Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Brexit
Brexit Voting [54 vote(s)]

Voted Leave - Would Still Vote Leave
18.5%
Voted Leave - Would Now Vote Remain
1.9%
Voted Remain - Would Still Vote Remain
68.5%
Voted Remain - Would Now Vote Leave
0.0%
Didn't Vote - Would Now Vote Leave
0.0%
Didn't Vote - Would Now Vote Remain
7.4%
Other
3.7%


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 17480
Date:
Brexit


There are always positive and negative stories. Neither approach is perfect, but as CD says, you have to weigh up the overall pros and cons. Some research by the Centre for European Reform shows that as a result of Brexit:

GDP down by 5.2 per cent
Investment 13.7 per cent lower
Goods trade reduced by 13.6 per cent

But services are UP by almost 8%

twitter.com/CER_EU/status/1534966243454767114

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 17480
Date:

Here is a very interesting Brexit positive

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/ulsterbusiness/news/belfast-harbour-bounces-back-to-34m-profit-and-says-trading-aided-by-ni-protocol-41769929.html


__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 43974
Date:

Yes, absolutely, Bob, it's great

But Northern Ireland, of course, is living the dream - in the free market for goods - no checks, no new administrative requirements, complete barrier-free trading with the rest of the EU ...... just imagine....

It's no wonder they're extremely worried about Boris' threats to breach the protocol

__________________


Challenger qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 2241
Date:

Macron is dressed exclusively by an eBay seller in Hull. Which, seeing as the French presidency costs about 50% more than the UK monarchy, is yet another Brexit benefit?††wink



__________________



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 43974
Date:

So, the report from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has confirmed what an utter pig's ear Priti Patel is making of dealing with immigrants arriving across the Channel.

The UK's own government site gives the numbers as follows:

"There were 28,526 people detected arriving on small boats in the calendar year 2021. This compares with 8,466 in 2020, 1,843 in 2019 and 299 in 2018".

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-march-2022/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-march-2022

The figures for this year are set to be even higher, with figures showing about 15,000 arrivals already after only 6 months

Of course, the not-so-delicious irony of this is that the huge increase is basically a result of Brexit

As part of the EU, we were part of the Dublin Agreement which was EU law that imposed a duty on the first receiving country to deal with the immigrant arrivals.

Hence, we only had a few hundred arrivals.

Now we are no longer part of the Dublin Agreement, we are not protected in any way, there is no international law that says the same, and so we have no rights to insist that the immigrants are dealt with in the country where they first arrived, and no political clout or goodwill to try and cajole other countries into doing the same.

And so there will be about 30,000 arriving this year

And, yet, Brexit was supposed to stop irregular immigration????





__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 17480
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:

So, the report from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has confirmed what an utter pig's ear Priti Patel is making of dealing with immigrants arriving across the Channel.

The UK's own government site gives the numbers as follows:

"There were 28,526 people detected arriving on small boats in the calendar year 2021. This compares with 8,466 in 2020, 1,843 in 2019 and 299 in 2018".

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-march-2022/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-march-2022

The figures for this year are set to be even higher, with figures showing about 15,000 arrivals already after only 6 months

Of course, the not-so-delicious irony of this is that the huge increase is basically a result of Brexit

As part of the EU, we were part of the Dublin Agreement which was EU law that imposed a duty on the first receiving country to deal with the immigrant arrivals.

Hence, we only had a few hundred arrivals.

Now we are no longer part of the Dublin Agreement, we are not protected in any way, there is no international law that says the same, and so we have no rights to insist that the immigrants are dealt with in the country where they first arrived, and no political clout or goodwill to try and cajole other countries into doing the same.

And so there will be about 30,000 arriving this year

And, yet, Brexit was supposed to stop irregular immigration????



Want an even more remarkable stat ?

The Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration was appointed in March 2021. In that time, he has not been afforded the opportunity to meet Priti Patel even once.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1550066344724516865

"I find it frustrating that I've not met her... I think the home secretary should speak to me"



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 43974
Date:

You're right, Bob.

But that's a failure of government (which, to be honest, I don't think anyone in their right mind can deny - on many levels). And can be changed.

The huge rise in irregular immigration following our loss of legal protection as a country in Europe is a 'failure' of Brexit - well, a consequence - which is a bigger problem.

__________________


Satellite level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1383
Date:

To be completely honest I have no idea what Brexit was supposed to do, and even more I don't care.

