6 ms·

There have been some concrete advantages to Brexit: - Regained control of borders. This is going to be an increasingly important issue going into the 21st cent

There have been some concrete advantages to Brexit: - Regained control of borders. This is going to be an increasingly important issue going into the 21st century as Africa is going through an enormous population boom. -No longer on the hook for the debt of certain EU nations (Italy and Greece being big ones) It'll be interesting to see his this shakes out over the next decade. If the UK achieves some degree of freetrade with the EU while regaining control of borders and a more independent ability to adapt to changing conditions, they could still come out of Brexit up. And tbh a few hits to the City and London area aren't necessarily a bad thing imho. The rest of the country needs some serious attention (Scotland as an independent nation would very possible have the worst social and economic outcomes of all Europe).

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
https://capx.co/britain-remade-a-new-campaign-for-economic-growth/ https://capx.co/britain-remade-a-new-campaign-for-economic-g... Some of the proposals here would be a good start for the UK. There is no reason the UK can't flourish but it will need to make some overdue changes. And London needs to realise that like it or not they are the capital city of the United Kingdom, not a city state alone.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Maybe they should do a brexit 2 to make isolate themselves from the UK union
matthewdgreen 4y ago
The problem with this plan is that “the UK coming out of Brexit ‘up’” would be meaningfully bad for the EU if it encourages other countries to follow. And at the same time, the party with the greatest power to determine free trade agreements between UK/EU is the EU itself. This always struck me as the worst paradox of the whole idea: you’ve created an adversarial zero-sum environment where a much more powerful opponent determines your success. In practice it doesn’t look this will even be an issue, since Brexit is already producing such bad results and losing popular support as demographic changes wipe out its base of support.
- MoreSEMI 4y ago
  I feel as if this is putting the cart before the horse. If a brexit is a net benefit to countries, then they should leave the EU. There is no problem unless the country is ideologically attached to the EU.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  > In practice it doesn’t look this will even be an issue, since Brexit is already producing such bad results and losing popular support as demographic changes wipe out its base of support. We shall see. Remember that when rejoining the EU are going to try and get the best deal possible for themselves. I think you'll find that public sentiment can turn very quickly under such circumstances. You are also assuming no problems in the EU (such as an Italian debt crisis) meaning that rejoining has real negative downsides as well. The final process to rejoin the EU would at a minimum look like this: - Referendum on rejoining EU - Negotiations with EU on what exactly that would mean - Some sort of deliberative process to determine if rejoining under these conditions is acceptable. This will not happen for another decade at a minimum. And a lot can happen in that time. And if part of that agreement is the UK loses control of its borders again then I would bet money on no agreement being reached.
  - Teever 4y ago
    The underlying assumption in this entire comment is that the EU will want the UK back. Does the EU want the UK back?
    - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
      I would say the underlying assumption is that the EU will want a free trade agreement (or some variation of one) with the UK for their own benefit. And considering the mutual advantages here I think this is a fair assumption to make.
      - halpmeh 4y ago
        It’s also in the EU’s interest to make the UK a pariah. A lesson to others on the dangers of leaving the bloc. I don’t see the EU caring so much about restoring free trade with the UK. It would present an image of groveling and send the wrong message.
truculent 4y ago
While it’s quite possible for the UK to mitigate the effects of Brexit and attempt to find positives, expecting that to happen under a Conservative government is, frankly, laughable based on the last decade of evidence. The idea that reduced prosperity in London world somehow cause more attention to be given in underserved parts of the rest of the country makes little sense to me either. M
