Brexit matters

[Enthusiast]

1. While it's true that the rot didn't happen right away, it's instructive that the UK had the biggest contraction during Covid lockdowns and is the slowest growing of the world's major economies.

2. Unfortunately, that one didn't come to pass. UK house prices are way too high and we pay the highest percentage of wages on housing in Western Europe.

3. History is not finished.

4. There hasn't been a hardening of the border (yet) because NI has remained in the Customs Union. Perhaps someone could explain to me how they can leave the CU and not have a border between NI and ROI or a border between GB and NI?

5. As I noted above, that is a condition of the Withdrawal Agreement. Had that provision not been agreed then the situation could be quite different.

6. It's always a good idea to compare the performance of markets across countries. Since July 2016:

Index	FTSE 100	FTSE 250	S&P 500	DJIA	DAX	CAC40
Start (July 2016)	6590	16088	2129	18146	9776	4190
End (July 2022)	7358	19720	3920	31759	13096	6211
Percentage Change	+11.6%	+22.6%	+84%	+75%	+33%	+48%

Which does indicate that our market has seriously underperformed. (As an aside, I'm not sure where your figure of 23,481 came from - it's not been above 23,000 since January)

So basically:

1. (Job Losses) It didn't happen - but if and when it does, Brexit will be the cause. The warning was not about the recovery after Covid (which wasn't even heard of). It was about the immediate effects of leaving.

2. (House price collapse) It didn't happen - but if and when it does, Brexit will be the cause. House prices were equally way too high when the warning was given.

3. (World War 3) It didn't happen - but if and when it does, Brexit will be the cause.

4. (Hard border in Ireland) It didn't happen because arrangements - as unsatisfactory as they are - were always going to be made to ensure it didn't. There are plenty of ways a hard border can be avoided without a customs border in the Irish sea. But it needs goodwill on both sides.

5. (EU nationals to be sent home) It didn't happen. With or without a withdrawal agreement it was blindingly obvious that no EU citizens would be "sent home." This country cannot even routinely repatriate those guilty of serious crimes. There was no was no way that people who had legally settled here and behaved themselves would be repatriated.

6. (Stock Market Crash) It happened and quickly recovered. The warning was nothing to do with comparative subsequent growth. It forecast an immediate and permanent devaluation. I hadn't checked the veracity of the figures but simply quoted the report I provided a link to.

I should emphasise that both sides were equally guilty of this deceit. The leave campaign made similarly ludicrous claims (e.g. the £350m on the side of the infamous bus; the "Oven ready" deal which was still in the freezer). That is why voters should take no notice of the drivel politicians spew forth on them (perfectly demonstrated by the "pledges" currently being bandied about by the two Tory Leadership candidates). But the prize for the most ludicrous claim of all - from both sides - goes to Donald Tusk.

I decided in 1992 that if ever given the opportunity to vote on the matter, I would vote to leave the EU. I believe it is a protectionist organisation which stifles trade beyond the bloc and which has overtly Federalist ambitions. I believed it was not in the UK's best interests to be a member, under any circumstances, whatever the advantages. under any circumstances. Nothing politicians said since then caused me to change my mind and I was not swayed by either side (which is just as well, considering the lies that were told).

 

[najaB]

I should emphasise that both sides were equally guilty of this deceit. The leave campaign made similarly ludicrous claims (e.g. the £350m on the side of the infamous bus; the "Oven ready" deal which was still in the freezer). That is why voters should take no notice of the drivel politicians spew forth on them (perfectly demonstrated by the "pledges" currently being bandied about by the two Tory Leadership candidates).

Without a doubt.

 

[DerekC]

Not so sure. As I've said elsewhere, UKIP polled around 13% during the 2015 referendum. The Conservatives returned with a majority, partially because they promised a referendum. Rightly or wrongly, anti-EU sentiment was quietly burning away beneath the surface at an alarmingly high rate. Those who frequent wine bars in the big cities would have been absolutely blind to the thoughts of those who drink in pubs in the provincial and rural areas. Whenever I visited the provinces and got into conversation with locals (a benefit of following a football team around the country)...there was a very anti-EU sentiment building up from about 2008 on.

And why was that? Because the right-wing Tory press had been running for years a propaganda campaign against the EU which spread the usual mixture of misinformation, misleading and out of context cases and outright lies. Human beings have a good dose of xenophobia somewhere in the low level programming and it isn't hard to work on it.

 

[Gostav]

In fact, the problem is "most" (52%) British want to remain this country to independent, so Brexit happened.

If a country wants to be independent, it needs to maintain independent economic, industrial, energy and other systems. Is the UK becoming more independent after over 6 years - whether it's the economy, energy, manufacturing. According to my observations is none, government do nothing about keep independent. British people don't like foreign? due to the fall in the international exchange rate of the pound after Brexit, a large amount of Chinese bought British industries and companies, include many high-tech companies and video game studios. After Brexit UK universities rely more on international students.

How can a country be an independent country if it cannot maintain most part independence in energy, industry, agriculture, economy, human resources?

There is another question: is Britain still important to the world?

 

[AlterEgo]

How can a country be an independent country if it cannot maintain most part independence in energy, industry, agriculture, economy, human resources?

Is any country truly independent then?

 

[najaB]

In fact, the problem is "most" (52%) British want to remain this country to independent, so Brexit happened.

52% of those who voted...

How can a country be an independent country if it cannot maintain most part independence in energy, industry, agriculture, economy, human resources?

Can you name a county that meets this set of criteria?

 

[edwin_m]

52% of those who voted...
Can you name a county that meets this set of criteria?

North Korea is probably closest.

 

[reddragon]

Yes, the Government has a certain amount of responsibility, which they have discharged with the agreement of schemes (on both sides) that people already legally living in a territory would (subject to furnishing of such proof) continue to live there. Which has been done, subject to the bureaucratic wrangles of any Government scheme. The Government has not abdicated any responsibility in this regard, have they?

There was/is no responsibility on our or any EU Government to grant citizenship to any of these people, except subject to the usual rules applied to applicants.

But not to UK citizens married to EU citizens now restricted to one or other state, or UK citizens living in the EU obviously!

In fact, the problem is "most" (52%) British want to remain this country to independent, so Brexit happened.

52% of those who were allowed to vote & did so

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Wait... I thought virtue signalling was a bad thing?

Haha! Very clever answer Not quite the same thing though!

How can a country be an independent country if it cannot maintain most part independence in energy, industry, agriculture, economy, human resources?

Is any country truly independent then?

Strictly speaking, no. Every country has to operate within the World community and play by the rules of that community. We are all interdependent to some extent.

But more pragmatically, maybe: I think the test for independence in energy, industry, etc. shouldn't be that you're producing everything yourself: It should be that you're not too dependent on any one single country or bloc of countries. Example: The EU's problems with energy and Russian sanctions. The issue wasn't that the EU imported so much of its energy - it's that it imported so much of its energy from one country (Russia), making it very dependent on that country. If the EU had been importing just as much energy - but from all over the World with no single country dominating, then for all practical purposes, the EU would have been as good as being independent as far as energy is concerned, since it would not be subject to the whims of one country, and any problems with supply from one country (such as Russia) could have been relatively easily made up for with small increases in supply from other places.

 

[duncanp]

52% of those who were allowed to vote & did so

But presumably if "..52% of those who were allowed to vote and did so.." had voted to stay in the EU, it would be "...an overwhelming majority.."

It was Tony Benn who said that governments don't like referendums and elections, because for one day you hand power back to the people, who might have the temerity to vote the "wrong" way.

 

[RT4038]

But not to UK citizens married to EU citizens now restricted to one or other state, or UK citizens living in the EU obviously!

UK citizens married to EU citizens still have the right to live in the UK. UK citizens married to EU citizens can presumably apply to be settled in whichever country that citizen comes from, and apply for citizenship, with whatever rules and procedures that country has for doing such a thing.

The country had a vote, in accordance with the democratic process prevalent, the result of which has restricted the rights of its citizens. The Government has as much responsibility to those affected by the curtailment of those rights as they would have done with the curtailment of any other right over the years. I fully understand the anguish that this might cause (having a foreign spouse myself, and friends in a similar position), but unfortunately momentous decisions such as this will always have a certain amount of human collateral damage.

52% of those who were allowed to vote & did so

Quite rightly, only citizens of a country are allowed to vote. I refer to your post #4561 where you state applying for citizenship is 'A lot of hassle for minimal gain'. I suggest that if all the EU citizens who were settled in this country and who qualified for citizenship had done so, and voted, the referendum result may have been sufficiently different and this anguish may have been avoided. Would that not have been worth the effort and cash?

In our Democratic system only those who cast their vote are counted. Others are considered not to care one way or the other. Your vote is precious.

 

[jon0844]

What do you consider yourself when you visit another country? You’re very much a guest, there at that country’s discretion, and bound by their rules.