But as regards immigration, (rightly or wrongly) I think Brexit was supposed to reduce _all_ immigration: i.e. the total of regular and irregular immigration. Until we have figures for the combination, then worrying about just one aspect of immigration seems to me to be sort of missing the point. (e.g if regular immigration has gone down by a million, a few tens of thousands of irregulars can be more easily borne).

On a related topic: how long do we think that it will be before "Remainers" stop "I told you so"-ing, and understand that we have left Europe? It is entirely possible that they were right, and that we shouldn't have left, but the fact is that we have and therefore have to get with the programme and make the best of a bad job. I am fed up to the back teeth with politicians (and others) telling me how we were conned, and that we shouldn't have done this, and we were duped into doing that, and if they had been in charge we would have done things differently: but we are here now, and we need a strategy to get out of the mess that we are in, not just wallowing in moaning about how we shouldn't be here.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 43974
Date:

It's interesting points but I think Brexit was supposed to reduce unwanted immigration, even more than all immigration.

That may have equated to an overall reduction too but nearly all Brexit supporters accept that immigration is obviously needed - but in specific areas and controlled. Which is a reasonable argument (even if I don't necessarily agree with it).

The problem with the figures is that, for many Brexit-ers, and indeed Remain-ers, it's the very 'worst' sort of immigration that has sky-rocketed. And it was this immigration that made (and makes) the headlines all the time and that was one of the main focuses of taking back sovereignty.

And I agree, both parties have to accept Brexit as a reality otherwise nothing will move forward.

This applies to the Tories who seem to refuse to accept that there could be anything negative about Brexit - and hence refuse to address some major problems - when it's obvious that both being in the EU and not being has advantages and disadvantages - you've got to be lucid about them both, from the position you're in

It also applies to the Labour party, although they've moved away from openly querying Brexit

But the fact that we now have a rather acute labour shortage in many areas but have soaring boat arrivals (who have no right to work, even if they are skilled) seems rather a*se about face, given what was promised




__________________


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Date:

I mean we could do what other countries do and allow the people who are waiting for their asylum case to be heard to work. If their case flops, bye, if theyre successful (like about 80% are), well happy days, theyre already in a job!

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 22516
Date:

Jajon wrote:

I mean we could do what other countries do and allow the people who are waiting for their asylum case to be heard to work. If their case flops, bye, if theyre successful (like about 80% are), well happy days, theyre already in a job!


†Definitely- we treat asylum seekers like criminals. Even if someone is here to better themselves economically, my view is why not, good for them. Dont let them scrounge but let them give it a go.†



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 43974
Date:

The chemicals industry used to be regulated by EU Reach - so that if you imported or manufactured chemicals, the substance had to registered, and approved. This approval was accepted throughout the EU. It cost our companies about £0.5 billion to get in compliance.

But as part of 'getting Brexit done', Johnson failed to ensure reciprocity for the data base (which would have been very easy and was requested numerous times by the UK chemical industry)

So then the Ministry realised that the UK authorities had no access to any data and had no idea what company was doing what with any chemicals in the UK

So they set up UK Reach - basically a giant replica.

Which (a) was always going to cost the chemical companies £1bn, (b) has now been conceded by the Government will cost them at least £2bn, and (c) has (naturally) been hugely delayed - with the deadline already pushed back two years and will probably be at least five, so basically our authorities have no real idea who is importing or manufacturing what chemicals .....





__________________


Challenger qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 2241
Date:

There is no smoke without fire.....



twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1558708491103215617/photo/1

__________________



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 43974
Date:

This is not the 'fault' of Brexit but it is a problem that has come as a consequence of Brexit, and the Ukraine invasion

With seasonal workers from the EU dropping off a cliff (not literally! :smile), and a desperate shortage, farmers have obviously had to look elsewhere.

Ukrainian and Russians would have been one obvious solution but the war has put pay to that

So there have been huge recruitment drives in Indonesia etc, BUT the agents on the ground there are basically taking advantage of people's naivety, poverty and lack of knowledge (unlike the traditional EU workers who knew the ropes) and have left hundreds in debt bondage, working in the UK to pay off debts back home they were forced into for the right to work here

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/revealed-indonesian-workers-on-uk-farm-at-risk-of-debt-bondage/ar-AA10EtVk



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 17480
Date:

Shhh wrote:

There is no smoke without fire.....

twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1558708491103215617/photo/1


†Finally the first of the elusive Brexit benefits becomes apparent biggrinbiggrin



__________________
« First  <  Page 64  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard