not a politician around who would dare to reverse this.
I think this is why they want the exit date in the bill...
Then people will have a choice... vote for it or leave anyway with no deal
Basically the only option to mps will be to effectively vote against to push for a harder brexit
From what I understand we would just fall out of the EU at the end of the 2 years unless we had an agreement with the 27 to extend the negotiation time. Which is why giving parliament a say at the very end is basically worthless.
Interesting. I've no grounds to challenge that interpretation of events except to say it would be odd for a county to leave the EU without the exit being fully ratified by the EU member states. It seems very un-EU like. Otherwise it'd be the case that a country could leave the EU simply by triggering Article 50 and awaiting for the necessary time period to expire without any kind of agreement from anyone else.
Not saying I'm right but I'd find it surprising if the process was set up as such denying the rEU members any kind of say in what happens.
I was under the impression that it was not merely any deal that we may obtain that needed the remaining 27 to ratify, but the fact of our exit altogether.
Nope, I just checked with wiki.
"Once Article 50 is triggered, there is a two-year period to complete negotiations. If negotiations do not result in a ratified agreement, the seceding country leaves without an agreement, and the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to the seceding country, without any substitute or transitional arrangements being put in place. As regards trade, the parties would likely follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs."
If that's the case then I guess the legal argument would turn to whether no deal is a deal. The remaining 27 will have to, effectively, ratify the 'new' trading relationship with the UK. Even if there is no deal the terms on which the rEU trade with the UK would have changed and what would then require ratification is agreement from the 27 that they endorse that new 'no deal' relationship. Something will surely need agreement of the rEU, whether that be an endorsement of the a new deal or the endorsement of the change of relationship that would be the result of a no deal.
I'd be suspicious of claims that the reality is that the whole structure of membership was so loose so as to have a member able to leave without input of anyone else with only having to serve 24 month waiting period.
The point of article 50 is to lay down that membership is optional, not compulsory.
Why are you determined there has to be ratification somewhere? What would be the point of the 27 ratifying that there was no deal? If a country wants to leave then it can leave.
It has nothing to do with determination on my part, simply scepticism that a fundamental change in relationship can happen between the EU and a member state without any kind of agreement needed from any of the other member states.
The EU is made of democracies who have regular elections every 4-5 years or sooner as circumstances dictate. Notwithstanding the calling of populist referendums. It would seem surprising, perhaps even unlikely that the reality is that all that stops elected governments from ceding from the union at will is the patience to endure a 24 month wait.
No deal is a deal and that deal is WTO rules, basically the standard deal. There is no ratification needed from the EU because the EU is a WTO member.
The alternative would be other countries having to agree to one country leaving, which would be totally unacceptable. Article 50 is a pretty simple rule. If you want to leave, you can leave.
If the UK does not agree a deal, they leave on the 29th March 2019 with nothing, no treaties, no agreements with anyone or any country and even the WTO they have to apply to join as an individual country. No-one from the EU has to agree anything - they just go off on their merry way, paralyzed but happy.
The added complication is the Irish border which no-one seems to have a solution to.
Sounds like insanity doesn't it, it is.
I for one simply cannot wait for 30 March 2019. All this stupid gamesmanship behind us, can start proper negotiations, as one of the top10 economies of the world, with whoever wants to deal with us (perhaps even the EU one day?!).
I so hope we don’t pay them a ton of ransom money; they’re acting like jerks. I was Brexit, just. Now I am hardcore Brexit.
I so hope we don’t pay them a ton of ransom money; they’re acting like jerks. I was Brexit, just. Now I am hardcore Brexit.
Canada already has an agreement with the EU
No. We should pay and keep them solvent till the time the UK economy is largely untethered from EU. What you say is like wishing your neighbour's home goes under in a sinkhole.
Would be funny even if you hadn't moved to Canada.
It's amazing how he uses we when it won't impact him at all. You've moved to Canada yet whinge how the money of people in the UK will be spent. Absurd.
So I was born, brought up and worked in London. Planned the process for a migration to Canada in 2015 (ie before Brexit was even a possibility). Have moved in 2017 for 5-6 months but I should have zero influence / opinion on MY country? No thanks.
You're entitled to your opinion. We're entitled to tell you that your opinion combined with your situation makes you come across as out of touch and a bit deluded.
Yes I did indeed vote Brexit and let me address some of my lay-man thoughts, hopefully in a succinct manner. I am by no means an expert!
Re: Voting Brexit
It wasn’t a decision I took lightly, in fact I’ve been researching, reading up and (hopefully objectively) analysing the pros and cons, for literally months, if not years! I approached it with my ‘we’ hat on, rather than my ‘me’ hat, if that makes sense.
If I was being selfish about it, Remain was the way to go for me….for my vacations, savings, potential for moving abroad, etc – but this was, for me, much bigger than just about me, and about the direction of the EU-UK relationship on a more macro level.
Re: the UK in the EU
No one has any issue whatsoever with doing free-trade deals, single markets etc, that is what we voted for as a country in 1975, but when did we vote for anthems, flags, bureaucrats, and basically a gigantic cross-nation socialist structure?!
I fundamentally have an issue with ‘richer’ nations subsidising ‘poorer’ nations to build their social and economic fabric. World Governments are already in a economically precarious position, and therefore I just don’t see the point.
Re: Immigration
Obviously I utterly dismiss that idea that we are suddenly a nation of racists. Immigration wasn’t even the most important issue for Brexiters (based on a poll done at the time of the referendum). Once again on a macro level, our population has popped from 60m to 65m to 70m and more…fundamentally I think this is just unsustainable considering we are not a huge nation with vast resources like Australia, US or Canada. The strain on our public services are plain to see (and I’m sure the same Remainers continue to complain about the public services too!). Social integrity is also of importance to me (speaking English for example which any EU citizen doesn’t need to even have!). But fundamentally, I am astounded how Remainers are ok with us discriminating non-EU folks (incl Doctors and other highly skilled people) in favour of literally any of the 500m EU folks, deeply unfair in my opinion. Pretty much every other country on the planet outside of the EU are highly selective of the types of people (skills, experience, ability to intergrate, etc) they allow into the country, not sure why this seems to be such a brand new ‘weird’ concept to so many Remainers.
Re: Economic stability
Another one where myth seems have overtaken reality. I have a fundamental hesitation with a ‘pump and grow’ economy that is just simply unsustainable in the long run. By filling the nation up with even cheaper labour, so more companies can ‘grow’ (not sure on what growth / valuation rates), and continually driving the price of goods/services down – the model just doesn’t make sense (once again I’m talking about a 20-50-100 year outlook).
Not sure where our ‘huge immediate collapse’ has gone, I guess I’ve missed it! I am a realist, I understand there may be a bumpy road as we negotiate global trade deals (not least with the EU!) but it was sad we could not pick up the phone to China, India, Canada, New Zealand, etc to even discuss trade – now we will be back on the map!
As expected the Treasury was hardly going to sit on their hands waiting for an exodus, a lower corporate tax rate (I support) will mean we should retain the major corporations and perhaps even attract new ones. I think it’s a storm in a tea-cup and in the long run we’ll be better than fine.
A side point about the falling Pound-Sterling. Economic analysts say if Germany had their own currency it’d be valued at about 20% higher than the Euro is now (the poorer nations of the Euro drag it down), but Germany loves this, makes their exports far more attractive. Similar for the Pound.
Re: David Cameron’s call for a referendum
I agree this is a very complex issue, but in his own words, the nation (and not least the Tory party) has been slowly torn apart by a huge debate on this issue (more people voted UKIP in the last general election than the SNP if I am not mistaken!) – so he wanted to ‘settle this once and for all’. In my eyes a legend of a PM who gave the people not one but two referendums (Scotland) which is at the fundamental heart of the country. Unsure why people think it was a bad idea, perhaps the same people that ironically protested against the Iraq war in 2003 demanding a say, saying ‘only the elites decide and the people need their voice back’! He’s in a lose-lose situation, very unfair in my opinion.
Re: the campaign
Yes ugly both sides (somewhat), a bit of hyperbole with the ‘they are ALL lying to us!!’ etc – once again damned if you do, damned if you don’t. People wanted facts and figures (for a future event which involved a third party!) and when a projection was made people laughed it all off. Weird.