Plenty of Brits would beg to differ on being considered guests when travelling. Far more likely to expect everyone to bend over backwards to accommodate them and let them do whatever they want. Stuff their local laws and traditions - do you know who we are? You need us more than we need you. We just won't visit your ****hole country then.

(You can see this exact stuff about the stories about Spain daring to ask where people are staying, how long, and if they have enough money to spend each day. Something I am not sure they're actually doing, but are well within their rights to ask of anyone visiting).

 

[reddragon]

Quite rightly, only citizens of a country are allowed to vote. I refer to your post #4561 where you state applying for citizenship is 'A lot of hassle for minimal gain'. I suggest that if all the EU citizens who were settled in this country and who qualified for citizenship had done so, and voted, the referendum result may have been sufficiently different and this anguish may have been avoided. Would that not have been worth the effort and cash?

In our Democratic system only those who cast their vote are counted. Others are considered not to care one way or the other. Your vote is precious.

My particular reference here was to the British citizens excluded from voting by virtue of their permanent (for some years before return to the UK) address being in the EU.

 

[RT4038]

Plenty of Brits would beg to differ on being considered guests when travelling. Far more likely to expect everyone to bend over backwards to accommodate them and let them do whatever they want. Stuff their local laws and traditions - do you know who we are? You need us more than we need you. We just won't visit your ****hole country then.

(You can see this exact stuff about the stories about Spain daring to ask where people are staying, how long, and if they have enough money to spend each day. Something I am not sure they're actually doing, but are well within their rights to ask of anyone visiting).

Are you suggesting that because some people behave like this, it is OK for everyone? As with every country, there are stereotypes. What @AlterEgo was referring to was how one should behave. Those that don't will get their come-uppance sooner or later.

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure how you took what I wrote as endorsing these views - only that since Brexit, many people have become so emboldened not just to act like this abroad, but actively brag and promote such actions - and along the way, we have people who seem to think it's perfectly okay as the EU deserves all it can get (with a lot of surprise that the EU hasn't yet collapsed as they said it would when we left).

If EU member states did ever get their comeuppance, it would only go to add fuel to the fire and prove that the EU is out to get us for vindictive reasons.

 

[RT4038]

My particular reference here was to the British citizens excluded from voting by virtue of their permanent (for some years before return to the UK) address being in the EU.

Unfortunately it is not possible to please everyone. Aside from the logistical issues, including British citizens permanently resident abroad (which will be rather a lot of people) in UK votes opens all sorts of questions about people voting on things that does not directly concern/affect them. And I accept that in some elections it may be more appropriate than others - but would you want the large quantity of British citizens in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc voting on EU membership when their interests ( more exports of agricultural produce, less likely to value FoM, for instance) may not be quite the same as resident citizens? Where is the line drawn? ['wherever is convenient for an individuals viewpoint'? !!!! ]

I am not sure how you took what I wrote as endorsing these views - only that since Brexit, many people have become so emboldened not just to act like this abroad, but actively brag and promote such actions - and along the way, we have people who seem to think it's perfectly okay as the EU deserves all it can get (with a lot of surprise that the EU hasn't yet collapsed as they said it would when we left).

If EU member states did ever get their comeuppance, it would only go to add fuel to the fire and prove that the EU is out to get us for vindictive reasons.

With emotions running high there will always be some people like this. Similar things happen after many divorces/independences It will calm down and there will be a gradual resetting of our relationship (both Governmental and individuals] with the EU and the member states.

 

[jon0844]

One thing is for sure, the EU doesn't care about Brexit like we do. They are just carrying on as normal without us, but some think they're spending every day scheming against us and finding ways to frustrate us. How dare they demand to see our passport and ask questions? Why are they forcing roaming charges on us? Why might we pay more to use our cards when travelling etc?

Most Europeans simply feel sorry for us, and perhaps a small minority of right wing voters continue to hope to replicate Brexit in their country, but our 'success' is making that an unlikely prospect.

 

[Cloud Strife]

(You can see this exact stuff about the stories about Spain daring to ask where people are staying, how long, and if they have enough money to spend each day. Something I am not sure they're actually doing, but are well within their rights to ask of anyone visiting).

It was/is being done in La Linea, but this is more of a political statement by Spain to put pressure on the UK and Gibraltarian governments.

Most Europeans simply feel sorry for us,

Exactly. I'm looking at the roaming charges now and just wondering where the Brexit benefits were.