- 0xy 4y ago
  The NHS budget was 100 billion pounds in 2015 and is now 136 billion pounds, which means a 692m pound weekly increase in spending. One of the pieces of fearmongering from anti-Brexit campaigners was that the NHS would be starved of resources and would not receive adequate funding. Now that it's been proven a lie, anyone against Brexit claims they never made those statements. In fact, one of the most lambasted pro-Brexit selling points was additional NHS funding. It actually happened.
  - clnq 4y ago
    £100 in 2015 is equivalent to £131 today due to lost Pound Sterling value.
    - 0xy 4y ago
      The 131 is the budget for 2021/22, which was before the massive spike in inflation. The inflation between 2015 and 2021 is only 15.7%, meaning the budget has been raised by 15 billion pounds a year above inflation figures. It doesn't really seem like a fair comparison if 2022 alone (after the budget was already set) had more inflation than the preceding 6 years combined. In fact, the NHS budget is rising substantially by 2023/24 to counter-act the recent inflation events -- to 160 billion. [1] This would mean the NHS budget has risen by 60% between 2015 and 2023, outpacing inflation substantially to an increase in real terms. Just to put this in perspective, the pro-Brexit campaign was mocked for "falsely" promising 350m pounds a week in additional spending, when the spending increase is already double that and is scheduled to quadruple by 2023. [1] https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2022/11/autumn-budget-2022-announced-what-does-it-mean-health-and-care-spending https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2022/11/autumn-budget-2022...
Havoc 4y ago
> No longer on the hook for the debt of certain EU nations That might actually be the first credible benefit I’ve heard
- laurencerowe 4y ago
  This wasn't really true though. Not being a EuroZone member the UK was not part of the European Stability Mechanism and "The UK is not liable through existing emergency funding schemes". https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bailouts/ https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bail...
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    We'll see how this plays out. The appetite for Germany/France paying Italian debt is basically 0 and I predict this will lead to some major reformulation in the EU. When that happens it would be a good time for the UK to propose a freetrade agreement with the EU to help boost economic growth in the continent to make this more palatable.
rsj_hn 4y ago
This has nothing to do with Brexit, it is about the anti-Russian sanctions, specifically the energy sanctions, but also knock on effects. The UK imports large quantities of oil and natural gas, and these are now much more expensive, which is hitting the UK economy. Nations that are more energy independent suffer less. The UK, although it has North Seas oil, does not have sufficient quantities of domestic gas production, and even the North Seas oil is a bit tricky because of the refinery situation in Europe is not set up for self-sufficiency -- e.g. the UK exports about as much oil as it imports, with different nations responsible for supplying different distillates, so it's not the case that the UK, when faced with a shortfall of foreign oil imports, can just use its own oil. Long term it can, assuming refineries are built domestically, but not in the short term. But for natural gas, there isn't really a replacement -- perhaps nuclear, but that is very long term.
RC_ITR 4y ago
It's amazing how hard it is for humans to understand compounding growth. England's GDP has historically grown at 1.5-2.0%. That implies about 20% growth in a decade. Let's say Brexit leaves GDP 2% lower than it currently is by the end of 2023. Now to grow 22% in 9 years (i.e. get back to even), they need 2.4% annual growth, which is a 20-60% acceleration sustained every year for 9 years just to get back to the baseline. Less GDP today, in many ways, is less GDP forever.