Also, there were no manifestos, this is not a general election! There were cross-party organisations (e.g. ‘Vote Leave’) therefore if they HAD agreed on policies (even though made up of Tories, Labour, UKIP, etc), wouldn’t they also have just been laughed off? The Govt decided to introduce a referendum, and when I formulate a strategy at work, I jot out the path for each major eventuality, so I am bewildered how everyone is going on about some obscure comments from a temporary bunch of politicians as if they have a mandate!
Re: Politics / Politicians
I may be one of the only guys on the planet that believes politics is extremely tough, hardly ever black/white and believes it is a thankless task. No matter what happens they get abused. Quite easy to launch abuse from the sidelines in my opinion. I don’t think, for example Boris schemed this whole thing up (as a regular MP? Influencing DC to call a referendum and at a time that suits him?!). Boris has had anti-EU tendencies for decades, so to attempt to link the dots up somehow is just lazy intellect in my opinion (and I suppose it shows re: him not being PM!).
It seems as Gove was Boris’ brains, and when the referendum was won, Gove expected Boris to step up and show some leadership (i.e. an outline of a coherent strategy etc), but Boris once again leaned on Gove, and I assume Gove thought this guy just isn’t up for it and I’d better run. I have no issue with that. If anyone has played a political game it has been May in my opinion, staying fairly silent, then suddenly coming to the front once the dust settled.
Re: the electorate
The ‘all the Brexiteers are all stupid’ argument is exactly the type that has alienated a large majority (let’s face it Brexit actually won!) of the people. It was interesting that people from all walks of life, the affluent areas, the poorer areas, etc voted Brexit. I am sure there are a number of reasons, and yes, some will have been oblivious to a lot of points mentioned here, and some may well have been racists, but unfair to paint with a single brush in my opinion.
This is getting long but in essence, for me, it is telling that the UK isn’t just an outlier in the EU argument, there are movements across Europe (quite a lot within the European Parliament itself!), and surely that implies there is a fundamental rethink required.
These are just a few of my macro thoughts on the issue in short! I could go on forever! Hopefully some of it makes sense!
Re: Voting Brexit
It wasn’t a decision I took lightly, in fact I’ve been researching, reading up and (hopefully objectively) analysing the pros and cons, for literally months, if not years! I approached it with my ‘we’ hat on, rather than my ‘me’ hat, if that makes sense.
If I was being selfish about it, Remain was the way to go for me….for my vacations, savings, potential for moving abroad, etc – but this was, for me, much bigger than just about me, and about the direction of the EU-UK relationship on a more macro level.
Re: the UK in the EU
No one has any issue whatsoever with doing free-trade deals, single markets etc, that is what we voted for as a country in 1975, but when did we vote for anthems, flags, bureaucrats, and basically a gigantic cross-nation socialist structure?!
I fundamentally have an issue with ‘richer’ nations subsidising ‘poorer’ nations to build their social and economic fabric. World Governments are already in a economically precarious position, and therefore I just don’t see the point.
Re: Immigration
Obviously I utterly dismiss that idea that we are suddenly a nation of racists. Immigration wasn’t even the most important issue for Brexiters (based on a poll done at the time of the referendum). Once again on a macro level, our population has popped from 60m to 65m to 70m and more…fundamentally I think this is just unsustainable considering we are not a huge nation with vast resources like Australia, US or Canada. The strain on our public services are plain to see (and I’m sure the same Remainers continue to complain about the public services too!). Social integrity is also of importance to me (speaking English for example which any EU citizen doesn’t need to even have!). But fundamentally, I am astounded how Remainers are ok with us discriminating non-EU folks (incl Doctors and other highly skilled people) in favour of literally any of the 500m EU folks, deeply unfair in my opinion. Pretty much every other country on the planet outside of the EU are highly selective of the types of people (skills, experience, ability to intergrate, etc) they allow into the country, not sure why this seems to be such a brand new ‘weird’ concept to so many Remainers.
Re: Economic stability
Another one where myth seems have overtaken reality. I have a fundamental hesitation with a ‘pump and grow’ economy that is just simply unsustainable in the long run. By filling the nation up with even cheaper labour, so more companies can ‘grow’ (not sure on what growth / valuation rates), and continually driving the price of goods/services down – the model just doesn’t make sense (once again I’m talking about a 20-50-100 year outlook).
Not sure where our ‘huge immediate collapse’ has gone, I guess I’ve missed it! I am a realist, I understand there may be a bumpy road as we negotiate global trade deals (not least with the EU!) but it was sad we could not pick up the phone to China, India, Canada, New Zealand, etc to even discuss trade – now we will be back on the map!
As expected the Treasury was hardly going to sit on their hands waiting for an exodus, a lower corporate tax rate (I support) will mean we should retain the major corporations and perhaps even attract new ones. I think it’s a storm in a tea-cup and in the long run we’ll be better than fine.
A side point about the falling Pound-Sterling. Economic analysts say if Germany had their own currency it’d be valued at about 20% higher than the Euro is now (the poorer nations of the Euro drag it down), but Germany loves this, makes their exports far more attractive. Similar for the Pound.
Re: David Cameron’s call for a referendum
I agree this is a very complex issue, but in his own words, the nation (and not least the Tory party) has been slowly torn apart by a huge debate on this issue (more people voted UKIP in the last general election than the SNP if I am not mistaken!) – so he wanted to ‘settle this once and for all’. In my eyes a legend of a PM who gave the people not one but two referendums (Scotland) which is at the fundamental heart of the country. Unsure why people think it was a bad idea, perhaps the same people that ironically protested against the Iraq war in 2003 demanding a say, saying ‘only the elites decide and the people need their voice back’! He’s in a lose-lose situation, very unfair in my opinion.
Re: the campaign
Yes ugly both sides (somewhat), a bit of hyperbole with the ‘they are ALL lying to us!!’ etc – once again damned if you do, damned if you don’t. People wanted facts and figures (for a future event which involved a third party!) and when a projection was made people laughed it all off. Weird.
Also, there were no manifestos, this is not a general election! There were cross-party organisations (e.g. ‘Vote Leave’) therefore if they HAD agreed on policies (even though made up of Tories, Labour, UKIP, etc), wouldn’t they also have just been laughed off? The Govt decided to introduce a referendum, and when I formulate a strategy at work, I jot out the path for each major eventuality, so I am bewildered how everyone is going on about some obscure comments from a temporary bunch of politicians as if they have a mandate!
Re: Politics / Politicians
I may be one of the only guys on the planet that believes politics is extremely tough, hardly ever black/white and believes it is a thankless task. No matter what happens they get abused. Quite easy to launch abuse from the sidelines in my opinion. I don’t think, for example Boris schemed this whole thing up (as a regular MP? Influencing DC to call a referendum and at a time that suits him?!). Boris has had anti-EU tendencies for decades, so to attempt to link the dots up somehow is just lazy intellect in my opinion (and I suppose it shows re: him not being PM!).
It seems as Gove was Boris’ brains, and when the referendum was won, Gove expected Boris to step up and show some leadership (i.e. an outline of a coherent strategy etc), but Boris once again leaned on Gove, and I assume Gove thought this guy just isn’t up for it and I’d better run. I have no issue with that. If anyone has played a political game it has been May in my opinion, staying fairly silent, then suddenly coming to the front once the dust settled.
Re: the electorate
The ‘all the Brexiteers are all stupid’ argument is exactly the type that has alienated a large majority (let’s face it Brexit actually won!) of the people. It was interesting that people from all walks of life, the affluent areas, the poorer areas, etc voted Brexit. I am sure there are a number of reasons, and yes, some will have been oblivious to a lot of points mentioned here, and some may well have been racists, but unfair to paint with a single brush in my opinion.
This is getting long but in essence, for me, it is telling that the UK isn’t just an outlier in the EU argument, there are movements across Europe (quite a lot within the European Parliament itself!), and surely that implies there is a fundamental rethink required.
These are just a few of my macro thoughts on the issue in short! I could go on forever! Hopefully some of it makes sense!
Surprise surprise...