The tragic thing is that if the Tories had been slightly more competent, many of the annoyances (like roaming charges) could easily have been included in the WA as continuing on the same basis as the existing EU regulations.

 

[jon0844]

Instead they told us roaming charges would never increase. Even O2, which still has EU roaming (the only major network to still do so on new contracts), has recently changed the wording in its T&Cs so it could reintroduce them. As Tesco Mobile has, which Telefonica also partly owns, my guess is it will come after this holiday season.

 

[Cdd89]

Becoming a citizen seems to me like a good way to make that commitment. If you choose not to become a citizen, then that would feel to me a bit like saying that you just want to be a temporary guest, you don't really want to be part of that country.

Some EU countries, such as the Netherlands, restrict dual citizenship for people who voluntarily take on another nationality.

If you were a Dutch national who moved to the UK, would you acquire British citizenship and restrict your ability to return to reside in the EU in future? I don’t personally think that is a fair thing to expect of those moving to the UK.

 

[reddragon]

27 allow dual nationality but 5 of those put severe restrictions on this.

Dual Citizenship in the EU

Dual citizenship allows you to have two passports and citizenship certificates from two countries. Most EU countries allow dual citizenship.

www.schengenvisainfo.com

EU Countries That Allow Dual Citizenship​

Below are listed all the EU countries that allow dual citizenship:

Austria*	Denmark	Hungary	Malta	Slovenia
Belgium	Estonia	Ireland	Netherlands*	Spain
Bulgaria*	Finland	Italy	Poland	Sweden
Croatia	France	Latvia	Portugal
Cyprus	Germany*	Lithuania*	Romania
Czech Republic	Greece	Luxembourg	Slovakia

*These countries allow dual citizenship only in certain cases, such as the impossibility of giving up your previous nationality (e.g. if giving up your previous nationality would result in major financial loss or if that country does not allow the renouncement of citizenship).

 

[RT4038]

Some EU countries, such as the Netherlands, restrict dual citizenship for people who voluntarily take on another nationality.

If you were a Dutch national who moved to the UK, would you acquire British citizenship and restrict your ability to return to reside in the EU in future? I don’t personally think that is a fair thing to expect of those moving to the UK.

In that particular case, the Dutch national would have to make the decision as to whether to remain a Dutch citizen (and therefore only have residency rights in the UK, rather than those of a citizen) or to make the ultimate commitment of becoming a UK citizen and renouncing Dutch citizenship. I should imagine that most will do the former, as few people really want to lose their connection and birthrights. (This applies to them moving to any country, not only the UK). This sort of thing affects many who move to another country, particularly for relationship reasons.

 

[Cloud Strife]

*These countries allow dual citizenship only in certain cases, such as the impossibility of giving up your previous nationality (e.g. if giving up your previous nationality would result in major financial loss or if that country does not allow the renouncement of citizenship).

That chart isn't quite accurate. For one, none of them require you to relinquish your citizenship if you gain a second one. There are some specific rules, such as that the Dutch law requires you to continue to hold a Dutch passport if you live abroad.

In the case of Lithuania, the Polish minority usually holds both Lithuanian and Polish passports, even though they're theoretically prohibited from doing so. In practice, these rules only get applied when you apply for citizenship of one of the countries that prohibit it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Some EU countries, such as the Netherlands, restrict dual citizenship for people who voluntarily take on another nationality.

If you were a Dutch national who moved to the UK, would you acquire British citizenship and restrict your ability to return to reside in the EU in future? I don’t personally think that is a fair thing to expect of those moving to the UK.

This was mentioned in the news a few times a couple of years ago when EUSS was going on.

Of course the nub of the problem is the Netherlands' regressive citizenship law, although there was a fair bit of hot air about it given this is an exception, which was the case for most Dutch people in the UK:

You have acquired your spouse's or registered partner's nationality. If you get divorced or your spouse or registered partner dies this will not affect your Dutch nationality. You will still be a Dutch national. To find out if you can keep your other nationality, contact the authorities in the country in question.

 

[Gloster]

So basically:

1. (Job Losses) It didn't happen - but if and when it does, Brexit will be the cause. The warning was not about the recovery after Covid (which wasn't even heard of). It was about the immediate effects of leaving.

Just to address this one point. There is a lot of evidence (anecdotal, I concede) that many businesses are hanging on in the hope that the government will start dealing sensibly with the EU, rather than the current shambles which has brought a risk of a trade war. Once things are clear, one way or another, they can start making decisions about the future direction of their businesses. So far many have limited themselves to not recruiting to replace staff leaving, but if there is no sign of any improvement we may be looking at a slow reduction in jobs as the companies cutback their operations in the UK. Job losses were never going to be a case of a sudden catastrophic fall, but there were always likely to be reductions: the irrational behaviour by the government has (ironically) temporarily slowed things as companies wait for clarity.

This doesn’t apply to many of those sectors that relied on cheap labour from Europe. These have lost so many employees (also due to Covid) that they are seeking staff, but these are far more likely to be low-paid jobs.

 

[Enthusiast]

Exactly. I'm looking at the roaming charges now and just wondering where the Brexit benefits were.

The tragic thing is that if the Tories had been slightly more competent, many of the annoyances (like roaming charges) could easily have been included in the WA as continuing on the same basis as the existing EU regulations.

I think you're somewhat missing the point.

One of the main aims of Brexit was to free the UK of the requirement to adhere to EU rules. There was little point in leaving if pettifogging regulations like outlawing roaming charges would be carried over after we left. There is nothing to prevent mobile companies maintaining free roaming if they wish and nothing to prevent the UK government from outlawing the charges if they see fit. But I see no reason why government should interfere in the pricing structures of commercial companies where adequate competition exists.

 

[najaB]

But I see no reason why government should interfere in the pricing structures of commercial companies where adequate competition exists.

Because companies historically have always acted in the best interest of consumers.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think you're somewhat missing the point.

One of the main aims of Brexit was to free the UK of the requirement to adhere to EU rules. There was little point in leaving if pettifogging regulations like outlawing roaming charges would be carried over after we left. There is nothing to prevent mobile companies maintaining free roaming if they wish and nothing to prevent the UK government from outlawing the charges if they see fit. But I see no reason why government should interfere in the pricing structures of commercial companies where adequate competition exists.

Except there isn't adequate competition in mobile phone charges, which is why the EU acted in the first place. The EU correctly observed that after a wave of rationalisation in the European telecoms industry, companies such as Orange, Telefonica and Vodafone were exploiting consumers with horrendous roaming charges despite the actual costs being close to nil, and that there was no way that the 'market' was going to regulate itself.

It's worth pointing out that the Western Balkans have also adopted the same agreement on roaming charges, and the EEA-Western Balkans agreement will probably start next year, with full implementation by 2027. And beyond that, the plan is to extend to the Eastern Partnership countries too, meaning that almost all of Europe will be included in a single free roaming area.

Except the UK, of course, because Brexit Benefits or something.

 

[tomuk]

Except there isn't adequate competition in mobile phone charges, which is why the EU acted in the first place. The EU correctly observed that after a wave of rationalisation in the European telecoms industry, companies such as Orange, Telefonica and Vodafone were exploiting consumers with horrendous roaming charges despite the actual costs being close to nil, and that there was no way that the 'market' was going to regulate itself.

It's worth pointing out that the Western Balkans have also adopted the same agreement on roaming charges, and the EEA-Western Balkans agreement will probably start next year, with full implementation by 2027. And beyond that, the plan is to extend to the Eastern Partnership countries too, meaning that almost all of Europe will be included in a single free roaming area.

Except the UK, of course, because Brexit Benefits or something.

Doesn't apply to Switzerland either. In some countries the operators increased their domestic tariffs for all to cover the wholesale costs of roaming while in others operators have introduced cheaper domestic only tariffs. It isn't all milk and honey.

The whole Roam at Home programme is not based on economics but the politics of promoting the EU.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Except there isn't adequate competition in mobile phone charges, which is why the EU acted in the first place. The EU correctly observed that after a wave of rationalisation in the European telecoms industry, companies such as Orange, Telefonica and Vodafone were exploiting consumers with horrendous roaming charges despite the actual costs being close to nil, and that there was no way that the 'market' was going to regulate itself.

I suspect you may well be correct that there are insufficient mobile phone networks to provide adequate competition, and if there is inadequate competition, then regulation may be necessary to protect consumers. However, regulation of prices is invariably a very imperfect solution that would ideally need to be kept under review to make sure it remains necessary and that the particular regulations are appropriate: It's so easy for badly designed or overly heavy-handed price regulation to do more harm than good. I'd therefore be somewhat reluctant to embed price regulation in a treaty, which thereby becomes very difficult to change later on. I'd much rather any regulation of UK phone provider prices is done purely as a Government regulation that can be easily adjusted if market circumstances change.