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  What makes you think I don't understand compound growth? I do. I also understand that certain policies can lead to changes that will disturb QOL in a country outside of raw GDP (go ask Swedes how they feel about immigrant behaviour in their country in recent years). Is Swedish GDP up? Absolutely. Is it worth the price of open hang warfare and frequent shootings that have sky-rocketed since 2015? Depends how you look at it but this isn't something that shows up in GDP but has tangible impacts on people's day to day lives. GDP growth isn't some static figure that will permanently remain low in the UK due to Brexit. There are many tangible real projects that could lead to significant improvements in GDP growth and QOL improvements that have nothing to do with Brexit (transport infrastructure improvement, housing reform, NHS reform etc). Brexit happened. Maybe it shouldn't have, but it did. The last thing the UK should do is try and rejoin now at a point of weakness especially when things aren't exactly looking wonderful in much of the EU either. Better to engage the rest of the world where possible, spend some time and effort focusing seriously on internal development (including measures to shore up the union so that Scotland won't be driven to make an incredibly self-destructive decision with independence) and then reopen negotiations when the UK is in a better spot. Despite the doom and gloom we are still talking about a top 10 world economy with world class human capital in many industries, that speaks the global lingua franca, has extensive overseas ties, and a lot of projects that would clearly help improve QOL in the UK. Focus on that first instead of trying to call back a ship that has already sailed.
  - 8note 4y ago
    > The last thing the UK should do is try and rejoin now at a point of weakness especially when things aren't exactly looking wonderful in much of the EU either. Why though? To save face? What if both the EU and UK would still do better together than apart? At the same time, why would Scotland want to be tied to England who isn't doing so hot?
koyote 4y ago
> Regained control of borders Can you elaborate on how that has changed since Brexit? The UK was never part of Schengen and African migrants are not EU-citizens so would not benefit from freedom of movement laws.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  EU citizens have rights to freedom of movement in other countries. This included the UK. While on paper you are correct about the African migrants in reality people were rightly concerned that the will to enforce this was weak. The issues in the English Channel still show this problem exists. And Europe continues to show little desire to actually take action in this problem and so we are seeing similar sentiments arise in Italy as lead to Brexit. Imho the real blame for Brexit lies at the feet of Angela Merkel. Brexit would never have happened if she hadn't opened the borders in the Syrian refugee crisis. While this was a very open-hearted and kind gesture, as a geopolitical action it was disastrous.
  - 8note 4y ago
    Would the Syrian refugee crisis have been as bad if Britain hadn't hopped in with the US to destabilize the area? You could easily lay that blame on George Bush more than anyone else
    - karp773 4y ago
      Right, and not only Britain. How many Syrian refugees did Russia admit?
    - refurb 4y ago
      Pretty sure civilians flee war wether or not the West gets involved.
  - koyote 4y ago
    > While on paper you are correct about the African migrants in reality people were rightly concerned that the will to enforce this was weak. I feel like I am still missing the legal context on how Brexit solves such an issue. You mention issues in the English Channel still exist; just last week there were reports on how there are thousands of Albanians (similarly non-EU citizens) who migrated to the UK illegally. But this is post-Brexit, which sort of indicates that Brexit has not solved the border issues. I can see the argument that Brexit reduces migration from EU nationals (whether that is a good or bad thing is another question), but I have yet to see any indication that it changed non-EU migration in any way.
8note 4y ago
On the other hand, over the long run, Britain will lose out by not having the population growth from Africa. Capitalist economies demand that growth to do well. ... And the UK won't decouple itself from Greek debt until the UK decides it shouldn't have imposed the arbitrary debts in the first place
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  UK will still have immigration from Africa. But at a level that satisfies both GDP growth concerns as well as culture stability concerns. Not being in the EU doesn't somehow make the UK incapable of accepting immigrants... I swear people are so upset with Brexit they have stopped using their brains in assessing the UKs options.
oliwarner 4y ago
The problem with kicking out migrant workers (which is effectively what's happened, and what "taking back control" was sold as) is we have major industries unable to hire. Construction is steeply overpaying low-skilled jobs when it can find people. Care is unable to hire, quickly extinguishing hospitals' ability to discharge and admit. Agriculture has seen a massive seasonal pinch; crops have spoiled because the traditional seasonal workers have been unable (and then unwilling) to deign themselves to the increased bureaucracy. I know we didn't actually kick people out and we [now] have exceptions for most of the jobs I've mentioned… but that's the effect when you limit movement. Long-term planning and COVID conspired to force people towards certainty. Even the immediate aftermath of the vote saw a massive drop in migrant carers and seasonal workers. And we still have painfully little control over who crosses our borders. So this "control" you claim we have is both ineffective and smothering this country. It's far from "just" the halving of our financial sector. Being a member of the EU guaranteed some level of freedom for migrant workers. It was a selling point for migrating in the first place. It's imperative we understand that just offering specific job exceptions isn't enough for lower-skilled jobs, and that our country will simply fail if we carry on letting that work go undone.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  I don't disagree with any of this except I don't think Brexit has much to do with it. Countries all over the world (including in Europe) are facing the exact same issue. Many workers want to come to the UK even now, and yes, even many Europeans. I don't think in the longrun that British immigrant numbers will go down but now the control is better and the perception of control is higher as well. There is a lot of value to that as politically illegal immigration (or perceived excessive immigration) has a way of sucking all the oxygen away from other issues.
srb24 4y ago
1. Last time I looked no African country was part of the EU, so not sure how stricter controls for EU nationals works in your plan 2. The Uk wasn't part of the EuroZone so not really on the hook for Greece etc. 3. "a few hits to the City and London area aren't necessarily a bad thing" why wold you think losing one of the most Profitable parts of THE UK a good thing, it won't move to other parts of the UK, it will go to Paris, Frankfurt etc. 4. The average cost for ANY company of ANY size to now gain a sponsor license to employ non UK staff now starts at about £20,000, there are now not enough people to do many jobs especially in cities, labour costs (and now inflation) have risen out of control in many sectors causing closures and many firms are just outsourcing any non in-person to other countries. Yes, it would be great to give jobs to "locals" but not Everyone can do Every job!
inglor_cz 4y ago
Neither Europe nor the UK are willing to alter their asylum laws enough to disrupt the trade of the people smugglers. The control of borders is illusory if human waves can get onto your shore in boats and the courts strike down most countermeasures, so whoever comes, stays. Therefore the population boom in Africa is likely to have a massive effect on European demography anyway, unless the Northern African countries, which are culturally different from the rest of Africa and which aren't particularly happy about being used as transit countries for mass migration either, build some kind of barriers across the Sahara.
TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
> Regained control of borders. This is going to be an increasingly important issue going into the 21st century as Africa is going through an enormous population boom. Actually it is exactly the opposite. When you were in EU and migrant came in on a dingy or hidden in a truck, you could have return him back to France. After the Brexit there is no such agreement and France can just show you a middle finger. See https://www.ft.com/content/d9eed579-a6ee-43b2-b2ce-3e8d83908770 https://www.ft.com/content/d9eed579-a6ee-43b2-b2ce-3e8d83908...
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  Paywall. Can you post the text and date of the article?
  - touristtam 4y ago
    If you are in the UK and this is news to you, I suggest that you seriously start looking at the news. This article is referencing the FT article fwiw: https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20221028-britain-france-agree-greater-cooperation-on-migrant-channel-crossings https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20221028-britain-france-agree-g...

TapWaterBandit 4y ago

https://capx.co/britain-remade-a-new-campaign-for-economic-growth/ https://capx.co/britain-remade-a-new-campaign-for-economic-g... Some of the proposals here would be a good start for the UK. There is no reason the UK can't flourish but it will need to make some overdue changes. And London needs to realise that like it or not they are the capital city of the United Kingdom, not a city state alone.

oneoff786 4y ago
Maybe they should do a brexit 2 to make isolate themselves from the UK union

matthewdgreen 4y ago

The problem with this plan is that “the UK coming out of Brexit ‘up’” would be meaningfully bad for the EU if it encourages other countries to follow. And at the same time, the party with the greatest power to determine free trade agreements between UK/EU is the EU itself. This always struck me as the worst paradox of the whole idea: you’ve created an adversarial zero-sum environment where a much more powerful opponent determines your success. In practice it doesn’t look this will even be an issue, since Brexit is already producing such bad results and losing popular support as demographic changes wipe out its base of support.

MoreSEMI 4y ago
I feel as if this is putting the cart before the horse. If a brexit is a net benefit to countries, then they should leave the EU. There is no problem unless the country is ideologically attached to the EU.
TapWaterBandit 4y ago
> In practice it doesn’t look this will even be an issue, since Brexit is already producing such bad results and losing popular support as demographic changes wipe out its base of support. We shall see. Remember that when rejoining the EU are going to try and get the best deal possible for themselves. I think you'll find that public sentiment can turn very quickly under such circumstances. You are also assuming no problems in the EU (such as an Italian debt crisis) meaning that rejoining has real negative downsides as well. The final process to rejoin the EU would at a minimum look like this: - Referendum on rejoining EU - Negotiations with EU on what exactly that would mean - Some sort of deliberative process to determine if rejoining under these conditions is acceptable. This will not happen for another decade at a minimum. And a lot can happen in that time. And if part of that agreement is the UK loses control of its borders again then I would bet money on no agreement being reached.
- Teever 4y ago
  The underlying assumption in this entire comment is that the EU will want the UK back. Does the EU want the UK back?
  - TapWaterBandit 4y ago
    I would say the underlying assumption is that the EU will want a free trade agreement (or some variation of one) with the UK for their own benefit. And considering the mutual advantages here I think this is a fair assumption to make.
    - halpmeh 4y ago
      It’s also in the EU’s interest to make the UK a pariah. A lesson to others on the dangers of leaving the bloc. I don’t see the EU caring so much about restoring free trade with the UK. It would present an image of groveling and send the wrong message.

truculent 4y ago

While it’s quite possible for the UK to mitigate the effects of Brexit and attempt to find positives, expecting that to happen under a Conservative government is, frankly, laughable based on the last decade of evidence. The idea that reduced prosperity in London world somehow cause more attention to be given in underserved parts of the rest of the country makes little sense to me either. M

0xy 4y ago
The NHS budget was 100 billion pounds in 2015 and is now 136 billion pounds, which means a 692m pound weekly increase in spending. One of the pieces of fearmongering from anti-Brexit campaigners was that the NHS would be starved of resources and would not receive adequate funding. Now that it's been proven a lie, anyone against Brexit claims they never made those statements. In fact, one of the most lambasted pro-Brexit selling points was additional NHS funding. It actually happened.
- clnq 4y ago
  £100 in 2015 is equivalent to £131 today due to lost Pound Sterling value.
  - 0xy 4y ago
    The 131 is the budget for 2021/22, which was before the massive spike in inflation. The inflation between 2015 and 2021 is only 15.7%, meaning the budget has been raised by 15 billion pounds a year above inflation figures. It doesn't really seem like a fair comparison if 2022 alone (after the budget was already set) had more inflation than the preceding 6 years combined. In fact, the NHS budget is rising substantially by 2023/24 to counter-act the recent inflation events -- to 160 billion. [1] This would mean the NHS budget has risen by 60% between 2015 and 2023, outpacing inflation substantially to an increase in real terms. Just to put this in perspective, the pro-Brexit campaign was mocked for "falsely" promising 350m pounds a week in additional spending, when the spending increase is already double that and is scheduled to quadruple by 2023. [1] https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2022/11/autumn-budget-2022-announced-what-does-it-mean-health-and-care-spending https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2022/11/autumn-budget-2022...

Havoc 4y ago

> No longer on the hook for the debt of certain EU nations That might actually be the first credible benefit I’ve heard

laurencerowe 4y ago
This wasn't really true though. Not being a EuroZone member the UK was not part of the European Stability Mechanism and "The UK is not liable through existing emergency funding schemes". https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bailouts/ https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bail...
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  We'll see how this plays out. The appetite for Germany/France paying Italian debt is basically 0 and I predict this will lead to some major reformulation in the EU. When that happens it would be a good time for the UK to propose a freetrade agreement with the EU to help boost economic growth in the continent to make this more palatable.

rsj_hn 4y ago

This has nothing to do with Brexit, it is about the anti-Russian sanctions, specifically the energy sanctions, but also knock on effects. The UK imports large quantities of oil and natural gas, and these are now much more expensive, which is hitting the UK economy. Nations that are more energy independent suffer less. The UK, although it has North Seas oil, does not have sufficient quantities of domestic gas production, and even the North Seas oil is a bit tricky because of the refinery situation in Europe is not set up for self-sufficiency -- e.g. the UK exports about as much oil as it imports, with different nations responsible for supplying different distillates, so it's not the case that the UK, when faced with a shortfall of foreign oil imports, can just use its own oil. Long term it can, assuming refineries are built domestically, but not in the short term. But for natural gas, there isn't really a replacement -- perhaps nuclear, but that is very long term.

RC_ITR 4y ago

It's amazing how hard it is for humans to understand compounding growth. England's GDP has historically grown at 1.5-2.0%. That implies about 20% growth in a decade. Let's say Brexit leaves GDP 2% lower than it currently is by the end of 2023. Now to grow 22% in 9 years (i.e. get back to even), they need 2.4% annual growth, which is a 20-60% acceleration sustained every year for 9 years just to get back to the baseline. Less GDP today, in many ways, is less GDP forever.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
What makes you think I don't understand compound growth? I do. I also understand that certain policies can lead to changes that will disturb QOL in a country outside of raw GDP (go ask Swedes how they feel about immigrant behaviour in their country in recent years). Is Swedish GDP up? Absolutely. Is it worth the price of open hang warfare and frequent shootings that have sky-rocketed since 2015? Depends how you look at it but this isn't something that shows up in GDP but has tangible impacts on people's day to day lives. GDP growth isn't some static figure that will permanently remain low in the UK due to Brexit. There are many tangible real projects that could lead to significant improvements in GDP growth and QOL improvements that have nothing to do with Brexit (transport infrastructure improvement, housing reform, NHS reform etc). Brexit happened. Maybe it shouldn't have, but it did. The last thing the UK should do is try and rejoin now at a point of weakness especially when things aren't exactly looking wonderful in much of the EU either. Better to engage the rest of the world where possible, spend some time and effort focusing seriously on internal development (including measures to shore up the union so that Scotland won't be driven to make an incredibly self-destructive decision with independence) and then reopen negotiations when the UK is in a better spot. Despite the doom and gloom we are still talking about a top 10 world economy with world class human capital in many industries, that speaks the global lingua franca, has extensive overseas ties, and a lot of projects that would clearly help improve QOL in the UK. Focus on that first instead of trying to call back a ship that has already sailed.
- 8note 4y ago
  > The last thing the UK should do is try and rejoin now at a point of weakness especially when things aren't exactly looking wonderful in much of the EU either. Why though? To save face? What if both the EU and UK would still do better together than apart? At the same time, why would Scotland want to be tied to England who isn't doing so hot?

koyote 4y ago

> Regained control of borders Can you elaborate on how that has changed since Brexit? The UK was never part of Schengen and African migrants are not EU-citizens so would not benefit from freedom of movement laws.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
EU citizens have rights to freedom of movement in other countries. This included the UK. While on paper you are correct about the African migrants in reality people were rightly concerned that the will to enforce this was weak. The issues in the English Channel still show this problem exists. And Europe continues to show little desire to actually take action in this problem and so we are seeing similar sentiments arise in Italy as lead to Brexit. Imho the real blame for Brexit lies at the feet of Angela Merkel. Brexit would never have happened if she hadn't opened the borders in the Syrian refugee crisis. While this was a very open-hearted and kind gesture, as a geopolitical action it was disastrous.
- 8note 4y ago
  Would the Syrian refugee crisis have been as bad if Britain hadn't hopped in with the US to destabilize the area? You could easily lay that blame on George Bush more than anyone else
  - karp773 4y ago
    Right, and not only Britain. How many Syrian refugees did Russia admit?
  - refurb 4y ago
    Pretty sure civilians flee war wether or not the West gets involved.
- koyote 4y ago
  > While on paper you are correct about the African migrants in reality people were rightly concerned that the will to enforce this was weak. I feel like I am still missing the legal context on how Brexit solves such an issue. You mention issues in the English Channel still exist; just last week there were reports on how there are thousands of Albanians (similarly non-EU citizens) who migrated to the UK illegally. But this is post-Brexit, which sort of indicates that Brexit has not solved the border issues. I can see the argument that Brexit reduces migration from EU nationals (whether that is a good or bad thing is another question), but I have yet to see any indication that it changed non-EU migration in any way.

8note 4y ago

On the other hand, over the long run, Britain will lose out by not having the population growth from Africa. Capitalist economies demand that growth to do well. ... And the UK won't decouple itself from Greek debt until the UK decides it shouldn't have imposed the arbitrary debts in the first place

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
UK will still have immigration from Africa. But at a level that satisfies both GDP growth concerns as well as culture stability concerns. Not being in the EU doesn't somehow make the UK incapable of accepting immigrants... I swear people are so upset with Brexit they have stopped using their brains in assessing the UKs options.

oliwarner 4y ago

The problem with kicking out migrant workers (which is effectively what's happened, and what "taking back control" was sold as) is we have major industries unable to hire. Construction is steeply overpaying low-skilled jobs when it can find people. Care is unable to hire, quickly extinguishing hospitals' ability to discharge and admit. Agriculture has seen a massive seasonal pinch; crops have spoiled because the traditional seasonal workers have been unable (and then unwilling) to deign themselves to the increased bureaucracy. I know we didn't actually kick people out and we [now] have exceptions for most of the jobs I've mentioned… but that's the effect when you limit movement. Long-term planning and COVID conspired to force people towards certainty. Even the immediate aftermath of the vote saw a massive drop in migrant carers and seasonal workers. And we still have painfully little control over who crosses our borders. So this "control" you claim we have is both ineffective and smothering this country. It's far from "just" the halving of our financial sector. Being a member of the EU guaranteed some level of freedom for migrant workers. It was a selling point for migrating in the first place. It's imperative we understand that just offering specific job exceptions isn't enough for lower-skilled jobs, and that our country will simply fail if we carry on letting that work go undone.

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
I don't disagree with any of this except I don't think Brexit has much to do with it. Countries all over the world (including in Europe) are facing the exact same issue. Many workers want to come to the UK even now, and yes, even many Europeans. I don't think in the longrun that British immigrant numbers will go down but now the control is better and the perception of control is higher as well. There is a lot of value to that as politically illegal immigration (or perceived excessive immigration) has a way of sucking all the oxygen away from other issues.

srb24 4y ago

1. Last time I looked no African country was part of the EU, so not sure how stricter controls for EU nationals works in your plan 2. The Uk wasn't part of the EuroZone so not really on the hook for Greece etc. 3. "a few hits to the City and London area aren't necessarily a bad thing" why wold you think losing one of the most Profitable parts of THE UK a good thing, it won't move to other parts of the UK, it will go to Paris, Frankfurt etc. 4. The average cost for ANY company of ANY size to now gain a sponsor license to employ non UK staff now starts at about £20,000, there are now not enough people to do many jobs especially in cities, labour costs (and now inflation) have risen out of control in many sectors causing closures and many firms are just outsourcing any non in-person to other countries. Yes, it would be great to give jobs to "locals" but not Everyone can do Every job!

inglor_cz 4y ago

Neither Europe nor the UK are willing to alter their asylum laws enough to disrupt the trade of the people smugglers. The control of borders is illusory if human waves can get onto your shore in boats and the courts strike down most countermeasures, so whoever comes, stays. Therefore the population boom in Africa is likely to have a massive effect on European demography anyway, unless the Northern African countries, which are culturally different from the rest of Africa and which aren't particularly happy about being used as transit countries for mass migration either, build some kind of barriers across the Sahara.

TheLoafOfBread 4y ago

> Regained control of borders. This is going to be an increasingly important issue going into the 21st century as Africa is going through an enormous population boom. Actually it is exactly the opposite. When you were in EU and migrant came in on a dingy or hidden in a truck, you could have return him back to France. After the Brexit there is no such agreement and France can just show you a middle finger. See https://www.ft.com/content/d9eed579-a6ee-43b2-b2ce-3e8d83908770 https://www.ft.com/content/d9eed579-a6ee-43b2-b2ce-3e8d83908...

TapWaterBandit 4y ago
Paywall. Can you post the text and date of the article?
- touristtam 4y ago
  If you are in the UK and this is news to you, I suggest that you seriously start looking at the news. This article is referencing the FT article fwiw: https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20221028-britain-france-agree-greater-cooperation-on-migrant-channel-crossings https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20221028-britain-france-agree-g...