@Paz The 'socialist' thing is a bit silly, isn't it? It's blatantly untrue. Germany are ruled by a centre-right party. As are Spain. And Britain. France have a President who's very socially liberal but - again - fairly centre-right economically. Plenty of other countries are the same. You'll need to give some evidence if you want that claim to be taken seriously.
As for our supposed 'collapse,' it's worth noting that we haven't actually left the EU yet. I don't think any collapse will be as dramatic as some may claim; we'll continue to function as a nation and will by and large get on with things, but thus far we haven't really been hit by Brexit that much because it's not actually happened.
The trade deals thing again oversimplifies our situation. The government could barely work out a deal with a fairly small Northern Irish political party; managing complex trade deals isn't going to be an easy process when other nations will know the government will be desperate for any perceived success and will be willing to exploit us. The 'back on the map' thing seems fundamentally silly because it highlights this weird general anxiety among many Brexiters about our post-imperial status as a nation. Why does 'being on the map' actually matter? What's wrong with being a reasonably sized, well-run country if we're no longer as significant a nation as we once were? Any decline isn't really going to be reversed by Brexit and if anything will result in us becoming more dependent on the US - hence May's arse-kissing of Trump whenever the two have met.
And if there were no manifestos since it wasn't an election, why did the Leave campaign quite literally campaign as if it was? The £350m a year thing wasn't some vague idea; it was a literal policy promise made by people who knew they'd not necessarily be in a position to enact it.
As for our supposed 'collapse,' it's worth noting that we haven't actually left the EU yet. I don't think any collapse will be as dramatic as some may claim; we'll continue to function as a nation and will by and large get on with things, but thus far we haven't really been hit by Brexit that much because it's not actually happened.
The trade deals thing again oversimplifies our situation. The government could barely work out a deal with a fairly small Northern Irish political party; managing complex trade deals isn't going to be an easy process when other nations will know the government will be desperate for any perceived success and will be willing to exploit us. The 'back on the map' thing seems fundamentally silly because it highlights this weird general anxiety among many Brexiters about our post-imperial status as a nation. Why does 'being on the map' actually matter? What's wrong with being a reasonably sized, well-run country if we're no longer as significant a nation as we once were? Any decline isn't really going to be reversed by Brexit and if anything will result in us becoming more dependent on the US - hence May's arse-kissing of Trump whenever the two have met.
And if there were no manifestos since it wasn't an election, why did the Leave campaign quite literally campaign as if it was? The £350m a year thing wasn't some vague idea; it was a literal policy promise made by people who knew they'd not necessarily be in a position to enact it.
Anyone who grew up in the UK has every right to voice their opinion, in my opinion. I will be leaving the UK soon but it's still very important to me as all my family and friends are affected, and well it's my country at the end of the day. Being in a different place doesn't change that.
@Cheesy - re the socialist comment, I don't mean it literally - but IMO a lot of what the EU tries to do is have a central pot of money for projects around European countries (ie bridges in Czech Republic, social projects in Greece, etc etc). I am fundamentally against that, at what point does a nation stop being a nation? Ofcourse I understand the reasoning behind this (bring 'poorer' nations or Europe up to scratch and you have a potential new market), but at what cost? Hence my comment re: it's like a gigantic socialist entity IMO.
Re: collapse, fair enough. To be honest I thought we'd handle Brexit much much better than we have, the current Govt seems to be all over the shop and that makes me nervous about it tbh.
Re: Trade deals - back to my when does a nation stop being a nation comment. Based on what has happened in the last few decades, doing deals amongst each other, then ONLY the EU allowed to do deals on your behalf, to 'pay us money and we'll decide where in Europe it goes' - and now explicit talk of EU armies and central budgets etc! I am just uneasy about the trajectory. If they had drawn up a full integration plan, and asked nations 'this is what we want, come join?' I might even consider. But this by-stealth approach has people wondering 'what's next'?!
Re: collapse, fair enough. To be honest I thought we'd handle Brexit much much better than we have, the current Govt seems to be all over the shop and that makes me nervous about it tbh.
Re: Trade deals - back to my when does a nation stop being a nation comment. Based on what has happened in the last few decades, doing deals amongst each other, then ONLY the EU allowed to do deals on your behalf, to 'pay us money and we'll decide where in Europe it goes' - and now explicit talk of EU armies and central budgets etc! I am just uneasy about the trajectory. If they had drawn up a full integration plan, and asked nations 'this is what we want, come join?' I might even consider. But this by-stealth approach has people wondering 'what's next'?!
But none of this is actually socialism. I get that you're not using it literally, but it's a common and tired criticism people will use of anything they don't like that seems out of kilter with their own views. And, again - I don't see what's wrong with a European project which invests money in areas within certain countries that require investments. It's not as if we're solely giving to the project for money to go elsewhere - we've directly been given a ton of subsidies to benefit our own economy. Benefits which went to places like Wales and Cornwall that are now questioning what's going to happen to the subsidies they got from an organisation they voted to leave! Again, stuff like this hasn't been properly explained by the government - we don't really know what's going to happen, where the money will come from, if it'll be invested at all, and what sectors will be hit as a result of such investments.
The thing about any EU army or central European nation is that it's still a long, long way off. I wouldn't support a US of Europe type arrangement because I feel it'd probably be too large and therefore unaccountable to a certain extent, but the nature of the EU means that if they were ever going to do this then they'd require the consent of all member states - we wouldn't have been roped into a US of Europe against our will and would've gotten a say over the matter. Again, I think it's fine to be against the increasing centralisation within Europe, but the extent to which it's happening often tends to be exaggerated or claims will be made that just aren't true at all. Britain was still a nation and any claim to 'sovereignty' by leaving the EU was mostly bollocks, to be honest. Especially when the same said people were outraged when our own judges, acting within the remits of our sovereign British state, made a ruling which didn't suit them, resulting in them being branded as enemies of the people.
You are entitled to your opinion like anyone is but you voted and then left the UK. I could have voted but didn't because I will never live in the UK again but I'll still have an opinion, you may have noticed that Brexiters don't like that.
There are dozens of points where I disagree with you , other than the fact you don't seem to realise that the UK has not yet left the EU and the economic impact will take time, some impact is already being felt. Some predictions by others were made on the assumption that the UK would leave quicker, other than triggering A50 9 months later and the discussions going virtually nowhere , nothing has happened.
To come back to one point I've selected above - I have not yet met any Brit who speaks French fluently in France but they moved here, some speak it fairly well but most of them can barely put a sentence together but the French don't object to the Brits being here nor do the Spanish on the Costas.
Don't even talk about British tourists abroad who rarely make even an attempt to speak the language of the country they are visiting. Everyone should speak English shouldn't they? Even Brexiters complain when the EU speak in another language, English may be more widely spoken than other European languages but so what.
Farage objects to hearing foreigners speaking in a foreign language in Britain. Perhaps he shouldn't be listening in to their private conversations.
I speak fluent French and my wife speaks fluent English so we alternate between the two and sometimes speak in German in which we're conversationally competent on basic level if we don't want other people to understand what we're saying. I would love someone to try and object to which language I was speaking in. I'll speak in any language I want but will always make an effort to speak to a person in their language.
Problem is British people don't even realise when they are being xenophobic
Appreciate your point and perhaps I came across too strong re: the English thing.
Ofcourse I am not saying only people that speak English are valuable. But what do you make of student visas explicitly asking for English proficiency - and the likes of Canada and Australia using it as a criteria for their immigration.
I genuinely believe you upset the balance of society when you have a sudden mass influx of folks into a nation whether they be of different religion, language, culture etc. That's why most non-Western nations are so strict, and for that matter so are most western democracies where immigration is not such a hot topic (i.e. Canada based on my experience).
Here's the crux of it, what is the net inflow / outflow.
I agree with you, the Govt should (and hopefully will) then use the net cash for projects within the UK like we have been used to.
That's the reason why I didn't moved to the US as a student because I wasn't sure about my english, now I know that for a lot of people developing their english is a reason behind the move to english or american universities.
Out of interest who do you vote for in general elections ?
..but hopefully you also agree that locals may see that as a semi-burden on society. i.e. a student coming over to personally improve their language skills but not able to fully function within that society that has been shaped over many decades, in fact centuries?
Who on earth sees foreign students as a burden?